In a classic Mark Anastasi legal opinion, Bridgeport’s city attorney declares the Parks Commission’s Monday night vote vanquishing a proposal for thousands of solar panels for Seaside Park is nothing more than “non-binding.” Gee, if the Parks Commission has no juice in this matter, what was the point of asking the body to vote on it? The City Council conducted a public hearing on the solar field proposal Tuesday night. The council tabled the matter for a vote.
“The administration has submitted the solar project to a host of boards and commissions for their non-binding advice and recommendations, including the Board of Parks Commissioners,” Anastasi said in a statement to the Connecticut Post; fingers crossed, no doubt. Did the city attorney, in advance, notify the “host of boards and commissions” their decisions would be non-binding?
Here’s how this stuff works: Mayor Bill Finch didn’t properly brief Parks Commission on his proposal, Parks Commission unanimously torpedoes solar field plan for west end of Seaside Park, so the city attorney crafts some sort of legal justification, even if it’s against the City Charter, to bypass Parks Commission.
From the City Charter:
Section 13. Sale or lease of park land.
No parks or park land belonging to the city shall be sold or capital leased unless such sale or capital lease is recommended by the board of park commissioners and approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the city council, both bodies having conducted a public hearing prior to taking any action. Any such approval may be disapproved by the mayor, in the manner provided in Chapter Five of this charter.
More from CT Post’s Brian Lockhart here
Haha … and there you have it, Finch makes up the rules as he goes. It’s comical, really.
RUMOR MILL:
Don’t let the cold weather fool you. Underneath their unzippered jackets, Bridgeporters from all zip codes wear
T-shirts that say:
A DUMP IS NOT A PARK
Throughout America, commissions and boards make recommendations to elected legislators. It’s called civic oversight. It is unusual but not uncommon or illegal for their ideas to be overturned. Their juice is limited except in the case of Rick Torres who grabbed headlines and maximum political traction from its use.
Let us recall the scathing letter this same attorney wrote in rebuttal to the Driveway Gate CT Post article. Perhaps this opinion of his needs to be challenged in court. Or at least with PURA.
“The city attorney was pretty clear this (landfill) is not a park…” Hahaha, you can’t make this stuff up folks. A few weeks ago Finch stated the landfill is “part of the park that should be better utilized.” So which is it? And McCarthy texting he won’t call for a vote on it tonight is another way of saying “I have to wait for my orders from Bill first.”
At the end of the day, it’s not necessarily opposition to the project, but the Mayor’s patronizing ways, lack of transparency, sleight of hand, and back-handed ways of continuing to push his agenda despite what the voters say. Insofar as this behavior continues, every plan will continue to look bad in the public’s eyes and will be met with opposition. Need to keep it real with the people.
Mayor (not) clean and green should take his ball and go home. Paul Pimpanelli has a warm landing place for Slick Willie.
Personally, I’m undecided on the merits of the solar energy proposal. I think there are strong arguments that can be made on both sides.
That said, I strongly object to the Finch administration’s attempts to circumvent the Charter and strong-arm the approval of the project in the face of widespread opposition.
Assuming the land in question is part of the city’s park system (more on that later), the requirements of the City Charter are clear.
The charter expressly provides that all city parks are “under the management, care and control” of the Board of Park Commissioners.
Another provision goes further and expressly requires the Board of Park Commissioners approve any sale or capital lease (an accounting term I won’t try to define) of Park property.
Following the Board of Park Commissioners rejection of the proposed lease, administration officials took the position the Board’s action was simply advisory and not binding on the administration.
One doesn’t need a law degree to recognize the fallacy of that position. If the Mayor and City Council have the power to sell parkland without the approval of the Board of Park Commissioners, that board clearly does not have “the management, care and control” of the parks, as required by the Charter.
The administration has also asserted the position that the proposed site is not parkland. That should be easy enough to determine. The site appears to be within the historic boundaries of Seaside Park. If so, there is only one other question to answer. Did the Board of Park Commissioners ever transfer the property in question back to the city (as opposed to permitting or acquiescing to its use as a dump)? Unless they did, the land in question is parkland and subject to the Charter provisions.
Legalities aside, the fact the city agency responsible for the protection and development of city parks recommended the rejection of this lease should cause the Council to pause before rubber stamping the Mayor’s proposal.
And the lease has this self-insured city on the hook for every conceivable possible accident and future illness of anyone working on that site. Hello PURA?
You can’t stop this kind of crap if you’re not registered to vote. Note: this takes three weeks to process.
voterregistration.ct.gov/OLVR/
I was at last night’s council meeting and the majority of people there were for solar panels but the majority was also against them going into Seaside Park.
The most disturbing thing that happened was Sue Brannelly speaking to the crowd. First she chastised the people who spoke in favor of the project by saying where were all you people last night at the park board meeting. She then said if the proposal were presented at tonight’s meeting she would vote no. Talk about bullshit. Black Rock, you re-elected this bobblehead doll.
In the name of fairness, let’s pontificate.
The Mayor followed normal policy and sent memos to several boards and committees. He satisfied his requirements. The Park Commission didn’t cast a vote until they were called into session and forced to by you-know-who. Votes rarely occur in these matters but politics sometimes happens. The purpose of the vote was to give you-know-who ammo in the upcoming solar battle. I wonder if they will melt in the sun or stick like glue. Either Rick Torres is a savvy newcomer or he is operating under the watchful eyes of skilled handlers.
Anastasi cannot be correct–years ago Ganim wanted to lease the golf course to a private company and the Park’s Board approval was required because it was a capital lease. Andy Fardy may recall as a former commissioner. The Solar Panel project is a land lease, he would have to assert it is not a capital lease for his opinion to be valid.
Only one problem Common Good, Mark Bergshneider and National Fairways took over the operation of the golf course. This may have been a management contract and not a lease but the taxpayers were still on the hook for a million bucks.
All over Bridgeport, crowds gather and, in unison, they say the same thing: A DUMP IS NOT A PARK.
Everybody knows a golf course is a park. After all, what is a caddy if not a personal park ranger?
But if dumps were parks, they’d have swingsets and see-saws and recycling would mean riding your bike again.
Roosevelt forest (in Stratford) is a park and it does not have any of those things. It only has trees, weeds, mosquitoes and ticks. Veterans Memorial Park in Norwalk is a park (hence the name ‘Vets Park’) that sits on a former dump. So some dumps are parks and some parks are dumps.
Solar power is about as useful as Obamacare. More environmental wacko scams. These people are the ones who are shocked it is snowing in the middle of winter. Or it get hot in the summer. Hey, what’s that white powder stuff doing falling from the sky in middle of winter? Must be global warming. Better call Solyndra and give them some taxpayer-funded stimulus cash and watch them go out of business again. Next they’ll tell us … If you like your doctor, you can keep him. Oh wait …
Bridgeport needs to wake up, the charter revision vote was a start, the DTC vote can be the start of something huge.
BOE SPY is wise to uncover the complexities of these matters. The Mayor’s proposal seeks to beautify, monetize and improve what is now a dump. He’s trying to add value to Barnum’s gift to the city. Wise mayors think alike. It’s not a park yet but that would be a worthy goal. Repeat after me: A DUMP IS NOT A PARK.
Listen, Local Eyes. Get off your ass, drive in from Trumbull and look at the property. Tell me where you see an actual dump. We had to listen to another Trumbullite last night, Paul “Flush” Timpanelli, and like you he was full of shit.
There is this park: The Fresh Kills site is to be transformed into reclaimed wetlands, recreational facilities and landscaped public parkland, the largest expansion of the New York City parks since the development of the chain of parks in the Bronx during the 1890s.
There are actually thousands of parks that were once landfills (dumps).
Someone’s “eyes” are covered by rose-colored glasses. When was the last time anyone looked over to their right while driving down Barnum Dyke and could actually see over that large and very high land and say “they really need to beautify that?” You can’t see a thing when you look there.
Why do you have to see over a hill with grass and trees? What everyone thinks is it’s wrong to have park land that is fallow and just there. I sure don’t want to look there and see a jumble of solar panels.
You’re making my point for me! If you weren’t so quick to besmirch everyone, you might learn something.
Really. how did I make your point?
Since you Trumbull folks are so hopped up on Solar Panels, you should have no problem welcoming UI into your town with open arms. Why so vocal about an issue that does not even concern you? Think of how much good you could do in your own town if you channeled all the energies you expend on Bridgeport in the direction of your own community.
Or since you are so concerned about our City, move here.
The land belongs to Seaside, it’s parkland. We are having a hard time hearing the voices chanting you are hearing in Trumbull.
Sometimes it just gets so exasperating when we see so many from other towns dictate what we should do, how we should feel, and who we should elect.
EPA engineers will never sign off on this landfill for a solar farm, not for a another 30 years. The methane gas coming off this landfill mixed with solar panels will kill somebody. The Bridgeport Fire Department had better look into this. Methane gas will get into every panel, pipe and junction box, one spark and it’s over for the City of Bridgeport. Even if you wire for an explosion-proof system.
Actually Jim, according to the consultant who tests the air and water, the methane right now is within acceptable test results. But to your point, Banta’s brother, who claimed to be a science professor testified last night the decaying concrete is creating Radon, which every UI contractor could be exposed to during construction, for which the city is liable per the contract/lease up for council approval.
Jennifer, did they test after a rain? I would like to see the EPA’s testing report before I can believe anything from the Finch team. Acceptable test results for what? A walk on the landfill, volleyball game, birding? Without the EPA approval, it’s a very hazardous location and should be treated as such.
Jim Fox you know I love you and your enthusiasm, however the EPA actually encourages solar power plants on closed landfills if they are in agreement with the community vision for the property.
www .epa.gov/renewableenergyland/docs/best_practices_siting_solar_photovoltaic_final.pdf
I’d like to know a little more about those four companies Mr. Timpanelli spoke of. I’m sure our well-informed council members have all the proper information on these companies and their hiring practices. I also wonder how companies were recruited without the nucleus (solar panels) being in place. Could it be the BRBC is having meetings before the meetings?
Good point, Jimfox. I wonder if there is currently any methane monitoring occurring. For the record I am all for this type of project on industrial land in BPT; just not in a park. Additionally, can anyone clarify the City Attorney position? Is it a salaried position or do we pay hourly?
The city attorney serves at the pleasure of the mayor, with salary.
Sorry Greg, a consultant conducts air and water quality at the landfill. Costs the city $10K per year and the tests results are in the acceptable range.
Whether it is salary or hourly, the taxpayers are paying dearly whether they realize it or not.
Can a dump be a park, and can a park be a dump? If a dump is a park, can I still park in the park or am I parking in a dump? If I dump where I park, am I dumping where I park or am I dumping in the park that also happens to be a dump? For short, would I be dumping in a dump?
That it does not need beautification of any type, especially phony good-for-nothing solar panels. This is really over your head!
*** HERE WE GO! ***
Since this project was announced, there have been estimates the lease agreement between the City of Bridgeport and United illuminating would generate $7 million in tax revenue over the initial 20-year term of the lease, or about $350,000 per year.
However, the city would receive far less revenue under the proposed lease submitted to the City Council for approval.
The proposed lease calls for annual payments of $150,000–not $350,000–or about $3 million over the initial 20-year term.
But the city won’t see even that much revenue because the lease allows United illuminating to deduct any personal property taxes paid on equipment at the facility from their annual rental payment.
The lease is crystal clear about that deduction, stating it “is the intent of the Parties that the Annual Rent will be offset against the taxes paid” for each year.
In short, UI is getting both a cheap lease and what amounts to a property tax break.
Given the city’s serious financial problems, how does the mayor justify that?
Phil,
Attorney Ron Pacacha provided a 20-year illustration of the potential cash flow from the solar project. Assumptions were made as to business property to be taxed including solar panels and fuel cells, depreciation schedules for same, replacement of fuel cells every 5-7 years, and the current mil rate of 41.88. The result showed revenue to the City (rather than tax revenue) cumulatively was around $6.8 Million over 20 years. In three of those years, 17, 18 and 20 the land rent proved higher than the tax revenue so $150,000 would be received by the City. At this time there are aspects of the deal more relevant than the financing, but your point is well taken, the City powers seem less than powerful, convincing or fair to City taxpayers when you look at: Airport accessway provided to Moutinho; labor contracts for public safety allowing much greater retirement benefits in future years (and greater taxes, local or State, to fund them) and big incentive for actual overtime abuse as we are seeing three years in a row; the 35% increase in WPCA rates; and again with the Green solar at Seaside project.
How are these “activities and projects” of Mayor Finch to be “sustainable” and I am talking about “green matters?” Time will tell.