The city is seeking public input at a forum for its Comprehensive Waterfront Plan Wednesday, 6 p.m. at Church of the Blessed Sacrament, 275 Union Avenue.
From the city’s website:
What activities would you like to see on the Bridgeport Waterfront? What’s your feedback on the Bridgeport Waterfront Plan draft vision? Join us to learn more and talk about the City of Bridgeport’s plans for revitalizing the waterfront.
Refreshments, Spanish translation, and kids’ activities will be provided.
Want more info? Or can’t make it to the meeting? Sign up and share ideas at: www.courbanize.com/waterfrontBPT.
Or contact:
Dean Mack, Project Manager for the City of Bridgeport
Office of Planning and Economic Development
(203) 576-7086 | Dean.Mack@Bridgeportct.gov
0
I find it ironic that OPED is mentioned in this, yet the City of Bridgeport is not taking the lead of the attempt by O&G to move their poison pile from Seaview Avenue to Howard Avenue down by Burr Creek/Black Rock Harbor. It’s taken a coalition of private citizens/Seaside Village who have hired Charles Willinger to fight O&G/Ray Rizio. There is a FB page called NO TO O&G. Please take a look at it and if anyone wants to help and get involved please do so.
Frank, what I find more ironic even sad is this so-called self-righteousness coalition who’s going to save the residents of PT from O&G moving to Howard Ave. If your coalition concerns were true, they exist today, tomorrow, and regardless of O&G operating a plant on Howard Ave will still exist because O&G already has a plant in that same location. Your coalition was nowhere to be found prior to O&G wanting to more to Howard Ave. If your concerns were true, your coalition doesn’t really care about the health of PT residents or the East End Residents. You’re exacerbating those health risks to the East End residents by trying to prevent O&G from consolidating their two plants. I would think the state put in regulations to protect the Bridgeport residents. You are not trying to shut down either of their plants. I will bet it’s more of an attempt to stop development on the East End. Just my opinion.
Robert Teixeira, I think you are misinformed about the general situation. First of all, why do you call the group opposing O&G moving their rock-crushing plant from Seaview to the Howard Avenue site as “self-righteous?” A more appropriate term would be concerned. Yes, O&G has a facility (asphalt plant) along with some other retail landscaping operations. In your statement, you seem to support moving the site from the East Side/Seaview Avenue to the Howard Avenue plan, tremendously increasing the exposure of poison to the people who will be proximate to the so-called combining of O&G’s operations. If you have read any of the comments, in fact we oppose both the Seaview plant at its present location nor moving it to Howard Avenue. If you read the environmental noise quality of life issues, the rock-crushing plant on Seaview Avenue does not belong in Bridgeport AT ALL. You seem to favor combining the plants which would make the area toxic to the residents of PT, Seaside Village, schools and the general population. The first goal is to stop the move to Howard Avenue. The next move would be get rid of even the Seaview Avenue plant. This type of operation does NOT belong in a densely populated area. There is ABSOLUTELY no attempt to stop development on the East End. I really don’t know where you got that idea from.
I call it self-righteous over concerns because how long has O&G’s Seaview Ave plan been in operation? I never heard any concern about it until O&G wanted to move to Howard Ave. If your concerns were true, however I like to think the state has regulations to address your concerns, let’s say your concerns about O&G were right, “the move to Howard Ave will increase the exposure of poison to the people who will be proximate to the so-called combining of O&G operations.” Prior to O&G’s planned move, NO to O&G was nowhere to be found. Where were their concerns for the PT residents about the O&G plant right next to it? Where were their concerns for the residents of East End by O&G’s Seaview Ave plant? Again NO to O&G only voiced their concerns and goals when O&G wanted to combine their operations. There were no comments to read about their goals prior to O&G’s planned move to Howard Ave. NO to O&G only goal is to stop the move in an attempt to stop development on the East End. If NO to O&G ever had a second move to get rid of the Seaview Ave plant it would have been its first move. Why did it take O&G wanting to move to Howard Ave before NO to O&G voiced their concerns about closing the Seaview Ave plant? No to O&G and the likes sold out Bridgeport by looking for a way to prevent development or under develop projects in Bridgeport that will reduce the tax burden on Bridgeport residents.
You are completely off base and WRONG. I don’t know where you get two-thirds of your statements. Couple of weeks ago, Ganim and his East End sycophants, Ralph Ford and Ernest Newton had a PR photo-op in front of the Seaview poison pile. Where was Ralph Ford, Ernie Newton and other East End leaders over the years that the poison pile was there? What else do you want to bring back? Do you want to bring back the West End Incinerator? Do you want to bring back the Herman Isaacs fat-rendering plant ALL IN THE NAME OF BRIDGEPORT DEVELOPMENT? There is a point when something is simply wrong. The O&G rock crushing plant is WRONG for a densely populated area like Bridgeport. O&G can find some abandoned quarry site in rural Connecticut. It’s as simple as that. IT IS WRONG, PERIOD.
I don’t know where were Ralph Ford, Ernie or No to O&G. That’s my point. East End and Steal Point are ripe for development. The plant’s better for Bridgeport if it’s moved to Howard Ave by the RESCO.
Super silliness.
This is one of these forums that build up the public’s hopes where either nothing will happen or the city has plans and they are looking for public buy-in. Some politically connected individuals will make megabucks off the taxpayers. Watch and see.
McCarthy walks right by my house, what a Cut-It-Up No-Toast type guy!
This process started back in the winter at a meeting at UB. I don’t believe a report on that meeting and its initial input from the public was ever made public.
Looking at maps presented in conjunction with that meeting of the extended Bridgeport waterfront, it can’t escape being observed that Bridgeport has, among many assets, a truly vast waterfront that could be designed to to promote and serve $billions of development across several major industries.
I find it distressing there isn’t any viable long-term development plan for the city designed in terms of waterfront synergies. I’m afraid this waterfront planning initiative is just a charade concocted to create the illusion of public agreement on the state plan to keep Bridgeport marginalized, per the role of Bridgeport as the regional repository for environmentally damaging, low-job, low-value development.
It will be interesting to see what transpires on Wednesday.
Jeff,
If you recall, I believe it was during the Fabrizi years, the city spent a million dollars to bring in a consultant (Sasachi Group) to come up with a plan for the Pequonnoch River Development.
It was truly a great blueprint for downtown development. Before the ink was dry, the city was ignoring the recommendations. The first being the construction rental facility on property owned by Uncle Sal.
The city has never demonstrated the discipline of developing a plan and sticking to it.