Patch, the on-line news site, has published a list of the greenest towns in Connecticut. Bridgeport is greener than several Connecticut cities, according to the rankings, but still not as avocado rich as most communities. Patch listed the city among Connecticut’s least green communities of 169 cities and towns. The survey’s dubious methodology did not factor open space per acre such as thousands of acres of park land, including the 325-acre Seaside Park where a solar field is expected to be constructed by United Illuminating on the former city dump. From Patch:
With Earth Day on Tuesday, Patch is wrapping up our series breaking down the numbers behind Connecticut towns’ environmental impact.
In the last few weeks, we’ve looked at the total amount of garbage generated per person and how much of that trash gets recycled, as well as how much open space is conserved in each town.
This week, we’re adding metrics on population density and energy efficiency to come up with a ranking of the “greenest” towns in Connecticut. (Least green communities)
Stamford
10 Green Points – 158th
People per Sq Mile: 2,401.32 – 2 points
Tree City: Yes – 1 point
Trash per Person: 1,901.99 – 1 point
Percent Recycled: 27.6 percent – 3 points
Residential Energy Programs: 5.96 percent – 1 point
Municipal & Business Programs: 7.26 percent – 2 pointsBridgeport
9 Green Points – 160th
People per Sq Mile: 7,547.68 – 0 points
Tree City: Yes – 1 point
Trash per Person: 1,346.26 – 3 points
Percent Recycled: Not Reported – 0 points
Residential Energy Programs: 16.69 percent – 3 points
Municipal & Business Programs: 7.21 percent – 2 pointsHartford
9 Green Points – 160th
People per Sq Mile: 7,219.25 – 0 points
Tree City: Yes – 1 point
Trash per Person: 1,556.36 – 2 points
Percent Recycled: 12.5 percent – 1 point
Residential Energy Programs: 14.81 percent – 3 points
Municipal & Business Programs: 9.45 percent – 2 pointsNew London
9 Green Points – 160th
People per Sq Mile: 3,370.68 – 1 point
Tree City: No – 0 points
Trash per Person: 1,541.88 – 2 points
Percent Recycled: 18.1 percent – 2 points
Residential Energy Programs: 15.59 percent – 3 points
Municipal & Business Programs: 6.86 percent – 1 pointNorwalk
9 Green Points – 160th
People per Sq Mile: 2,401.93 – 2 points
Tree City: Yes – 1 point
Trash per Person: 1,890.14 – 1 points
Percent Recycled: 15 percent – 2 points
Residential Energy Programs: 8.35 percent – 2 points
Municipal & Business Programs: 4.93 percent – 1 pointMilford
8 Green Points – 164th
People per Sq Mile: 2,026.82 – 3 points
Tree City: No – 0 points
Trash per Person: 1,614.04 – 2 points
Percent Recycled: Not Reported – 0 points
Residential Energy Programs: 9.85 percent – 2 points
Municipal & Business Programs: 6.22 percent – 1 pointNew Britain
8 Green Points – 164th
People per Sq Mile: 5,459.18 – 0 points
Tree City: No – 0 points
Trash per Person: 1,195.56 – 3 points
Percent Recycled: 13.2 percent – 1 point
Residential Energy Programs: 11.03 percent – 2 points
Municipal & Business Programs: 10.6 percent – 2 pointsWaterbury
8 Green Points – 164th
People per Sq Mile: 3,795.41 – 1 point
Tree City: No – 0 points
Trash per Person: 1,515.13– 2 points
Percent Recycled: 10.1 percent – 1 point
Residential Energy Programs: 12.45 percent – 2 points
Municipal & Business Programs: 9.08 percent – 2 pointsAnsonia
7 Green Points – 167th
People per Sq Mile: 3,090 – 1 point
Tree City: No – 0 points
Trash per Person: 1,362.64 – 2 points
Percent Recycled: 6.6 percent – 1 point
Residential Energy Programs: 6.89 percent – 1 point
Municipal & Business Programs: 7.05 percent – 2 pointsNew Haven
6 Green Points – 168th
People per Sq Mile: 6,498.06 – 0 points
Tree City: No – 0 points
Trash per Person: 1,582.21 – 2 points
Percent Recycled: 14.9 percent – 1 point
Residential Energy Programs: 13.14 percent – 2 points
Municipal & Business Programs: 6.64 percent – 1 pointBozrah
5 Green Points – 169th
People per Sq Mile: 130.4 – 5 points
Tree City: No – 0 points
Trash per Person: 2,444.06 – 0 points
Percent Recycled: Not Reported – 0 points
Residential Energy Programs: 0 percent – 0 points
Municipal & Business Programs: 0 percent – 0 pointsMethodology
Each town received points in six categories: Population Density (0-5); Trash per Person (0-5); Percent Recycled (0-6); Residential Energy Programs (0-5); Municipal & Business Energy Programs (0-5); and Tree City Designation (0-1).[Due to gaps in the data for several towns, open space per acre was not included in the final tally. See this post for more on conservation.]
The weighting awards points based on where a town’s data falls on the range for all towns in each category, creating a ranking system comparing the towns to each other, rather than against some goal.
Population Density
Population as of July 2012 divided by the total square miles. Lowest (5 points): Union — 852; Highest (0 points): Bridgeport — 146,425.
Trash per Person
Total pounds of solid waste collected within a municipality, as reported to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), divided by the population. Lowest (5 points): Andover — 357.25; Highest (0 points): Bozrah — 2,444.06.
Percent Recycled
Percent of total solid waste recycled, as reported to the DEEP. Highest (6 points): Middlebury — 52.6 percent; Lowest (1 point): Ansonia — 6.6 percent; nine towns are in violation of state statute for not reporting (0 points).
Residential Energy Programs
Percent of town to enroll in or take advantage of an energy efficiency program, such as Home Energy Solutions, between 2010 and 2013, according to data maintained by the state’s Energize CT initiative. Highest (5 points): Canaan — 32.4 percent; Lowest (0 points): Bozrah and Norwich both have 0 percent.
Municipal & Business Programs
Percent of businesses and municipal operations to enroll in or take advantage of energy efficiency programs, such as Energy Conscious Blueprint, between 2010 and 2013, according to Energize CT. Highest (5 points): Mansfield — 32.64 percent; Lowest (0 points): five towns had 0 percent.
Tree City
Tree City USA, a program of the Arbor Day Foundation, recognizes towns that meet four criteria: maintaining a tree board or department; having a tree ordinance; spending at least $2 per capita on urban forestry; and having an annual Arbor Day celebration. The 19 Connecticut towns awarded the Tree City USA designation received 1 additional point.
Methodology dubious? C’mon Lennie, the methodology is horseshit. A city is congested by its very definition. It should be a place to make money. You need a density of people to do that. When a city no longer can make money, it FAILS and goes out of existence. How ‘green’ a city is has to work around the reasons people choose to live close to each other.
Agreed. Methodology is horseshit. It’s Patch-Shit.
Jim Callahan is so cool! Patch uses the type of methodology you’d expect from a division of AOL that’s been partially off-loaded to a private equity firm.
Here’s why I’m writing: I’ve concluded Bridgeport is the greenest city/town/village in Connecticut. Here’s why: Bridgeport’s mayor has wisely put several programs in place to transform Bridgeport’s image and Bridgeport’s reality. Dirt and grime are out–clean and green are in.
(thud)
Well just ask Tom Sherwood how much double-billing he’s doing with the Bridgeport expense budgets these days and then think green … for him.
Oh, I forgot. Bill Finch is his boss …
For posts that are dripping with sarcasm, resentment and anger, I nominate carolanne curry as OIB’s
doom freakblogger of the day.Hey Paul (Local Eyes), Finch is your boss? Another Finch kiss-ass on OIB!
Jimfox: you’re spreading misinformation–a digital sin–and consequently prompting this post.
Tom Sherwood reports to the Mayor. I do not because I’m a blogger on a Bridgeport-themed blog whose members unload on him all the time and not an employee of the city. I’m here for the fun and beauty of being a blogospheric lighthouse.
Sorry Paul, I’ll take that back. It was fun for a short time!
Look who is violation of state statutes again–Bridgeport.
www .ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/reduce_reuse_recycle/data/summary_of_msw_recycling_and_disposal_for_ct_munis_fy2011.pdf
Cap’n!
Thank you for this information.
If you want to violate state statues you’re gonna need a can of spray paint and one of these:
ctmonuments.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/P1170508.JPG
This Patch article is off a bit and here is why. Solar is a crock. Germany went heavily solar and it is more polluting. Solar panels take ~15 years to ‘save’ the amount of carbon it takes to make them. Germany now buys its electricity from Poland, and others, that do not have the pollution regs Germany did. BPT’s solar will do the same. BPT has one of the dirtiest coal plants in the country. BPT has more pollution in the streets than most. Too many streets in town are strewn with trash. This could account for the low ‘trash per resident’ number. The aged BPT houses and rental (2-3 family) places are poorly insulated. Not green at all. Apartment buildings are far more efficient. BPT’s public housing units and schools are famous for their ‘ghetto heat.’ Residents often need to open their windows in the winter. The survey did not look at the average age of the cars in town. Older cars are allowed to have higher emissions and use more gas. The city issues gas guzzlers to its employees. Changing to more efficient vehicle would eclipse the savings we will see from solar. The survey did not look at things like lead water pipes, brownfields, schools with asbestos, the high number of building fires and other things that would have given BPT a poor score. It seemed to concentrate on stats in order to give BPT a high score. The green space stat is nonsense. They should have looked at the number of residents per acre. Even if BPT has green spaces, that is eclipsed by the small lot size as compare to a town that has a 1-acre minimum lot size.
A city is the greenest place actually because of its density. A four-story apartment building has a fraction of the carbon footprint as a McMansion in Fairfield. What are they smoking?
Density is a feature of cities generally, and the small area of Bridgeport combined with the largest municipal population in the State, by definition, makes us most dense! Though some would apply this to our ability to understand what is going on around us, that specifically applies to the folks who are the “check and balance” forces around City fiscal stability.
They will not publicly prioritize.
They do not provide data regularly that would show folks whether we are gaining or losing.
City jobs, full-time and part-time, are the only positions the City knows how to grow, and that is not a solution.
Carbon footprints are important but so are worker fingerprints on the Kronos system established by the Public Schools to see who is ready for work and at what time they are starting and departing. Not everyone is happy, but isn’t that basic for many who live in the City and work elsewhere?? People who pay for most of their healthcare and have no pension income when they retire because they are in the private system?
Has the BOE announced all the results of the teacher and administrator negotiations recently concluded? Do taxpayers have a right to be kept up to date with employment numbers, fringe benefits and working conditions? What do you think? Time will tell.