December 28, 2009

Public hearing on Jan. 4 about Renaissance selection

The city's providing a chance for everyone to weigh in on the Bristol Downtown Development Corp.'s pick to lead the revitalization of the former mall site. The hearing is slated for January 4. Click here for the story.

*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

11 comments:

Positively Right said...

Like the Route 72 public hearing, this is nothing but a bureaucratic technicality. The public input will be totally disregarded and the plan will move forward as was already decided.

Tim Gamache said...

Then I assume you won't be in attendance.If nothing else,you might hear some credible ideas from those citizens who have an interest and voice their opinions.One can grow weary of all this "glass half empty" rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

5:36 PM Positively Stupid

There is no requirement for a hearing, it is being done so that the public is informed and citizens have input. It is NOT a technicality.

Not every idea can be useful because some people don't understand basic economics.

But I suppose you will sit on your sorry, critical ass on Monday night and wait for the news story on Tuesday so you can continue your incessant whining.

Grow up, put your big boy pants on and go the hearing and say something constructive. Otherwise shut your pie hole.

Anonymous said...

I'm going and I'm gonna speak.

Maybe Rosenthel will give me top billing in his epic production.

Anonymous said...

December 28, 2009 6:40 PM:

By your language you prove that you obviously need to grow up. I'm hoping that people like yourself are not the ones making these critical decisions...on anything.

Positively Right said...

December 28, 2009 6:40 PM:

According to Ordinance 18-192 b. 4the BDDC must "provide for input by the public...including one or more public hearings". So I am positively right and you are wrong.
http://www.ci.bristol.ct.us/filestorage/8225/BDDC_Ordinance.pdf

But you're trying to state that this "corporation" has no "technical" obligation to entertain, address or adhere to any public input what so ever. Being the benevolent dictators they are, they are kind enough to allow us (the public) to speak on this issue is what you're basically stating?

So according to you I should "shut my pie hole" (which we call know means to refrain from my right of free speech) unless I have something constructive? Since I do not according to you I should say nothing.

It is true I don't have much if anything to say positive about this. I have been outraged from the beginning of this debacle that the city spent $6.5 million purchasing this parcel. I am curious what the dollar figures are, but in the end I can only foresee the city forever being in the "red" on this.

There are only two proposals and the BDDC was probably correct on choosing one of these two in order to move forward (to coin a phrase). But the truth is that government has and had no business delving into things like this and in the end the taxpayers most likely will take the brunt of this bad government decision. That is "basic economics". I would like to hear a public apology by the members of the city council and the mayor for supporting this plan in the first place. Then we can truly move forward.

Dried Up Milkbone said...

9:17 - you do have the right to speak - just do us a favor and make some sense rather than sounding like a rabid dog looking for someone to bite - good boy, big fella, go lay down like a good doggie.

Positively Right said...

December 29, 2009 11:37 AM:

My main point here friend was that according to Ordinances created for the BDDC (18-192 b. 4, specifically) the BDDC must have pubic hearings.

Thanks,

Anonymous said...

Good going Artie, the Board speaks, the Council speaks, AND THEN the public is allowed to speak.

If you guys talk long enough, the public will all have gone home.

Good planning, I would say.

ma, she's picking on me said...

4:55 - I think that the idea is that most questions can be answered up front, eliminating grandstanding from idiots like you who should have been at prior meetings if you had so much to offer or suggest.
Seems to me that you are one of those who either breaks the glass so that they don't have to take a stand as it being half-full or half-empty or one who has been identified as the "last drip" flowing from the glass.

Anonymous said...

8:00

If YOU had been to the meetings youwould be aware that the Public speaks, and then the Board acted, and did not allow the public to speak again, after the decision was made.

Pay attention please!