| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
From Dan Tepfer, CT Post:
An oops by city officials has opened the door for a controversial developer to put a shopping center smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood on the Bridgeport-Trumbull line.
Superior Court Judge Richard Gilardi Wednesday refused a city request to block further construction on a three and a half-acre site on Huntington Turnpike where developer Manuel Moutinho plans to put up a 19,500 square foot shopping center.
Read entire story here.
Be Part of the "Only In Bridgeport®" scene — Advertise
Your use of OIB is subject to the OIB Site Use Policy
Site Map
The "Only In Bridgeport" web magazine is family owned and operated!
Copyright © 2007–2013 by Momentum Communications LLC.
All rights reserved.
"Only In Bridgeport" is a registered trademark of Momentum Communications LLC.
Site theme adapted by Susan Katz ~ Katzing Creative Ways from Splashpress Media's Cutline
www.envisionwebhosting.com
www.passguide.com
www.thetestkings.info
www.pass-4-sure.com
www.braindumps.com
city hall smoker // Jan 30, 2013 at 2:35 pm
More ineptitude. Perhaps they should spend more time doing their jobs and less time looking at YouTube videos.
Phil Smith // Jan 30, 2013 at 3:17 pm
There need to be serious consequences for all of those people–elected, appointed and civil service–responsible for this.
Fluckarella // Jan 30, 2013 at 4:06 pm
No appeal???
BlackRockGuy // Jan 30, 2013 at 6:27 pm
Could this be the old pay to play?
Bob // Jan 31, 2013 at 8:03 am
It’s not an “Ooops,” Lennie. This is either a perfect example of the Peter Principle, or as BlackRockGuy says, “Could this be the old pay to play?” Methinks it is probably both.
Common Good // Jan 31, 2013 at 9:01 am
The court should have ruled the City should reimburse the developer for his costs instead of letting the construction proceed–instead the neighbors lose here. And the City employee should be fired immediately.
John Marshall Lee // Jan 31, 2013 at 9:47 am
Common Good,
I find “zero tolerance” in this situation as too severe an outcome for one employee to bear. The neighbors have had an opportunity for years to organize around this issue, to dig out all the facts around the property including past zoning appearances and/or court actions, and to advocate for their residential values. At this time I assume they might have a chance to appeal in court or to seek a negotiation that recovers some values for them.
On the City side I want to know the process that brought the employee to ignore or miss the pre-existing decision, to know which appointed Board members over the years had input on the matter and to see what supervisory sign-off was required in such a case, if any. Process takes time and that frustrates some. But it can protect the status quo and long-term ‘master plan’ intent. However, when things are slow, slipshod, and cost the taxpayer in terms of residential values, someone in the administration needs to own up to a miscarriage of administration. Time will tell.
Jimfox // Jan 31, 2013 at 11:25 am
Superior Court Judge Richard Gilardi was wrong on his decision to overturn a previous court ruling. The judge should have waited before he rendered a decision without giving the neighborhood a chance to protect their property values.
Now the neighborhood and the Town of Trumbull will have to appeal to the State Supreme Court.
Here’s the big lie. So what piece of paper was Bonney looking at that gave Moutinho the OK?
Antitestoo // Jan 31, 2013 at 11:43 am
Maybe a $100 bill, Jim?
Mojo // Jan 31, 2013 at 5:38 pm
*** Hand-picked Mayor’s commission on the J.O.B., no? ***