It is unfortunate that in the first two weeks into his new term as Mayor, Luke Bronin had to focus on saving a team instead of building his own team. By most accounts, Luke tackled the problem head on and brought the problem to a successful resolution, at least for the immediate future I know it took a lot of work and many people working together. If it shows anything at all, I think it shows that unlike his predecessor who was always right, (or at least Pedro thought so), Bronin listened to advice and came up with a workable solution.
Is it a solution that has satisfied everyone? Of course not. But what were the alternatives? Most likely lengthy, prolonged and expensive litigation if any other course was taken. To those still challenging the Stadium, what would you propose as an alternative. And what would the costs of those alternatives be just in attorney fees and potential legal settlements?Probably much more than the estimated $5million share for taxpayers now. Litigation that would not be quick and would drag on for years.
All that time , Hartford would still be shouldering the costs of the debt on the project. There was no way we could just walk away. It was a bad , poorly conceived plan from the start, but at this point we are stuck with it.
As Mayor Bronin clearly stated, twice, during his announcement, this was not a "Mission Accomplished" chest thumping moment for Hartford. This was making the best of a bad situation without making it worse. Despite the "Done Deal" announced by Pedro Segarra, this deal was and is far from done.
The stadium deal needs strong , professional supervision to keep this project on track . Supervision that actually understands large scale Construction management and people that are not afraid to ask questions and keep the public informed. Sitting behind a dais once a month and giving defensive sound bites to the media is not suitable management. The taxpayers of Hartford need to be reassured that someone is watching their backs on this project.
That clearly has not happened to this point and to maintain the public trust and confidence it needs to happen now, and soon.If the Stadium Authority members will not voluntarily resign, the Council needs to move to rescind their appointments
In the meantime, hopefully Mayor Bronin can shut down the lemonade stand and start focusing on the necessary business at hand. Somehow, I think the lemons will keep coming as more of the Segarra years are unraveled.
Linda Bayer should run the snack bar located in the basement of city hall. Her nasty mouth and horrible people skills need to be hidden before they darken the Bronin administration .
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I agree with you, Kevin. But I don't have to suddenly accept it, support it or now, remain quiet over it. I will be the loyal opposition to it until I am buried in the ground or move and I'm sure, the latter is the most probable. If we had had a smart opposition to the stadium from the beginning and launched a letter writing campaign, emailing and phone calling effort, we would not have a stadium that will quite likely, sink the city into bankruptcy. The early opposition was clearly mesmerized by the TV cameras to care about doing the hard work of mobilizing Hartford residents to act. Their only role was to scream in front of the TV cameras. That doesn't go over well to council who do in fact, count the pros and cons of calls and letters. Money interests, i.e., the developers et al, most likely hired outside phone banks and other marketing lobby efforts. If I had been on their team, spending a million to deluge council with phoney in-city calls and letters would be the most important project to launch to succeed with a vote. It worked and I have watched similar efforts work in the past. I made my comments known to several folks but no one took them seriously. You know who I am I don't need to tell you.
ReplyDeleteDo you hate when someone says after the fact, "I told you so?" Sorry, but I to,d you so. Get acust to me saying this. I don't suffer this in silence very well.
You can say "I told you so" until you are out of breath, but that is not going to make the situation any better. I commend Luke for his first big test as Mayor,he probably swallowed deep, held his nose and did what he had to do to protect the City as well as he could. This mess wasn't of his making and both he and the new Council have to deal with it, good or bad. Once again Thank you Pedro and Shawn, we will never forget
ReplyDeleteKB, No disagreement here but I will never be a cheerleader to what may eventually be the financial nail in Hartford's casket. We might now focus how we can open up the Charter again and put restrictions that mandate all large expenditures to be voted by referendum - not by obedient councilors who think they are embarking on something great but in reality, a project so large and impossible to finance. That way, if Hartford residents want to be stupid (No Virginia, could never happen here) and vote for something they cannot afford, then at least they thrust the knife into their own selves.
ReplyDeleteHow about it, Kevin. You have the mike. Why not discuss ways to prevent something like this from ever happening again. If we don't address it, then we don't learn from our mistakes.
The City Charter apparently does require a referendum for large expenditures, but to avoid that Segarra found a loophole in CT law to circumvent the public's right to vote on such issues. That is why the Stadium Authority was created, not for oversight of the project but to skirt a referendum vote
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I will never be a cheerleader for a project that threatens to bankrupt our City, but in good conscience I can not also sabotage or doom it to failure knowing what damage its failure would cause to Hartford
ReplyDeleteThen address the "loophole." If it means goi g to the CT delegation, then it should be done because if this kind of expenditure forces or potentially forces a municipality into bankruptcy, the state will have a lot more headaches on its hands. So perhaps state law needs to be amended.
ReplyDeleteLuckily not too many municipalities have a delusional Mayor like Pedro Segarra or a lap dog rubber stamp Council, like the one we just voted out, to shove such projects trough against the will of the people that gave them the opportunity to be in office in the first place.
ReplyDeleteKevin, the point being that one individual should never have this right. If it was used and abused now, there is no reason to think that it will never be used in the future. Which means that the loophole should be closed. Let's give more credit to Pedro then he is worth and say that he really thought that this desperate decision would be the project to bring much needed development to the area as ludicrous as it sounds. And that he had no person gain getting multi million dollar contracts for his friends. Another politician though could use his influence to spend public largess like this.
ReplyDeleteClose the loophole close the loophole close the loophole. Cheeses. And by the way, I could point out a couple on council now whose light bulbs don't shine too bright.
@Anonymous 5:21 p.m. (and I know who you are). If you're not careful, you may choke on those sour grapes. It's hard to believe that you would promote blatant lying and subterfuge as the way to go, and then get upset when people decline to employ those tactics. Especially because--given the runaway train momentum to push the stadium forward--it would never have succeeded. No amount of manufactured anti-stadium phone calls, emails or letters would have swayed them from their mission. As I recall, nobody "screamed" before a camera. In fact, one of the most detrimental moments to the Stop the Stadium campaign came when a Coalition member--who quit soon after--chose to launch a personal, self-serving diatribe at a city council session, which effectively ended any further speakers' chances to have their say. It garnered a lot of negative attention for that speaker--and some press attention--which he relished. But by his actions, he sabotaged the group's hard work and left the council with the impression that the Coalition was a bunch of crackpots to be ignored. Sound familiar? I know you were there. I know you remember it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin. I was against the project From its inception but the cost of mothballing the project when the City was at least 50 percent negligent would mean much more of an expense to the City then the reasonable settlement that Luke has crafted. Luke has done a very capable job and hopefully he and the Council will reconfigure the Stadium Authority and ask for the resignation of Chairman Mathews and others who failed and neglected to monitor the stadium construction.
ReplyDeleteKevin, Mom always said that everyone should have a good laugh once a day ,so thank you for this blog. Am I supposed to believe that a "INCOMPETENT,FAILED AND BANKRUPT ATTORNEY" (PEDRO SEGARRA) "FOUND" a loophole in the law to avoid a referendum vote???? ALL ON HIS OWN?????? Kevin, please explain why Hartford has and pays for a legal department (corporation council) when every time there is a issue regarding a possible lawsuit or the cost of attorneys fees Hartford leaders cave in and pay???? EITHER CLOSE CORPORATION COUNCIL DOWN OR USE THEM!!!! Mayor Bronin needs to realize that Hartford cant afford to "PAY" ITS WAY OUT OF EVERY PROBLEM! Kevin,you stated that a fight would have been "LENGTHY,PROLONGED AND EXPENSIVE",,,,,ISNT IT FUNNY THAT THE SAME LINE COULD BE REFERING TO THE STADIUM ITSELF. ATTORNEYS ARE "OVER-RATED" !!!!!
ReplyDeleteWill Pedro Maria, Charlie O. and Linda Bayer (give me a Bayer headache pill, she makes me sick) still be allowed to run the hot dog stand in the new Bronin stadium deal?
ReplyDelete2;38pm
ReplyDeleteDo you think they are qualified?
I'm afraid their hot dog stand will compete with the sugary, fat, gazillion calories Dunkin DoNuts stand.
ReplyDeleteBronin and the new council are in a tough spot trying to save a deal that isn’t theirs. But, another $5.5 million added to the $62.4 million bonded by the stadium authority and the $10-12 million bonded for the road improvements added to the $2million for the taking of the vacant land, isn’t going to “save” this project. The underlying (horrible) deal remains in place as do the same developers, owners and managers who got us to this crisis and will bring us to the next one.
ReplyDelete@12:27AM
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't know who I am because I never attended a council meeting on topic. I never mentioned anything outlandish. I was however, frustrated by the direction the group decided not to take, which was to elicit calls, emails and letters from the community one at a time. Door knocking. Tedious yes, but politics at street level. That was the most important follow-up to getting media attention. The media was a good, no great beginning. But that alone would not sway council. As I have inarticulately stated previously, council counts the votes. They don't qualify each letter, email and call that comes in. The developers, contractors, union workers launched a tidal wave of phony contacts to city
council as they always do. Big boys playing big profitable games just like they did over the Hartford Aetna building Society for Savings wanted demolished. And the city council swallowed it hook, line and sinker like they always do. It was incumbent upon the anti stadium folks, and I was one, to counter that with our own LETTER WRITING, EMAILING AND CALLING. Trust me, that was not done. I did my own lobbying.
Kevin, Thank you for helping to put forth reason and a positive outlook to a very sore subject. Making Lemonade out of Lemons is what we all need to do with all aspects of the challenges we face in this city. If we put our energies towards ideas on solutions versus unproductive criticism can you imagine the places we can go. One of the best things my mentor and the best boss ever taught me was to come to him with suggested solutions to a problem not just the problem! Thank you Mike Vasquenza!
ReplyDeleteincumbent upon the anti stadium folks, and I was one, to counter that with our own LETTER WRITING, EMAILING AND CALLING
ReplyDelete----------------------------
I don't pay close attention to the doings of our municipal government, but it seemed to me as if the stadium proposal sprang out of nowhere. Why was it important to poach the team from New Britain, to hurry-hurry-hurry to get the thing approved, break ground, build Yard-goat Stadium with or without proper planning/financing? There was no groundswell of popular opinion demanding the thing, and there was precious little open deliberation once the hacks got out in front of it.
We do have representative government. It's important to let our representatives know how we feel, but it's about time they respected the electorate, that they were open and honest and that they acted with the modesty indicated by their accomplishments since about 1970. Hartford is a poor city. But for the financing we get from the State and the Feds we wouldn't have half the operating budget we do. (It's about time the State guys, Bronin's old boss, for example, about time they developed some modesty, too.)
We can cry about this mistake and the loophole that opened the door to ram this through. However, if we don't address this loophole, we are doomed to repeat. Apparently as I understand it, empowering the Stadium Authority allowed the mayor to maneuver around a referendum. And this "Authority" is a state statute so ultimately, a legislative modification in the law is necessary to prevent any such huge projects from be automatically implemented.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't address the loophole, we are doomed to repeat it.
Hello.
Love the analogy Kevin,but unlike lemonade ,Hartfords problems need to be sweetened with MONEY AND NOT SUGAR
ReplyDeleteLinda Bayer reads this blog. Fyi brokman. She dislikes you very much bro ...
ReplyDeleteempowering the Stadium Authority allowed the mayor to maneuver around a referendum
ReplyDelete---------------------------
Whatever the legal basis for the Authority, whatever the ins and outs of its management structure, they were never made clear to the public. Personally, I don't favor muni involvement in stadium financing, construction or management. This is particularly the case with respect to our muni. But, if it's going to be done, it should only be done with honest, open, well-informed deliberation.
-----------------
Financing. A quasi-public group known as the Hartford Stadium Authority was created last month to own and finance the ballpark. The group will borrow money and pay Centerplan Construction (part of DoNo Hartford) to build the stadium. The authority has a seven-member board composed of city officials, residents and people from the business community. The city had planned to borrow the money itself for the project, but sought private financing after receiving pressure from the public. It then decided that the developer would borrow the money and own the stadium, and the city would lease it. But officials later switched to the stadium authority plan, saying it would save money.
So much has been made, Mr Brookman, of the alledged incident at Hartford High of Linda pushing or touching someone. What exactly happened? I may have missed reading it somewhere. She fully denies this ever happening. Please tell your readers exactly what happened..
ReplyDeleteI wish to add that just because someone crosses the line of touch does not discredit them totally. I could cite numerous moments which might justify physically pushing back or just pushing. Please tell me (us) exactly what occurred.