Yes! This is the problem with Bridgeport. Everything becomes a political issue. The signage will be good for the city. Bridgeport does not need to live in the shadow of every major urban center. This is an extremely appropriate request for an entertainment site that has the ability of attracting business and patrons to the city. At what point do we all band together for the good of the city? Does anyone really believe a huge billboard on top of an entertainment complex and sports arena is a bad idea? Really? This sign will be there long after Mayor Finch retires from office. This should not be treated as a political football. Next we will have neighborhood activists asking to secede from the city–lololol like some of the States. Northbridge CT, Southbridge CT, BlackRock CT, Westbridge CT, Eastbridge CT, Etc Etc. The things we waste time on are sad and very curious. If you have a problem with Mayor Finch just call it like it is. Do not hold the city hostage for any positive proposal he supports.
This was a typical Finch Super Pac 14 thousand dollar shakedown, for his so-called Charter Chance, by using his Un-appointed TPZ Commissioners to guarantee a yes vote on zoning. Just think what he could have done with the BOE?
One of the reasons I voted NO on the charter change was the many appointed positions that are either vacant or folks filling positions in expired terms. Those in expired terms fear not being reappointed if they vote the wrong way.
I hope a way is found to avoid spot zoning and allow this billboard. Bridgeport needs the advertising since our skyline isn’t eye-catching as yet.
If this were to be a billboard strictly dedicated to promoting the Arena this would not be an issue. This an end-around play to circumvent what should be an open and transparent process. A Text Amendment? This deal has been SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED on a silver platter since the contracts committee approved this deal on 6/18/2012.
Furthermore, the presentations last night pro and sans Lamar’s attorney were all about the Arena and not about the Text Amendment. Judge Lopez did address the spot zoning issue but then went a little off the mark.
David Koors (Light) gave a horrible presentation and openly admitted the city has already submitted a zoning approval sign-off to the DOT for the required state waiver!
Howard Saffan should never been allowed to speak in the rebuttal period, that is always reserved for the applicant that was the city.
The above should have read, “the presentations last night pro and con, sans Lamar’s attorney” …
Here are the contract committees approval of this deal from June 18th 2012.
88-11 Proposed Arena Billboard Lease Agreement Among Arena Operator, Independent Outdoor III, LLC and City of Bridgeport
Atty. Pacacha came forward and distributed a document about the billboard. The Arena and the ball park need capital repairs and this would help generate revenue. This would be located on a small grassy area at the passenger drop off location where there is a flag. The billboard will be visible from I-95. The marquee on the side of the building is only visible from the street. This requires a three party agreement and is a lease of land. The billboard company will give the Arena one of every six “flips” and the City will receive 25% of the flips. That will be four free flips for City advertising. If it is not used by the City, then either the Arena or the billboard company will use the flip. Atty. Pacacha then reviewed the details of the rent and the capital donation agreement.
Council Member dePara asked about the advertising review, which Atty. Pacacha reviewed. Council Member Vizzo-Paniccia asked about the liens on the billboard and the City’s ownership. Atty. Pacacha reviewed the details with her. Council Member Paoletto asked about the details regarding the number of flips, which Atty. Pacacha reviewed with him.
** COUNCIL MEMBER PAOLETTO MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 88-11 PROPOSED ARENA BILLBOARD LEASE AGREEMENT AMONG ARENA OPERATOR, INDEPENDENT OUTDOOR III, LLC AND CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.
** COUNCIL MEMBER VIZZO-PANICCIA SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council Member Paoletto said that this item would be brought to the full City Council.
It is interesting the same evening this was forwarded to the full council under the tactic of Immediate Consideration thus further proving this was a fait accompli. As our OIB friend Mojo would say in French, “OUI?”
I am a free market follower and not a fee market follower. Timpanelli lived up to his nickname as he is the Mac Daddy of Bridgeport. Blow in his ear and he will follow you anywhere.
How much will the city receive in personal business property tax on this billboard? Why didn’t this contract go out to bid? I have been a cheerleader for many years like Steve Auerbach. However there is nothing wrong with putting down the pom-poms and asking probative and fair questions. Once again Bridgeport’s slip is showing and we don’t need any more cover-ups!
I have a question. Will this new sign affect any development of high-rise housing or commercial development on the adjacent vacant land? It’s no surprise planning & zoning passed this request. P & Z is like the council, whatever the mayor wants the mayor gets without question. Just another group of lemmings.
Forget about saying politics in Bridgeport is the problem as there is really only one party and not enough to go around! And that becomes the problem when people are aroused by the power moves of an entrenched executive who depends on ‘spignorance’: a noun describing the very public state where the group in power controls info, ‘spins’ it to their advantage at all times (until it is a misrepresentation of the true state of things) and the people have no real understanding of what is going on.
In the Charter fight, the Mayor wanted to be ACCOUNTABLE for ‘appointments’ but never answered the question about his dismal record with current City Boards and Commissions. Maybe the next Charter Commission will create language that directs the Chief Executive to evaluate performance of all appointed members six months before terms expire. Then decide to re-appoint or new appoint. Time to accomplish either path. If Mayor fails to do his evaluation, then person is able to serve a full new term. That would kill the ‘serve an expired term’ game that is ongoing in this City. It gives the Mayor unofficial or unintended power when you think about it. If the intent was to have no terms at all, why not say so? In effect, the current term limits, as practiced give the Mayor greater power over the appointee after the original term has expired, and gives the public no sense of the worth of a volunteer. (Think of the volunteer members of a land use group, for instance, who choose to avoid learning more about the myriad of State and local rules. Should they be re-appointed?)
And finally, in all of the discussions about the ‘spot zoning’ which I am against personally, there is a sub-text about possible financial advantage to the City. If there is advantage, why are the specific assumptions about revenue, expenses, and sharing not provided to the public? A situation like this may end up in court anyhow, and that will be how expensive to the City? Since we don’t get a vote on that, shouldn’t we have a right to know what the payoff is, and what assumptions it is based upon??? There is a major property tax case being waged currently by a major City taxpayer. Had the City assumptions been reviewed by a capable and experienced public, the outcome of this case might not loom as significantly as it does at this moment on City taxpayers. The court decision is awaited. Time will tell.
Steve Auerbach is correct. This makes sense to promote Bridgeport and should be approved.
This website is overwhelmingly the most negative site regarding Bridgeport. Certainly, the naysayers are oftentimes correct and therefore this site serves a useful purpose.
However, sometimes, like with this signage, it’s just a good idea regardless of how it was accomplished.
Promoting good events in the City is great! Complying with the City Charter, Ordinances, land use Master Plan, etc. is also great! Knowing the financial revenues/expenses of a course of action, as well as the variety of risks and responsibilities faced is also wise!
Bridgeport has had more than a few “good ideas regardless of how it was accomplished” that show little if any public dialogue, watchdog auditing or public record. That is very unholy, isn’t it, ultimately?
Where else in this community is critical thinking about public affairs supported and encouraged? By what process do you come to say that such a site is really about ‘naysaying’ rather than about public discussion or debate?
(On election day just past, I asked Adam Wood as we were face to face at the polling site in Black Rock why he and this administration do so little answering of these types of public matters. He did not answer the question that day nor since. It is not to his advantage, tactically or strategically I guess. What he did was to issue an ad hominem to me. He called me a “little person.” Well, I am hardly little in girth, but I am only one person and I have a right to an opinion, to use my voice and my own capacity for critical thinking. I encourage others to be aware of the potential for being ACTIVE “little persons.” On November 6 Goliath ran into a roadblock of too many “little persons” becoming active following their mind.
Stay aware of what is happening in the public sphere. Look for discussion. Follow the money. Time will tell.
Of course the billboard makes absolute sense. I see no rational argument that would convince me otherwise. This isn’t about politics; it’s about drawing the eye of the public to an attraction in Bridgeport. The naysayers should pick their battles more appropriately. This obviously was used as an opportunity to put a negative twist on something as harmless as a sign by attempting to politicize it. It’s not surprising the negative element that posts here wanted this to fail and praise Carmen Lopez for her attempt to be a spoiler. It’s sad everything that even remotely shows progress is met by criticism by a small nucleus of people. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–there are some individuals who appear to want the city to fail.
*** I guess if I worked for the city, I would be defending most of the city government blunders too, no? Being too negative on any city government ideas good or bad is not thinking for the future. But being completely gullible to self-serving, money & power political grabbing is just plain stupid! *** IT IS WHAT IT IS! ***
Spot zoning is a poor practice–Agree or Disagree?
$14,000 of recent support for Mayor’s FAILED initiative is worth looking at–Agree or Disagree?
If we are to support an activity after sorting out the above, do we need to think about any other issues? Yes or No?
Does such a large sign become an “attractive nuisance’ and open up the City to auto claims? Yes or No?
What is the benefit to the City taxpayer in revenue (high and low assumptions) and is it worth the potential Lamar lawsuit/zoning delay, etc.? Agree or Disagree?
Your turn. Time will tell.
I agree with John Marshall Lee. This smells to high heaven when you consider all the money that was donated to the pro-charter revision group. This is more pay to play.
*** TELL ME MORE; ALSO, WOULD IT NOT BE BENEFICIAL TO THE ARENA AND BPT IN DRAWING MORE VISITORS TO THE CITY FOR THE ADVERTIZED EVENTS? ***
Yes! This is the problem with Bridgeport. Everything becomes a political issue. The signage will be good for the city. Bridgeport does not need to live in the shadow of every major urban center. This is an extremely appropriate request for an entertainment site that has the ability of attracting business and patrons to the city. At what point do we all band together for the good of the city? Does anyone really believe a huge billboard on top of an entertainment complex and sports arena is a bad idea? Really? This sign will be there long after Mayor Finch retires from office. This should not be treated as a political football. Next we will have neighborhood activists asking to secede from the city–lololol like some of the States. Northbridge CT, Southbridge CT, BlackRock CT, Westbridge CT, Eastbridge CT, Etc Etc. The things we waste time on are sad and very curious. If you have a problem with Mayor Finch just call it like it is. Do not hold the city hostage for any positive proposal he supports.
Antitestoo // Nov 12, 2012 at 10:51 am
This was a typical Finch Super Pac 14 thousand dollar shakedown, for his so-called Charter Chance, by using his Un-appointed TPZ Commissioners to guarantee a yes vote on zoning. Just think what he could have done with the BOE?
God Help Bridgeport!
One of the reasons I voted NO on the charter change was the many appointed positions that are either vacant or folks filling positions in expired terms. Those in expired terms fear not being reappointed if they vote the wrong way.
I hope a way is found to avoid spot zoning and allow this billboard. Bridgeport needs the advertising since our skyline isn’t eye-catching as yet.
If this were to be a billboard strictly dedicated to promoting the Arena this would not be an issue. This an end-around play to circumvent what should be an open and transparent process. A Text Amendment? This deal has been SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED on a silver platter since the contracts committee approved this deal on 6/18/2012.
Furthermore, the presentations last night pro and sans Lamar’s attorney were all about the Arena and not about the Text Amendment. Judge Lopez did address the spot zoning issue but then went a little off the mark.
David Koors (Light) gave a horrible presentation and openly admitted the city has already submitted a zoning approval sign-off to the DOT for the required state waiver!
Howard Saffan should never been allowed to speak in the rebuttal period, that is always reserved for the applicant that was the city.
The FIX is IN!
The above should have read, “the presentations last night pro and con, sans Lamar’s attorney” …
Here are the contract committees approval of this deal from June 18th 2012.
88-11 Proposed Arena Billboard Lease Agreement Among Arena Operator, Independent Outdoor III, LLC and City of Bridgeport
Atty. Pacacha came forward and distributed a document about the billboard. The Arena and the ball park need capital repairs and this would help generate revenue. This would be located on a small grassy area at the passenger drop off location where there is a flag. The billboard will be visible from I-95. The marquee on the side of the building is only visible from the street. This requires a three party agreement and is a lease of land. The billboard company will give the Arena one of every six “flips” and the City will receive 25% of the flips. That will be four free flips for City advertising. If it is not used by the City, then either the Arena or the billboard company will use the flip. Atty. Pacacha then reviewed the details of the rent and the capital donation agreement.
Council Member dePara asked about the advertising review, which Atty. Pacacha reviewed. Council Member Vizzo-Paniccia asked about the liens on the billboard and the City’s ownership. Atty. Pacacha reviewed the details with her. Council Member Paoletto asked about the details regarding the number of flips, which Atty. Pacacha reviewed with him.
** COUNCIL MEMBER PAOLETTO MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 88-11 PROPOSED ARENA BILLBOARD LEASE AGREEMENT AMONG ARENA OPERATOR, INDEPENDENT OUTDOOR III, LLC AND CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.
** COUNCIL MEMBER VIZZO-PANICCIA SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council Member Paoletto said that this item would be brought to the full City Council.
It is interesting the same evening this was forwarded to the full council under the tactic of Immediate Consideration thus further proving this was a fait accompli. As our OIB friend Mojo would say in French, “OUI?”
I am a free market follower and not a fee market follower. Timpanelli lived up to his nickname as he is the Mac Daddy of Bridgeport. Blow in his ear and he will follow you anywhere.
How much will the city receive in personal business property tax on this billboard? Why didn’t this contract go out to bid? I have been a cheerleader for many years like Steve Auerbach. However there is nothing wrong with putting down the pom-poms and asking probative and fair questions. Once again Bridgeport’s slip is showing and we don’t need any more cover-ups!
The above synopsis could make for a very “appealing” case by Lamar.
I have a question. Will this new sign affect any development of high-rise housing or commercial development on the adjacent vacant land? It’s no surprise planning & zoning passed this request. P & Z is like the council, whatever the mayor wants the mayor gets without question. Just another group of lemmings.
Forget about saying politics in Bridgeport is the problem as there is really only one party and not enough to go around! And that becomes the problem when people are aroused by the power moves of an entrenched executive who depends on ‘spignorance’: a noun describing the very public state where the group in power controls info, ‘spins’ it to their advantage at all times (until it is a misrepresentation of the true state of things) and the people have no real understanding of what is going on.
In the Charter fight, the Mayor wanted to be ACCOUNTABLE for ‘appointments’ but never answered the question about his dismal record with current City Boards and Commissions. Maybe the next Charter Commission will create language that directs the Chief Executive to evaluate performance of all appointed members six months before terms expire. Then decide to re-appoint or new appoint. Time to accomplish either path. If Mayor fails to do his evaluation, then person is able to serve a full new term. That would kill the ‘serve an expired term’ game that is ongoing in this City. It gives the Mayor unofficial or unintended power when you think about it. If the intent was to have no terms at all, why not say so? In effect, the current term limits, as practiced give the Mayor greater power over the appointee after the original term has expired, and gives the public no sense of the worth of a volunteer. (Think of the volunteer members of a land use group, for instance, who choose to avoid learning more about the myriad of State and local rules. Should they be re-appointed?)
And finally, in all of the discussions about the ‘spot zoning’ which I am against personally, there is a sub-text about possible financial advantage to the City. If there is advantage, why are the specific assumptions about revenue, expenses, and sharing not provided to the public? A situation like this may end up in court anyhow, and that will be how expensive to the City? Since we don’t get a vote on that, shouldn’t we have a right to know what the payoff is, and what assumptions it is based upon??? There is a major property tax case being waged currently by a major City taxpayer. Had the City assumptions been reviewed by a capable and experienced public, the outcome of this case might not loom as significantly as it does at this moment on City taxpayers. The court decision is awaited. Time will tell.
John Marshall Lee, very good; you touch on a number of problems that will keep Bridgeport down.
Steve Auerbach is correct. This makes sense to promote Bridgeport and should be approved.
This website is overwhelmingly the most negative site regarding Bridgeport. Certainly, the naysayers are oftentimes correct and therefore this site serves a useful purpose.
However, sometimes, like with this signage, it’s just a good idea regardless of how it was accomplished.
Way too many Holier than thou’s on this site.
So if it is deemed to be an illegal act then that is okay with you?
I am most unholy but wholly respect your opinion.
PEACE!
Promoting good events in the City is great! Complying with the City Charter, Ordinances, land use Master Plan, etc. is also great! Knowing the financial revenues/expenses of a course of action, as well as the variety of risks and responsibilities faced is also wise!
Bridgeport has had more than a few “good ideas regardless of how it was accomplished” that show little if any public dialogue, watchdog auditing or public record. That is very unholy, isn’t it, ultimately?
Where else in this community is critical thinking about public affairs supported and encouraged? By what process do you come to say that such a site is really about ‘naysaying’ rather than about public discussion or debate?
(On election day just past, I asked Adam Wood as we were face to face at the polling site in Black Rock why he and this administration do so little answering of these types of public matters. He did not answer the question that day nor since. It is not to his advantage, tactically or strategically I guess. What he did was to issue an ad hominem to me. He called me a “little person.” Well, I am hardly little in girth, but I am only one person and I have a right to an opinion, to use my voice and my own capacity for critical thinking. I encourage others to be aware of the potential for being ACTIVE “little persons.” On November 6 Goliath ran into a roadblock of too many “little persons” becoming active following their mind.
Stay aware of what is happening in the public sphere. Look for discussion. Follow the money. Time will tell.
John,
Is the billboard smart for Bridgeport … Yes.
Critically thinking, just like Steve, I know it makes sense to have the billboard up promoting the City.
I agree with many of your points and also agree with you on many of the abuses you chronicle so, so extensively.
But the billboard makes sense … Can we not agree?
Sometimes, occasionally, the answer is simple and does not need all the drama. This billboard is that time.
I have no doubt there will be many other substantive arguments over process. This just does not seem the one.
In Bridgeport, like anywhere else, there is much wisdom in “picking the right battle.”
Of course the billboard makes absolute sense. I see no rational argument that would convince me otherwise. This isn’t about politics; it’s about drawing the eye of the public to an attraction in Bridgeport. The naysayers should pick their battles more appropriately. This obviously was used as an opportunity to put a negative twist on something as harmless as a sign by attempting to politicize it. It’s not surprising the negative element that posts here wanted this to fail and praise Carmen Lopez for her attempt to be a spoiler. It’s sad everything that even remotely shows progress is met by criticism by a small nucleus of people. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–there are some individuals who appear to want the city to fail.
*** I guess if I worked for the city, I would be defending most of the city government blunders too, no? Being too negative on any city government ideas good or bad is not thinking for the future. But being completely gullible to self-serving, money & power political grabbing is just plain stupid! *** IT IS WHAT IT IS! ***
Spot zoning is a poor practice–Agree or Disagree?
$14,000 of recent support for Mayor’s FAILED initiative is worth looking at–Agree or Disagree?
If we are to support an activity after sorting out the above, do we need to think about any other issues? Yes or No?
Does such a large sign become an “attractive nuisance’ and open up the City to auto claims? Yes or No?
What is the benefit to the City taxpayer in revenue (high and low assumptions) and is it worth the potential Lamar lawsuit/zoning delay, etc.? Agree or Disagree?
Your turn. Time will tell.
I agree with John Marshall Lee. This smells to high heaven when you consider all the money that was donated to the pro-charter revision group. This is more pay to play.