UPDATE, initial story reported lease instead of sale. The burgeoning Sacred Heart University wants to purchase roughly eight acres of wooded-wetland property from the Bridgeport-owned Fairchild Wheeler golf course that abuts its campus and develop property on Veterans Memorial Park for six tennis courts off Park Avenue. The university, undergoing explosive growth, apparently needs the golf course property for land coverage purposes to satisfy zoning regulations that would allow the school to build more on campus proper in Fairfield. The golf course property would remain as woods for perpetuity and cannot be developed. The price tag for the golf course land is about $4 million that requires City Council approval. The golf course is owned by the city but is located in the town of Fairfield.
“It’s a great deal for the city,” says Mayor Joe Ganim’s Chief of Staff Danny Roach regarding the Fairchild Wheeler property adjoining the golf course. “Sacred Heart cannot touch the park property. They cannot overturn a rock.”
The golf course acreage SHU seeks is a fraction of the hundreds of acres of park land encompassing two public golf courses. The City Attorney’s Office conducted a review of the proposed deal and ruled there are no deed restrictions with selling the eight acres of park land, according to Roach.
The majority of Sacred Heart is located in Fairfield, but it also has dormitories and extended campus buildings located on the Bridgeport side of Park Avenue. The university that started as a commuter school by the Diocese of Bridgeport built its first dormitory in Bridgeport about 20 years ago during Joe Ganim’s first tenure as mayor. It was a controversial development in a prime residential neighborhood.
The Bridgeport Parks Commission conducted an informational session on the SHU proposal Tuesday night at the North End Library. The commission approved the Veterans Memorial Park tennis courts arrangements with SHU that calls for seeding the grass behind the courts and creating a veterans memorial and dog park. SHU will build and maintain the courts. An original proposal that included a soccer field was withdrawn.
SHU building progress has had its growing pains. The university and the city have had a touchy relationship in recent years centered on partying college students creating havoc for North End neighbors and placing a burden on public safety. SHU students rent housing in the North End.
North End City Council members such as City Council President Tom McCarthy, Michelle Lyons and AmyMarie Vizzo-Paniccia have often interceded on behalf of constituents urging tighter security control of students. A number of city officials and North End neighbors say the university treats the city as the abused stepchild.
Vizzo-Paniccia for one needs a lot of persuading before she’d vote to approve the golf course deal.
“This is not a good fit as SHU is not a good partner, neighbor and does not consider us a viable asset to them,” says Vizzo-Paniccia.
SHU had also approached Ganim’s predecessor Bill Finch about a similar arrangement, but this time it has advanced to the point of close to a done deal that requires council approval.
For the city’s precarious budget situation the golf course deal represents another potential $4 million in revenue.
NO!
Think it through, Phil. Land owned by BPT in Fairfield and SHU wants to lease it for $4 mil to leave it just like it is. Where is the down side? Is that lease $4 mil per year or forever?
It looks like they could do something with those tennis courts that could spell out SHU in block letters. Wouldn’t that be cool, Phil? Could that be the gamechanger?
Now Phil, what do you think an FRB would do if they took root in the city?
They would be totally in favor of this because it would be devoid of political interference like council members saying no because they don’t like SHU.
$4 Million for a city needing monetary assistance.
NO!
Wetlands the city has no use for.
NO!
Held as open space in perpetuity.
NO!
Emotional response rather than logical?
YES!!!
Of course we should make them sweeten the pot a bit more.
Spread the $4 mil over four years and then an annual contribution on top of it.
If Ganim has any of his negotiating skills still in him, he can make that happen.
There is nothing like getting rid of two assets at the same time. There is no doubt Ganim will have no problem getting rid of a portion or all of the Golf course, he did it during his first term. Ganim leased the golf course to a friend and for two years the city did not receive one red cent and was forced to foreclose on the lease.
He will have no problem spending the $4 million and I believe this has been in the works even before he became mayor. It’s too bad.
Of course we can wait another 29 years for nothing to happen on that site. Anyone for some Disc Golf or a Drone Park?? Take the $4 million and run to the bank!
LOL. I can’t believe Vizzo-Paniccia has a strong opinion about this, I mean in all the years she’s been on the council, I’ve never read she has an opinion of her own at all, about anything. I have to think McCarthy and Lyons must have the same opinions, Vizzo-Paniccia wouldn’t go out on a limb like this if not. And if McCarthy is against it, that must mean Mayor Testa is against it also. Just connecting dots here.
Mario would be against it if he thought he could get someone like DiNardo, D’Addario or someone of that ilk who could buy it for $3 million from the city and then sell it to SHU for $4.
When Mario talks about slicing up the pie so everyone can eat, he ain’t talkin’ pizza if you know what I mean.
And of course I would guess there would be enough left so Mario could get a slice too.
There’s a rumor (or not) going around that Mario has been talking with Sacred Heart. Ummm, wonder if he’s planning to retire from the restaurant business?
$4,000,000 seems like an awful small price to pay for a Bridgeport Park. They have SO much money, I would have asked $40 million. I cannot see how this will help residents of the area. Currently, the area is used as a schoolyard for the Discovery School, they have nothing else. The Museum uses it for camps all summer long, as does the City of BPT, the schools use the fields for camp. There are not many parks in the North End, kids fly kites there, golfers hit balls there. The City stores collected snow plowed for all over there for lack of someplace else. That disc golf course that exists is drawing people from all over the country. It’s crowded, and 90 Acres Park has never been so utilized in the past as now. The disc golfers and there are thousands of them, maintain the wooded fairways, cut invasive growth and bittersweet vines that choke indigenous trees to death, they keep it clean by picking up daily what others may have littered. The Park is great the way it is. They also have tournaments sponsored by local businesses that advertise on the tee signs, and brochures and scorecards during events. SHU gets to park there during their big events, and we used to have carnivals there. It’s a great open space the City needs for its residents. There was no debate at this meeting, “it’s not a question and answer meeting” Anastasi reiterated often when the public asked questions and the Park Commissioners started to answer. They listened, and voted unanimously to favor SHU. Why? $4,000,000? We don’t have a $4,000,000 problem, we have a $40,000,000 problem. Sad.
Let’s start with the idea the article does not tell us how much land will be included in one or will it be two leases? For the land that will be leased in perpetuity undeveloped to meet other zoning requirements, who will maintain it, as and when needed, fires, storms, etc.? And assuming it is the University will they look to our City for agreement in such maintenance practices? As to the other land, in Veteran’s Park, how much area and also a lease?
For the moment, let us assume $4 Million is a reasonable price, arms length, comparables, etc., but why would we “champions of deferral” take all the money in one year? (Yes, I am fully aware of the most logical answer, but then the money will be gone with no memory of what was sold.)
Why don’t we learn from our deferral of pension funding activity and spread the income over years to come at such a present value calculation as to perhaps receive $10 Million over the next 30 years (with re-openers for when interest rates once again begin climbing).
The issue I point to is the City was able to decrease a usual annual payment towards MERS for the next six years (by a total of $24.5 Million) in exchange for the 7th year funding $7,410,000 the same as called for today and then, during the final 19 years extra payments such that the current flat funding of pension obligations is $200,070,000 over 27 years but will according to Hartford increase to $257,127,000 in the years out to 2043.
This is just a financial commentary about the manner in which we are doing things. We need streams of revenue for operations in the City from sources other than taxpayers. Lump sums disappear, and today we cannot verify City fiscal measures easily so trust yet needs to be earned. Time will tell.
Did Sacred Heart University do any outreach to the community?
Apparently not. They made their case to the Parks Commissioners who allowed the few people who, by word of mouth, learned there was an ‘information session’ to make comments. Then they disregarded the concerns of those residents attending and approved the deal for tennis courts. Once again our city council members were either unaware of SHU’s plans or simply failed to pay attention to communications.
SHU has a long history of deceiving Bridgeport residents and disregarding their concerns. How many OIB readers recall how they went about purchasing property on Park Avenue, demolishing the house and building a ten-story dorm adjacent to single family homes during G1? It was nasty.
Since then, I hold SHU in low regard.
Before submitting these comments I looked through the SHU website, something I have not done recently. Everyone should take a quick look at it. Do you see any mention of Bridgeport? SHU repeatedly refers to the campus being located in “Suburban Fairfield Connecticut.” Well, in order to expand they have acquired property on Park Avenue on the Bridgeport side to build more facilities. I suppose they can still claim their campus is in “Suburban Fairfield Connecticut.”
Personally, I don’t see the need for Bridgeport to operate an airport or a golf course given the minimal benefits to residents.
SHU has a negative impact on Bridgeport residents. Why should Bridgeport embrace their expansion?
The SHU website claims they have 8,000 full-time students and 50% live on campus. The SHU website also directs inquiries for living off-campus to a contractor who hooks students up with operators of rental properties. Many of us know about the problems with partying college kids but the negative impact of turning single-family homes into rooming houses has far-reaching implications on the value of homes.
Can or should the Parks Board make decisions such as the deal for tennis courts in a Bridgeport park adjacent to the SHU campus so they can include it in campus tours and web page? (As if it were part of their “Suburban Fairfield Connecticut campus?) In my opinion, no. They should reconsider their vote and schedule a public hearing.
I wish John M. Lee and Tom White would be utilized by our city’s leaders. Their experience, know-how and dedication to our city is undeniable and would be a great boost. Thank you John and Tom.
I would also add one more person and that is Pete Spain. Time will tell.
This is just the latest part of the SHU nightmare playing itself out. SHU’s tentacles keep growing and stretching into Bridgeport from Fairfield, grabbing whatever they choose, and imposing whatever oppressive conditions on the neighborhoods and citizens of Bridgeport their presence might render with impunity.
In any righteous Bridgeport city administration, parkland or recreational open space owned by Bridgeport would never be sold or surrendered to a predatory, soulless institution such as SHU. Their invasion and siege of Bridgeport’s North End has been allowed to continue, unabated, by four city administrations, and must be stopped. They have irreparably damaged the quality of life and public safety of much of the North End since they decided to satisfy their expansionist institutional ego at Bridgeport’s expense, starting about 25 years ago. They have interfered with the city’s public school system and helped to open the door for the state takeover of the BOE in 2011. They parasitically siphon off of the city’s assets, resources and services while they actively downplay their relationship to the city in their brochures. And though it is Bridgeport services and resources that allow them to exist as a viable, expanding institution, they emphatically advertise themselves as a FAIRFIELD institution in what amounts to the vilest insult to Bridgeport and its people that is possible.
Now they want to commandeer Veteran’s Memorial Park as an official SHU-CONTROLLED, SHU recreation asset. And they want to lay claim to eight acres of Bridgeport-owned forest so they can further their institutional growth, which will compel them to intrude further into Bridgeport proper and further their parasitic dependence on Bridgeport resources and services, even as they further damage the residential fabric of our besieged city. (They cannot be trusted to not develop the eight acres of forest land adjacent to their campus. We are fools to trust them in light of their 25 years of abuse of our city. The $4 million promised for this land to Bridgeport will be eaten up by SHU in Bridgeport-provided services and taxbase losses many times over as we accommodate the expansion of SHU this deal will allow.)
Indeed, this latest deal to accommodate SHU expansion at Bridgeport’s expense is INSANE and vile on the part of the Bridgeport administration and SHU! Bridgeport must not be allowed to pursue these agreements. History has shown us, and common sense should tell us, any relationship with SHU can have only a “down” side for our city. They are not Bridgeport’s institution, they are FAIRFIELD’S institution.
Giving access to Bridgeport land assets/parkland can be compared to the ceding of the Sudetenland to the Hitler/Nazi Regime. It can only further the vile ends of the oppressor and harm the residents.
This SHU land-grab/park takeover must be stopped and all offending parties sued, picketed, and chastised until this horrible deal is put to death. SHU is a horrible, dangerous presence, in a very real sense, and must be ejected from Bridgeport, not allowed to expand and further increase the stranglehold of their tentacles on the city.
Jeff–the land is BPT-owned but in Fairfield. So SHU’s tentacles would be parasitically growing in Fairfield. JML did have a point in wanting to know how much land they want to lease. Since BPT makes no income from the land and Fairfield receives no taxes from BPT for the land, the land is worthless to both cities. It is also a wetland (swamp) and unbuildable. BPT has a chance to make $4 mil without losing one square inch and SHU has no plans and cannot develop the land. In addition, BPT citizens can still golf a la Tiger Woods. I am sure that is popular among the desperately poor. They will also be able to play tennis a la Serena Williams.
BTW–$4 million goes a long way in making up a $20 million deficit.
Charter Chapter 12, Section 21 requires all “moneys received from the sales of any park department property” be deposited in the Park Capitol Development Fund and used for park purposes, not to balance the operating budget.
And aren’t you glad there is some guidance from this document because until we sell off ALL OUR CITY ASSETS at the same time as we remember our balance sheet is in the red, we will continue to have fiscal ideas for spending (today and tomorrow) foisted on us by Council votes where they do not realize the fiscal outcomes, today as well as in the future.
When the Park Board voted to approve a use that would provide permission to SHU, was there any “price tag” attached to their agenda item? Did the Park Board have a sense of “trusteeship” when they agreed? Did they look at any alternatives in terms of an agreement that might raise more funds over a longer period of time? Does posting a PRICE TAG on all City Meeting notices when a subject matter decision will add a cost or expense, sell off property or a right, or otherwise put the taxpayer into a financial commitment, or deeper into one, seem like a reasonable request? Will someone else pick up the beat? Or provide this idea to the thriftiest member of your household and let him/her respond? When you go shopping without looking at PRICE TAGS, do you make the best decisions if you are ultimately responsible for paying for what is purchased? Time will tell.
Well that sucks, but it is just a trick. They lease (not sell) the property to SHU. If lease money needs to be used just like sale money, the parks department just got a $4 million dollar boost. The city cuts the parks department Capital Development Fund and used park budget by $4 million. Voila, the money was just moved to the capital budget.
BOE SPY,
Why is Joe Ganim, who inherited the Finch budget deficit, not personally pointing out the handful of major items in the FY 2016 budget comprised of overprojected revenues and understatement of obligations (like Police Department MERS contributions? while including Fire Dept.?) going to extraordinary lengths to show all this activity to eliminate the deficit?
A slower and steady explanation and then execution may bode better for the City. Let’s credit the re-funding of the city bond portfolio that relieved the operating budget of about $3.5 Million in 2016. Deficit reduced to $16.5 million. What next? Cost cutting of positions and/or freeze on expenses, but what is that doing, month in and month out that can be seen, that is verifiable by the public audience that cares about such things?
The operating budget document was less better in this regard than those of the Finch administration IMO because the City organizational table was missing and employment categories and past year stats were even more limited than Finch department presentations of the recent past.
Are there fewer people employed by the City and compensated as such than in the final days of November 2015? Is that the baseline? Where can we see the positions/paychecks comparisons? Trust but verify? Not yet?
And BOE SPY, where have you seen a report entitled Parks Department Capital or Capital Development Fund? What is the record of money in, projects initiated, money out, projects completed, money left over? Or not?
Are you aware, or will Phil Smith comment on the transfer or movement of money from Capital Funds to operating, or vice versa, or within the operating budget according to Charter and Ordinances? Money is fungible but we have set up certain channels and approvals to track funds. Are we living up to our own rules? Time will tell.
John–Why JG2 does what he does is a better question for him than me.
My OPINION: they overstated the deficit and hoped to lose the union concessions in order to have some good reasons and blame for raising taxes. A no-fault way out of campaign promise #1. Ganim would want enough of a tax increase to not need another and possibly have a decrease before the next election.
This $4 million may allow for a smaller or no tax increase. Depending on the deficit overstatement.
No one really has concrete answers to BPT’s budgetary money flow but I am sure JG2 will produce documentation showing everything is okay.
Regardless, having $4 million is better than not having $4 million. Not so long ago people were very critical of Finch opening new parks. Now they are critical of Ganim for reducing parks. You just can’t win.
I would laugh if Fairfield took the land by eminent domain to lease it to SHU for the public good.
You can’t use eminent domain to acquire property that is already being used for a public purpose, such as a park or golf course.
The golf course might be a tricky legal question. It is a public golf course and owned by the city of BPT. But I think it is managed by a private company. That would give it some grey area. BPT has not received any revenue from the golf course. You could argue BPT conceded the land and rights to the private company.
Anyway, it was just a thought and Fairfield is probably just as oblivious to the deal as the rest of BPT is.
I bet the City could get a lot more $$$ for sections of Beardsley Park, and Seaside Park has some great views we could sell off, and still have lots of beach for the residents! C’mon, let’s start selling and balance the budget and fix the missed pension payments, and pay off the debt!
*** Advertise the issue in the Post and radio then have a public meeting at the North End Library to get some feedback from the community first before making a $$$ blind decision for crying out loud! Also, what’s Fairfield’s take on this deal? *** WHOOP ***
There was a meeting today. I heard about it last minute and could not attend. It was held at the N.E. Library.
There was nothing you could do at this meeting but observe. The Parks Commission voted that Veteran’s Park was better to serve SHU than its Bridgeport residents. It was not a question and answer meeting, it was just required. Speakers had no real say. I wonder if the Parks Commissioners knew it was to be this way when they were appointed. Some did look a little embarrassed once they knew the public realized what was going on. They understand they really don’t have much real decision making abilities, like other BPT Commissions, yet they still choose to be Commissioners … very important people.
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.
NO! This might seem foolish to people like Bobby Walsh but I used to catch frogs there as a wee lad. I used to watch them every morning amid the skunk cabbage and the gurgling brook. London Brook is its name. Why not build the tennis court on the Japanese Knotweed site corner of Park and Eckart?
An eight-acre Trial Balloon?
[Now if SHU can lease the entire 320 acres of Fairchild Wheeler GC it would be one of the largest Universities on the east coast, and still keep the golf course as Open Space.]
SHU then can pepper dormitories throughout the golf course.
Attention John Fallon!
If eight marshland acres went for $4 million, the 320 acres of Fairfield golf course land would net BPT at least $160 million. Almost 30% of the year’s budget and almost 1/2 of what is collected in property tax. Not that there is evidence SHU wants to or can afford this but it would be a quick and easy way to solve many of BPT’s problems with minimal impact.
It would also add construction jobs along with the jobs that come with whatever developing SHU does on the property.
The lease of golf course acreage clearly requires city council approval. This will be a test for the 134th district council members to demonstrate they know what is going on and know how to handle it.
The deal for the tennis courts is not explained in this OIB posting. Is this a lease? What is the arrangement? Can someone who attended the ‘information session’ explain the arrangement? Can the council members explain it? Even better, can a Parks Board member provide an explanation and share why they saw no need to answer questions from the community prior to voting to approve the arrangement? Where is our local news media?
Thanks, Tom. I am confused. Is this a one-time payment or an annual lease? In a cash-starved city, an annual infusion of CASH might be a welcome revenue stream.
flicka, it’s a proposed sale of eight acres, not a lease, for $4 million. I updated the article to reflect this.
Ugh. FORGET IT!
Bad deal for Bridgeport.
There are few things as fiscally irresponsible as selling capital assets to pay for operating costs or deficits. Fortunately, that’s not an issue in Bridgeport since the City Charter, and a special act passed by the state, require the proceeds from the sale of park land be used for Park capital improvements.
WHY? If it adds no revenue, adds some cost and serves only a small segment of the population? Selling it would be a good idea if you needed the money or not. It is a luxury you do not need, cannot afford and do not use.
Lennie changed the article to reflect this IS a sale of the property.
They sell the property to SHU. The parks department just got a $4 million dollar boost. The city cuts the parks department Capital Development Fund and used park budget by $4 million. Voila, the money was just moved to the capital budget. But even if the parks department keeps the money, many of BPT’s parks need improvements.
Capital improvements and routine maintenance and operations are not the same thing. Not even close.
#1 Mayor Ganim’s priorities presented for public understanding. Five months, still waiting.
#2 Ganim team ran on OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE and TRANSPARENT, perhaps HONEST, as well. Where does it show up in process?
#3 Part of huge hole dug for the City in past eight years (and likely before) has been failure to perform and make public fiscal analysis including options not taken. Why are we following that path today?
#4 How has cheerleading this endeavor fallen to politico and publican Dan Roach? Dan knows “blood is thicker than water” but since when he is expert on good deals? Wasn’t he chairing the Police Commission when the latest labor contract was signed with the Police Department moving a perfectly fine and reasonably funded Pension Plan B over to the State MERS plan with Millions extra in funding nobody close to the PD ever shared? Such a good deal? Such that Tom Sherwood neglected to put all those negative numbers in last year’s budget? Just forgot? Trust but verify.
#5 This is not a chess game, but when you are moving property on the game board and there is sacrifice involved and questions as to optimum choices, let’s get the process examined in public. (August 29, 2000 then Joe Ganim as Mayor signed on to a Trust instrument to invest the proceeds of a $350 Million bond and after expenses $344 Million was invested. About 15.5 years later, after paying out retirement income annually to more than 800 retiree/surviving spouses and weathering two significant market reversals, the fund sits around $70 Million this spring, even with the City contributing $10-12 Million annually in recent years. Couple this with the fact that we have a Pension Obligation Bond payment each year that is taken from the Police and Fire Department budgets independent of annual contributions to Plan A itself and those payments total over $30 Million each year until around 2030. I mean to tell you the taxpayers of Bridgeport are repaying $30 Mill per year for 30 years for over $900 Million total to have started 16 years ago with $350 million. Interest is an expense to taxpayers! It is not a subject discussed by politicians or publicans, but perhaps it should be. Such a good deal. To whom? When does the taxpayer get a look at the deal? Time will tell.
Bridgeport was given beautiful, forested land by the Fairchild-Wheeler family when we were an emerging industrial power and expanding residential population center in the region. We were given this land by people who had the foresight and vision to realize the people of the city and the region would benefit greatly by having large, adjacent forested parcels available for city residents to benefit from the healing powers of nature. That is why Barnum gave us Seaside Park and why Beardsley gave us Beardsley Park. Ditto for the donors of our other city parks.
During our fiscal crisis of JG1, it was decided a better use for the breathtaking Fairchild-Wheeler property in Trumbull, already violated by the Route 8-25 abomination that was built by the state to increase the value of land owned by connected individuals north of the city, would be to provide more land, served by Bridgeport infrastructure, to Bob Scinto for a low-cost/high-profit corporate park that would also provide a nice little boost for the taxbase of his homeboys in Trumbull. (All at Bridgeport taxpayer expense, of course!)
The city got a little money out of the deal, barely enough to cover a half-dozen patronage jobs for a couple of years.
Now we’re apparently preparing for déjà vu all over again, with more Fairchild-Wheeler land, this time in Fairfield, all for a couple of dollars that will disappear before it can be put to any worthy, visionary, long-term use for Bridgeporters. THE WORST PART OF THIS IS THE LAND WILL BE USED BY AN ENTITY THAT IS EVEN MORE PERNICIOUS AND PARASITIC TO BRIDGEPORT THAN BORDER-BUILDING BOB SCINTO, SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY, THE POSTER-MONSTER FOR PARASITIC, NEIGHBORHOOD-BUSTING, LYING, EVIL, EGO-DRIVEN INSTITUTIONS (A NOT VERY “CATHOLIC” OR “CHRISTIAN” PLACE, WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE).
And we’re going to cede control of a huge chunk of our Veteran’s Memorial Park to the SHU monster?!
OUTRAGEOUS. IT IS SOMETHING THAT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED!! OUR “LEADERS” MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO SQUANDER OUR ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY FOR THE FURTHERING OF THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS AND FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THEIR CONNECTED FRIENDS AND POTENTIAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS/SUPPORTERS.
To sacrifice parkland for needed schools or the creation of significant numbers of permanent, living-wage jobs and taxbase for Bridgeport is within the realm of reasonable contingency considerations for a hard-pressed city, but to sell to or put environmentally valuable Bridgeport public land under the control of parasitic, hostile entities further enabling them to steal city services and resources while destroying our neighborhoods, is beyond imagination.
ANY OF OUR CITY-ELECTED LEADERSHIP, GA DELEGATION MEMBERS, AND CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE WHO VOTE FOR EITHER OF THESE SHU-BULLY ACCOMMODATIONS SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR EJECTION FROM OFFICE AND THE CREMATION OF THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS.
AND IT SHOULD ALSO BE REMEMBERED YOUR VOTER-CONSTITUENTS ARE WATCHING THE TRUMBULL SEWER DEAL AND THE O&G MOUNT-STEAL POINT/SEASIDE RECYCLING-CONTAMINATION-PLANT DEAL VERY CLOSELY.
A LOT OF BAD STUFF COMING TO A HEAD IN BRIDGEPORT AS SUMMER LOOMS IN THE “PARK” CITY.
BETTER PUT THINGS ON REWIND BEFORE THE BIG ELECTIONS THIS FALL. THINGS COULD BECOME HOT/EMBARRASSING FOR ENDORSED FRIENDS ON THE BALLOT IN BRIDGEPORT, AND EVEN HOTTER FOR THOSE RUNNING FOR GA SEATS IN BRIDGEPORT.
Are you trying to say your support of Ganim was foolish?
With all due respect Jeff, we could’ve had an honest mayor with Rick Torres but nobody in this awful city can see beyond the big D. Makes me sick.
*** New info. on SHU’s continued push for more land expansion in Bpt is really old news, no? New news should be the GOP trying to save face with so-called important meetings with Trump at the nation’s capitol before having to kiss his ass! GOP Presidential Candidate Trump will be leading his choice party of conservative misfits towards the 2016 US Presidential Election this fall. *** GOD BLESS AMERICA! ***
*** IF TRUMP WINS THIS FALL IT’S GOING TO BE A CIRCUS EVENT HEARD ‘ROUND THE WORLD, NO? ***
Mojo: “PT” Trump will retire the “elephants” from his circus and integrate the creation of a new, bizarre Cirque de Trump Party into his overall agenda. US government will become a reality show the rest of the world will not want to watch. It will lead to the birth of new “networks” that will reduce viewership of the US Network to just a handful of viewers. No one will want to play “Let’s Make a Deal” with a host who doesn’t know how to respect “players” of different religious, ethnic, and racial backgrounds and who can’t be taken seriously and at his word.
With the alternative being an equally disingenuous, untrustworthy Billary Clinton, we’ll probably see most of US Network “viewership” going to the China, Russia, and the OPEC/Terrorist networks.
Let’s hope Bernie the Magician can pull a rabbit out of his hat at the Democratic Convention and make it to the White House.
Closer to home: The fight against cancer is “old,” but there wouldn’t seem to be a choice except to redouble our efforts when the fight seems at an impasse. So it is with “cancers,” such as Sacred Heart U, that threaten our municipal viability.