A proposal by Sacred Heart University to purchase eight acres of wooded-wet property from Fairchild Wheeler that hosts two municipal golf courses will be referred to the Contracts Committee at Monday night’s City Council meeting. Under the proposal the city will receive $4 million and the property must remain in a natural state for perpetuity and cannot be developed. A public hearing on the matter before the full council is scheduled for the June 6 meeting.
City officials say Sacred Heart wants the excess park property that abuts its campus for land coverage purposes to satisfy zoning regulations to allow the school to build more on campus proper in Fairfield. SHU is undergoing major growth. Fairchild Wheeler is owned by the city but located in the Town of Fairfield. Mayor Joe Ganim’s Chief of Staff Danny Roach says it’s a “great deal” for the city. The city’s cash-strapped budget will receive $4 million without the property being touched.
Also on the council agenda is a communication from the City Attorney’s Office for a proposed professional services agreement with LAZ to modernize metered parking. The city uses antiquated quarter-fed meters. On the 2015 campaign trail Ganim pledged to modernize parking meters for public convenience and boost economic development.
Full council agenda here.
This is just another one of the deals (McCArthy severance, Gaudett deal, the CC budget discussions, etc.) that are being dealt with in a secret way, rushed through so it’s a fait accompli. Add the WPCA “deal” to the list, too.
“Mayor Joe Ganim’s Chief of Staff Danny Roach says it’s a “great deal” for the city. The city’s cash-strapped budget will receive $4 million without the property being touched.” Lennie reports.
Bill Finch flushed the City last year with the Sherwood budget presented, reviewed(?), and adopted by the Council. (Would the expense of one or two staff members having things in order for the Council year in and year out have been worthwhile to such Council “volunteers,” even those with experience like Sue Brannelly and Mike Marella? So let’s call the budget facing Ganim2, the Finch Flush!! A final in-your-face to taxpayers.
Ganim2 is pushing hard to reduce the deficit as I have previously commented with bond refunding reducing $20 Million deficit by $3.5 Million. And he went to Hartford and got us a $4.8 Million reduction for four years from funding Police MERS fully, but for the early years break of about $24 Million, we shall pay an extra $57 Million in the later years. Deferrals stretch out payments and provide a lot of money in the out years to the one receiving funds.
Perhaps we are down to $10 Million or less with some other cuts in spending for ‘stuff’ and payroll. And we have a city fund balance of at least that amount, so why the pressure to do a deal Danny calls “great?” After all, the deficit should be known as the FINCH FLUSH, not Ganim’s gamble.
What is Danny’s reputation built upon on OIB? Is it commenting on real estate investments and City handling of same?
Danny Roach is perhaps best known as the owner/host at Matty’s Corner, a well known watering hole in Black Rock. (I have shared a fiction detective thriller or two with him in recent years at the location.)
His site is directly across the street from the former CBT bank (that had absorbed the Black Rock Bank & Trust Co.) that sold the property to the Salvation Army in May, 1993 and occupied it until purchased by Bridgeport Redevelopment for $640,000 in December, 2002 and waited for over 10 years for development to occur. It was the home for the Black Rock Arts Center for several years but limited lease periods, expectations of capital improvements by leaseholders, and independence in choosing contractors did not mix well and the Arts Center departed and the property fell to the City as an asset to be maintained (or not) until it was sold to its current owner in March, 2013 reportedly for $300,000. Not much movement is observed across the street from Matty’s corner although patrons may park in their good-sized lot per notice. Economic development is tough and taxes on vacant property is even tougher. City of Bridgeport tax collector show unpaid taxes, interest at 18% annual, liens and fees to total $74,484.41 today.
Now that is not a happy time for current owners, property neighbors or the tax collector, but suggests whatever Dan knows that is making this FAST DEAL a GREAT DEAL is not obvious to those he represents as a public servant. And the story about 2836 Fairfield Avenue and values shows everything takes time to separate the good deals (for all) from those that seemed good at one time, but upon closer inspection, leave many questions. Why don’t we ask questions first this time? Time will tell.
*** Public hearing on a deal that’s already been agreed to by the powers that be, no? Please don’t insult the taxpaying public by just going through the motions and making it seem like it’s still up in the air, no? ***
How is it determined there is “too much” (excess) parkland? The title of this OIB piece (Proposed Sale of EXCESS Park Property to Receive Public Hearing”) would seem to be buying into the notion it is possible to have too much recreational/open space and it is oaky to sell the city’s open space/recreational assets legacy to any hostile, parasitic, predatory institution that seeks to gain yet more of an advantage in commandeering city residential space, resources, and costly city services, FOR FREE (after a small, initial capital investment in city legacy recreational space). It is apparently oaky to allow such an institution to further commandeer city parkland as it proceeds to destroy entire city neighborhoods, and the city budget, with impunity.
When the city should be containing such destructive threats to Bridgeport’s neighborhoods and city finances, it is instead stealthily playing into predatory hands for a small payout of blood money that won’t even amount to a year’s worth of useless patronage expenses for the city. This “budget saving” measure will surely result in many years of Sacred Heart U Bridgeport city budget-busting. (Just think of how much their presence devalues Bridgeport property and how many millions are siphoned off in city services by this non-taxpaying entity every year. And just think of what will happen as we facilitate their expansion further into Bridgeport.)
This city capitulation to another Sacred Heart U land-grab is actionable, from a citizen and neighborhood standpoint. Such legal action should be pursued by the neighborhoods to ensure this dirty deal doesn’t get through the City Council and the deal makers are held accountable.
The city budget must not be balanced by further squandering the city’s legacy assets as it plays further into an untenable situation with Sacred Heart University. The city’s future must not be sacrificed in order to meet a bloated city patronage payroll.
Bridgeport should consider a few name changes: Bridgeport, the DORMITORY city; Bridgeport, the PATRONAGE city; or Bridgeport, the FOR SALE city. With a little creativity, this could become a pretty long list.
Don’t forget the Pork City.
It’s titled “Excess” in the Agenda! They’re just too much.
Communication from Parks and Recreation re: Proposed Sale of Certain Excess D. Fairchild Wheeler Golf Course Property and the Scheduling of a Public Hearing on this matter before the full City Council at the June 6th Meeting, referred to Contracts Committee.
They don’t really elaborate much on the 90 acres aspect of this deal.
Jeff, you use the term “the city” in your statement, however the actual term should be “Joe Ganim.” It was under Ganim the ten-story dormitory was built and now it’s under Ganim this property will be sold. Why don’t you call it like it is?
The proposal to sell parkland to Sacred Heart University, which suddenly appears to be on the fast track to approval, raises a myriad of questions, including but certainly not limited to the following:
COST: How was the sale price for the parcel determined? What was Sacred Heart’s original offer? Will it be paid over time or in a lump sum? Has the City had the property appraised? If so, what was the result?
BENEFITS: Aside from the one-time cash payment, what does Bridgeport or its residents, especially those in the area of the campus, get from this expansion? What issues will it create for the area? What steps will the University take to limit any negative impact from the project?
ZONING: Lennie quotes city officials as saying Sacred Heart wants the parkland “for land coverage purposes to satisfy zoning regulations to allow the school to build more on campus proper in Fairfield.” In short, they want to be able to claim as a result of the addition of the park property, its “campus” is larger and can support more development. That is perfectly logical except for the fact city officials claim “the property must remain in a natural state for perpetuity and cannot be developed.”
In the final analysis this begins to look like a zoning shell game designed to allow Sacred Heart to shoehorn in development which would otherwise be prohibited by local zoning regulations. Does the Town of Fairfield support the proposed development? Has the Mayor or anyone else from the City bothered to ask? Frankly, I find the City of Bridgeport’s potential involvement in this legal charade embarrassing.
DEVELOPMENT: How will the City ensure the property remains “in a natural state for perpetuity and cannot be developed?” Will the City be able to enforce that restriction down the road?
USE OF FUNDS: How will the proceeds of the sale be used? I know there has been talking about putting the $4 million into the general fund to support the city’s operating budget. However, the City Charter clearly appears to require the money to be deposited in the Park Capital Improvement Fund. What’s the plan?
Phil and Ralph, right on!
The second park without a deed restriction, now that’s amazing!
Not so long ago people were very critical of Finch for opening new parks. Now they are critical of Ganim for reducing parks. You just can’t win.
BOE SPY,
I was critical of Bill Finch’s way of operating that did not disclose the costs and sources of money for projects. In the end will Finch be remembered for his activity regarding parks? For his final deficit? For his support of Schools and Library? For the statue of L. Latimer at the entrance of Morton Government Center?
Now Ganim2 is selling off property to balance the books but being equally opaque in keeping in touch with the community about the details. Is this really about winning? Or is it about community activities using community resources and providing a spot at the table for the taxpaying community to weigh in? Time will tell.
Knowing where the money goes, comes from and how much is important to keep everyone honest. Providing a spot at the table for the taxpaying community to weigh in? Not so much. In a perfect world, if everyone weighed in, maybe you would have a 5% victory. It is a yes/no question and would tend to be a 50/50 split. In BPT what you tend to get is a mobilization of those who oppose and almost every project is shot down. Then you have the idea you do not always want what is best for you. The same way your kids would want to eat candy for dinner. I could envision a large group of golfers (50-100), including friends, family, unionized golf course workers and people who do not live in BPT crashing the meeting to oppose the deal. People who support the deal may not be motivated enough to shot up to the hearing. This kind of thing happens at BOE meeting more often than not.