City Councilman Rick Torres, who’s considering a third mayoral run, has submitted a resolution to the city’s legislative body that calls for a “Moratorium on Tax Abatements, Expansions and or Proliferations of any Not-For-Profit Organization.” His request will be referred to the Economic and Community Development and Environment Committee at Monday night’s City Council meeting. See full agenda here.
Torres, the lone Republican on the City Council representing Black Rock and a portion of the West End, ran for mayor in 2003 and 2011. Democratic Mayor Bill Finch is seeking a third four-year term next year.
An addendum to the agenda will refer to the Contracts Committee a communication from the City Attorney for proposed professional services agreements with Mandate Media. Inc. for web-based and digital marketing services, and with Gum Spirits Productions for radio and cable-based marketing services as part of a city promotional campaign. The firms were selected following a response to a request for proposals.
Members of the Sierra Club are also expected to attend the meeting urging the City Council to support a resolution to retire the “polluting Bridgeport Harbor Station coal plant” in the South End operated by PSEG, one of the city’s highest taxpayers. “Local residents are expected to fill the room to show support for the resolution that would also create and fund a transition planning process,” according to a statement by the environmental organization.
The council’s Economic and Community Development and Environment Committee last week unanimously passed the “Resolution Regarding the Coal Burning PSEG Plant in Bridgeport Harbor.” It now goes to the full council for consideration.
The resolution has no formal legal force, but opponents to the coal-burning plant hope it applies pressure on the company to transition away from coal.
A moratorium on tax breaks closes the door to any fantastic proposals coming to Bridgeport. It’s saying “no” to any worthwhile project before the developer has a chance to prove its value. Give progress a chance before rejecting it.
In a related move, don’t be surprised if PSEG switches to natural gas for purely economic reasons. Whatever makes good business sense makes good public relations, too!
Local Eyes,
Nice to have your comments as a Trumbull resident on this Bridgeport issue. Are there any tax abatements or initiatives in Trumbull at this time? What policy statement guides them? Are they strictly seat of the pants?
I notice you skipped over my specific questions about Laurelwood Apartments and made no comment. Do you approve or object to a 40-year agreement? On a property which is currently paying an unabated tax stream though owned by a “quasi-charitable” entity that is selling to an otherwise taxable entity? Where some renovations will be done but no new units? And your rationale is?
How would you rename the Office of Planning and Economic Development under the circumstances? Might they be called the Office of Tax Initiative and Abatement? And how would you feel were you to attend a town legislative committee meeting and see folks who live out of town given a chance to support the proposal, but a taxpayer refused the opportunity to address the Economic Development Committee?
Just asking for you opinion. Time will tell.
What’s the matter, John?
Are your feelings hurt?
They wouldn’t let you talk?
This is simply a city council rule. It can be changed immediately. Why don’t you talk to Rick about changing that rule???
Now John, Enrique wants a moratorium on only not-for-profits. Are you supportive of that? Or do you want a comets and unequivocal moratorium?
All those years on the City Council with not a single Republican and you didn’t get that rule changed.
Bob,
I know it is a rule of the Council and allows Chairpersons to decide (on personal whim) who and when one can speak. Is that power serving governance in Bridgeport? It is essentially the same thing the Charter Revision Committee invoked. Unnecessary if you are in favor of reasonable checks and balances.
But troll, you know as a voice of the few in the Council you can propose, but the majority disposes. Do you keep your knowledge to yourself only to spring it on others when you try to humiliate them or disparage them? Bob, that’s the behavior of a small person. Where is your larger vision and version for Bridgeport? Is it encompassed in derision?
I guess I will have to read the moratorium language first. Setting aside the decisions facing them tonight is not a bad start. By the way, do you call the Laurelwood deal “economic development” under any definition? Please explain. Time will tell.
John Marshall Lee, I know you addressed your question to Bob Walsh and he can speak for himself but you asked this question, “Do you keep your knowledge to yourself only to spring it on others when you try to humiliate them or disparage them?” JML, isn’t that what you do when you question the council at meetings?
Ron,
I don’t think so. I ask questions of the City Council I expect them to know or to have an answer to. If they fail to have such an answer, it is only then it will feel humiliating.
Ron, who instructs new Council members on finances, on the Charter, on Ordinances, etc.? It is all done piecemeal and no one shows them the quality practices that are enjoyed by citizens of neighboring communities, that could be ours, but it takes a number of votes, and Bob knows that, and I know that, and Rick knows that, and we keep pressing.
If you are suggesting from your conversations with Council persons they are upset with me, let me know the issue. I have been pitching comments for about four years now. How many have answered the email I send to each of them after every Council meeting? I am available to meet to answer a question and to acknowledge my error where I am wrong. Four years. No pushback, except for a few apologists for them who say they feel insulted. Is it possible they should feel that way? If I bring in a class of sixth graders to a City Council meeting and let them see and hear what passes for “debate or discussion” and ask them to talk with their parents about it, where would the sympathy lie? Time will tell.
Many cities do something like this: provide value and investment beyond our dreams and Bridgeport will provide you a tax incentive that makes it worthwhile for both of us, partner.
Lennie, can you post a link to the city’s tax incentive ordinance that details the specific guidelines and requirements for tax abatements?
I have mentioned in previous posts the ordinance adopted in 1991, I believe, detailed the requirements to receive consideration for tax abatements that were incentives to develop something that would result in jobs, for example.
This administration is promoting tax abatements to make projects such as apartments, including public housing replacement units, more profitable.
Unfortunately, a moratorium is necessary, given this administration is desperate for anything they can label as development, and most of the the city council is ‘on board’ having done no independent analysis.
Bloggers Beware: Tom White’s post is more anti-Finch than it is pro-Bridgeport.
“City Councilman Rick Torres, who’s considering a third mayoral run …”
Lennie, this wasn’t worthy of a full commentary?
Good job, Tom White. The most recent tax relief I am aware of is an apartment complex so the developer can realize a profit of not more than 12%. He has been warehousing the property for years, and the 10 years is about to expire on his approved variances. Some say give them the break and people will notice all the building in Bridgeport and will in theory check us out–sure. I am all for tax relief for people who want to develop business/mixed use property that will bring jobs and economic development, but NOT for private investors building apartment units, putting more demand on our services and paying in less.
Did anyone see the Himes OIB ad on the upper right side of the screen? You no longer need to click on the link to “recieve” information. You can now “Click here to get involved.” Still waiting for the thank you.
Joel, I think the campaign couldn’t agree on the spelling, so they punted the issue by removing the word.
Interesting, you have criticized me for vocalizing my disdain related to “outsiders” from Greenwich, Westport and NYC who think they know what is best for Bridgeport, yet you are clearly taking a shot at Local Eyes for residing in Trumbull. Hypocrisy???
Maria,
No hypocrisy. It’s a longstanding debate with Local Eyes that precedes your recent interest in OIB probably. LE is not bringing money to benefit Bridgeport citizens, as far as I have ever understood. So it is his opinion without funds we ‘celebrate’ on these pages. He understands that fully, I believe, and that is why he keeps pitching his concepts for free.
On the other hand if I understand your past writing, you are equally upset with the fact these are “millionaires and greater” as well as from out of town. Well wouldn’t we be happy if a few more of them would move to Bridgeport and pay taxes? We might call it economic development. Time will tell.
I have no problem with government-sponsored economic development but BPT economic development seems to cost BPT a great deal and not provide much development. As LE says, the deal is “provide value and investment beyond our dreams and Bridgeport will provide you a tax incentive that makes it worthwhile for both of us.” So if the deal cost BPT tax income and does not “provide value and investment beyond our dreams,” what do we do? It seems you just get screwed. The developer got his and BPT gets close to nothing (or less). Does the developer report on what benefit BPT got in exchange for the tax break? Is there any way BPT can get the money back if there was not enough development realized for the tax break?