US playing with fire in Ukraine

 

      By Reginald Johnson

      Commentary

   With Congress and the media egging him on,  President Joe Biden continues to pursue a reckless policy in Ukraine, increasing the chances of a catastrophic war with Russia.

       Following a virtual summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, Biden administration officials indicated that the US will continue to provide lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine which is fighting a civil war against Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country.

    The US has given over $400 million in aid to Ukraine this year. Overall, $2.5 billion in aid has been given to Ukraine since 2014 to aid the Ukrainian government in the fighting, which has left 9,000 people dead.

  The American policy of militarily aiding Ukraine, together with statements by the United States and other Western countries that Ukraine should become part of the NATO military alliance, as well as the military activity by the US and NATO near  Russia’s border,  has alarmed Russian officials who believe their nation’s security is being threatened.

  In recent weeks, there have been reports of Russian troops gathering near the border with Ukraine, and there’s been speculation Russia might invade.

  At the summit,  Biden warned Putin not to attack Ukraine as the Russians would pay a “terrible price” --- most likely harsh economic sanctions.  But National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said later that military aid would also continue as the US wanted to ensure Ukraine’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

  Clearly the Russians are on edge over Ukraine and this was made clear by Putin following the summit.

  “The threat to our Western border really grows. We have talked about it repeatedly,” said Putin.  “Just look at how close to Russian borders come NATO’s military infrastructure. We take it more than seriously.”

   The Russian leader added, “Speaking to the United States and its allies, we would insist on reaching certain agreements that prevent any expanding of the NATO to the east and deploying weapon systems threatening us close to Russia.”

The US is giving millions of dollars in arms to the Ukrainian military in their fight against pro-Russian separatists. More than 9,000 people have been killed in the conflict. (Istock photo)

  Unfortunately, except for a few notable exceptions, members of Congress in both parties have been expressing support for the Biden’s aggressive policy, denouncing so-called threatening moves by the Russians and demanding that the US stand tough against Putin.

   Two Republican senators, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, suggested that Biden consider not only sending US troops to Ukraine but also making clear to the Russians that a first-use nuclear strike by America is not out of the question.

   Many media outlets as well are demanding an aggressive American policy, with pundits condemning Russia for “aggression” and saying that the US must “hold Russia accountable” and protect Ukraine from a Russian takeover.

  Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen said Biden was trying to “appease” Putin and was “channeling Neville Chamberlain,” the British leader who gave in to Adolf Hitler when Germany began invading a number of countries in the 1930s.

  The whole debate over Ukraine has taken on a thoroughly irrational tone and people both in the media and in Congress are talking in a very irresponsible way.

  One person who is sounding the alarm about the danger of the Ukraine situation is former congresswoman and presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard.

   Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii and a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve, told Tucker Carlson of Fox News after the summit that the neo-con interventionists who dragged the US into wars in the recent past are now driving Biden’s Ukraine policy.

   “The same neocons in Washington that dragged our country into regime change wars in places like Iraq, Libya and Syria, they are the same ones pushing us very quickly into this war with Russia and never stating what is their objective, what are we trying to accomplish here and how does this serve this country’s national security interest?  Not a single one of them is pointing this out,” she said.

    Gabbard also condemned the wild comments by Wicker and Inhofe.

  She said of Wicker, “Anyone who would propose or consider what he is saying as an option must be insane, a sociopath or a sadist. Because what he’s saying here is, let’s go and launch a nuclear attack and start a war that would destroy the American people, the country, the world and also the Ukrainians so that we can save Ukraine’s democracy? It is literally insane.”

  But Gabbard noted that “Sen. Wicker is not an outlier. He is the number two Republican on the Armed Services Committee and you’re hearing the same kind of rhetoric coming from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and in the administration.”

   Katrina vanden Heuvel, editorial director and publisher of The Nation magazine, said in an interview on “Democracy Now” that the “one-sided narrative” about Ukraine presented by the media is preventing the American people from knowing the full story.

   “We have a one-sided narrative in this country which is a problem because we haven’t followed the growing mass of NATO troops on Ukraine’s Russia border. This escalation is neither in the United States national interest nor security interest at a time when politics, a political solution and diplomatic solution is the only way forward.”

  Vanden Heuvel said it was important to remember the history of the region and acknowledge that Russia may have reason for being suspicious about Western intentions in Ukraine. She pointed out that a previous pledge made over 30 years ago by former Secretary of State James Baker to Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev after the reunification of Germany that NATO would not bring in countries from the old Soviet bloc, was violated.

   “James Baker promised NATO would not expand ‘1 inch eastward.’ That promise, which is documented in the National Security Archives and in Condi Rice’s book and other materials was violated. I think that is the original sin of what we witnessed today,” she said.

   After Baker’s pledge, NATO absorbed several of the old Iron Curtain countries as members including Poland, Romania and the Baltic nations. Now there is talk about Ukraine entering the alliance..

   “It is hard for Americans to understand that NATO expansion and what it means to Russia having a mass of NATO troops on the border,” she said.

   While there has been a constant flow of stories in the mainstream press reporting “Russian troops massing along the border” with Ukraine in preparation for a possible invasion, there has been almost no coverage of activity by NATO troops near the border nor of US warships entering the Black Sea, which borders Russia. The Russian Navy is based at Sevastopol on the Black Sea. Reports of US and NATO  activity were found only in the military press.

   Obviously, the NATO and US military activity is highly provocative. As Democracy Now co-host Juan Gonzalez noted, the US navy going into the Black Sea  “is tantamount to a Chinese or Russian military ship buildup in the Gulf of Mexico.”

    Vanden Heuvel commented that the “undereporting of US involvement is a missed service and a disservice to the American people because they are getting everyday --- I picked up the papers this morning --- it’s Russian aggression, Russian aggression. There is Russian aggression, but there is US complicity with drones and non-letal weapons.”

  Another key element to the Ukraine story that has not been covered --- in fact it’s been covered up --- is how did Ukraine wind up with a government hostile to Russia and pro-US?  The previous, democratically-elected government, headed by Victor Yanukovych and pro-Russia, was overthrown in a violent coup in 2014. The putsch was aided and abetted by the CIA and the US National Endowment for Democracy.

  The incoming regime, whose members included a number of neo-fascists, subsequently began taking military aid from the US to assist in its fight to quell the rebellion by ethnic Russians in Donbas.

 

   

     

Battle rages to save Remington Woods

 

 By Reginald Johnson 

 

     BRIDGEPORT ---- Zoning officials will likely decide the fate of Remington Woods next week following a hearing where dozens of people spoke passionately in favor preserving the more than 400-acre tract along the Stratford border.

 The Planning and Zoning commission has scheduled a meeting for Monday, November 29 at 6:30 pm to continue discussion on and likely vote on the proposed new city zoning regulations, which include a rezoning of the Remington Woods tract from industrial to commercial.

  If approved, that change is likely to pave the way for a subsidiary of the DuPont Corporation to develop the woods for corporate offices. DuPont is the owner of the property, which has sat untouched for decades after the Remington Arms company used the woods for munitions testing.

 Preservationists from Bridgeport and other communities attended a zoning hearing on the new regulations on November 16 and 17 to adamantly oppose the zone change for the woods and demand that the area be kept as a natural wildlife preserve. The speakers said preserving the mature hardwood forest is vital in the battle to combat climate change and reduce the effects of air pollution which triggers health problems such as asthma.

   “The woods are home to endangered box turtles, a family of bald eagles, fox, deer, over 70 species of birds and thousands and thousands of trees,’’ said Beth Lazar of Bridgeport.

  The Remington Woods area, Lazar said, “should be zoned in its entirety as a nature preserve and not as a park as they are two different things. Parks have roads, picnic areas and spaces for events. Remington Woods should be a protected living community for plants and animals.”

  A member of the group Preserve Remington Woods, Lazar noted that 17% of the office space in Bridgeport is now vacant and there are many vacant lots. “Why doesn’t Bridgeport rehab the spaces for commercial use rather than knocking down the forest?”

   Lazar said over 1000 people have signed a petition asking that the Remington ship Woods forest be preserved.

   She told the commissioners “in this age of climate change crisis, high pollution and asthma rates in Bridgeport, it is unconscionable to knock down the forest.”

  Some top elected officials have swung their support behind efforts to save Remington Woods. Councilwoman Maria Pereira, who represents the area where the Remington forest is located, said U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D – Connecticut, has sent a letter to both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that Remington Woods be protected as a nature and wildlife preserve.

The lake at Remington Woods

  But the city’s proposed plan appears to strike a compromise between those who want to preserve the woods completely and the corporate owners who are seeking development. The zoning plan calls for changing the area from light industrial to residential-office center.

   City Planner Lynn Haig, from the Office of Planning and Economic Development, said the Sporting Goods company, DuPont’s subsidiary which is now remediating the site, has said it prefers to maintain some form of light industrial zoning because “it is the most permissive current code we currently have.”

  According to the Connecticut Post, Haig told the commission that the current zoning classification “allows intense development without any conservation. We have proposed a clean mixed-use zone that requires the owner to submit a master plan to the planning and zoning commission for its review and approval.”

  Haig said that any such plan would have to include open space.

According to the Post, Haig said “The city cannot take the further step some would advocate and just zone the property as parks and open space.”

  She said that not only would that remove the economic potential from the Remington site, but such a classification might be legally challenged as a form of “reverse condemnation.”

   But several speakers, including some from out of town, expressed astonishment that Bridgeport was on the verge of allowing such a beautiful and extensive forest area, which includes a lake, to be developed.

  Stanley Heller of Danbury, from the organization Promoting Enduring Peace, said it was vital to preserve mature trees in the battle against global warming. “Preservation of mature woods like the one in Bridgeport is essential. It would be an outrage to destroy the thousands of trees there to develop some office park or cemetery or dump.”

  He added, “With what we know about the growing perils of the world climate the destruction of Remington Woods could be considered a possible international crime. Preserve the woods intact. All of it.”

 Scott Ward of West Haven said it was his understanding that the Remington Woods site contains some archaeological significance. “That alone should stop everything,” he said.

  Ward said that when all factors are taken together --- the fight against climate change, improving air quality, preserving a beautiful forest and wildlife, together with the possible archaeological considerations, it’s clear that the Remington Woods forest should be completely preserved.

  “It’s almost embarrassing your town is in this situation,” he commented.

A road into Remington Woods

   Speakers said Bridgeport officials should take heed of what came out of the recently concluded COP 26 conference on global warming in Scotland. World leaders there pledged to end deforestation --- a process which leads to carbon build-up and rising temperatures.

  Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim attended that conference and was quoted in the Connecticut Post as justifying his overseas trip because municipal leaders, he said, have a “role to play” in setting policies relating to climate change.

  But Callie Heillman, of Bridgeport Generation Now, took Ganim to task. “While the mayor is correct that there is a role that we all play, the reason why there is such a groundswell of people testifying on this issue tonight and submitted comments is there is a complete lack of commitment from the administration to fully preserve the woods.”

  She added,  “To say we will work with the property owners to develop a plan which will include open space is not the same as a commitment to working with organizations here on the ground… to come up with a plan that would acquire and protect the woods.”

  Pereira criticized the zoning commission for failing to make sure that all the phone lines were working for the hearing which was done by Zoom. She said that some of her constituents were not able to get through on the toll-free numbers.

  “This is a violation of public hearing access laws under the Freedom of Information act. This meeting is illegal,” she said.

   Commissioners said later that they had addressed the problem of the phone lines.

 Pereira also spoke in favor of preserving Remington Woods and described how the construction and remediation work that has gone on so far has exacerbated flooding in the upper East Main Street area in the district that she represents.

  Spokesmen for the Sierra Club and the Greater Bridgeport NAACP also lent their support to the preservation effort.

 A spokeswoman for the Sierra Club testified that “Bridgeport has some of the dirtiest air in the country and high rates of health disparities that make Bridgeport residents highly susceptible to health crises like Covid 19 and we know that in situations like this frontline communities suffer the most,”

  She added “although development of the woods is being touted as an economic gain for the area the communities will ultimately gain no benefit and potentially will have to pay the cost for over development.”

 

 

 

 

   

 

Remington Woods faces development

  

By Reginald Johnson 

     BRIDGEPORT ----- One of the region’s largest tracts of open space --- home to deer, turkey, fox and thousands of hardwood trees ---- could soon be commercially developed if city zoning officials give the go-ahead.

  The 347-acre Remington Woods tract, in the northeastern corner of the city, has sat largely untouched for decades since the Remington Arms company stopped using the forest to test-fire guns and ammunition.

  Now, a subsidiary of the Dupont Corporation, which owns Remington, wants to develop the site for corporate offices. The city’s zoning office in turn has offered a tentative plan to reezone the area as commercial.

 The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a hearing on the rezoning plan at 6 pm on Tuesday. A decision on the proposal will likely be made after the hearing.

  A number of preservationists are expected to speak out against the plan, saying the loss of such a large amount of green space would be an environmental disaster.

  Lela Florel, of the group Preserve Remington Woods said that the rezoning plan would lead to the destruction of  “20,000 existing trees, the eco system, thousands of birds and other wildlife  (all wildlife populations are plummeting with extinctions raging).”

  Florel went on,  “It would destroy all the life services the forest community provides to the people. Like cleaning some of the dirtiest air in the country, cooling rapidly heating air, stabilizing local climate, sequestering carbon etc. These things are real and effect the physical and mental health of people all in a time when reforestation has finally become a national priority because of the climate catastrophe.”

   Florel’s group has collected 1,087 signatures mostly from Connecticut residents but from some around the world who want to save Remington Woods.

  “Almost all the people on the street we’ve talked to in Bridgeport and beyond are overwhelmingly for preserving the Woods,” she said.

   Also expected to lobby for protecting Remington Woods is the group Bridgeport Generation Now. “We want all 422 acres zoned as green space,” wrote the group on its website.

    The 422-acre figure is a reference to not only the Bridgeport tract but another nearly 80 acres that are just over the border line in Stratford, also owned by DuPont.

The lake at Remington Woods

   Meanwhile, one of Bridgeport’s top elected officials is complaining that the Bridgeport zoning office failed to tell him about pending changes in zoning for Remington Woods, when he made a general inquiry about zoning changes throughout the city in October.

  State Sen. Dennis Bradley, D-Bridgeport, said when he met with city officials including the director of planning, “there was no disclosure of the zoning plans surrounding Remington Woods.”

  “It is disparaging for the city and their respective department representatives to not disclose such a grave issue to an elected official,” complained Bradley in a letter to the Zoning Department dated November 12.

   Bradley said it is vital that the residents of Bridgeport have a voice and “buy-in” in major changes made to planning and zoning.

  “Although I am one to believe that development is a necessary endeavor to improve Bridgeport residents’ quality of life, I hold in higher regard transparency and an environmental justice approach to planning and zoning for our already limited green spaces,” he said. “I urge Zone Bridgeport and the city to reconsider their priorities and provide the community and their voices a larger stake in these conversations before plans are finalized,” Bradley said.

  (People can participate in the zoning hearing via Zoom. For more information go to preserveremingtonwoods.com)

      

 

Twenty years on, 9/11 still a mystery

 

    By Reginald Johnson

 Like so many Americans, my wife and I were glued to our TV today, watching several hours of coverage of the 20^th anniversary observances of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, which caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people.

  It was so moving to hear the readings by the survivors of workers who died at the World Trade Center in New York and the recollections about the heroic firefighters who ran into the twin towers as they were engulfed in flames to rescue people. It was also powerful to be reminded of the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93 who stopped the terrorists who were flying that plane before it could reach the Capitol, and died as the plane crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

  But as I saw the footage replayed of the planes crashing into the trade center and saw huge fireballs explode around the towers --- forcing people to choose between being burned alive or jumping to their death --- my old feelings of anger about this event resurfaced.

   How on earth did this all happen? Why weren’t we better prepared?

        

The World Trade Center on fire on Sept. 11, 2001

 (Photo by Wikimedia Commons).

 

How did four planes get taken over by terrorists on the same morning, with three of them reaching their destinations (New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.), without them being stopped or shot down by our air defenses? The US has the greatest military in the world and the greatest Air Force in the world. Just how did our air defenses fail so miserably?

  Why didn’t the administration of Pres. George W. Bush have the nation better prepared for a terrorist attack? There were ample warnings in 2001 that something was imminent. In the spring, a report had come out by a bi-partisan committee headed in part by former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart that said it wasn’t a question of if there was going to be an attack on the United States, but only when.  In early August, the CIA briefed President Bush with a report that said the system was “blinking red” and a terrorist attack was imminent. Why didn’t Bush and his administration have the United States military go on high alert for a possible attack and set in motion strict security measures for airports and other key locations?

  I’ve faulted the CIA for a number of things over the years, but on this one, they got it right.

  I remember National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice calling for an emergency meeting on September 10^th to discuss possible terrorist threats. September 10th ??

  Also, how was it that three buildings at the World Trade Center collapsed so easily?  Two of the buildings were hit by planes and erupted into fire. But these buildings were monster structures composed of massive amounts of concrete and steel, 110 stories high, and it is still mystifying to me that a strike by an airplane and resulting fire would be enough to bring those structures down. There were reports by many eyewitnesses that they heard explosions in the buildings after the planes hit. Were there bombs planted in the towers to trigger an implosion? That possibility was never investigated.

     Lending credence to that theory is that Building Seven, which was not struck by a plane, collapsed later in the day. A few fires had started in the building as a result of sparks and flaming debris flying from the towers, but this hardly seems enough to bring down a huge steel and concrete building.

  If bombs were planted, it means there were accessories to the attack. People on the ground assisting the suicide bombers. Again, not investigated.

  Also puzzling about the 9/11 attacks is the performance of the FBI. The bureau had received reports from its field agents during the summer of 2001 that some of the people who later piloted the terror planes or were associated with those people, were training at flight schools in Arizona and Minnesota and acting in a very bizarre manner. Warnings were sent to higher-ups that these people should be watched closely. But apparently this was not done. This is gross incompetence.

  So there are still so many questions about Sept. 11 and it’s deeply troubling that they have never been answered.

  My wife, who is from Europe, said it best.

 “How could this have happened to the United States?” she asked.

Indeed.

We need to get to the bottom of exactly what happened on 9/11.

   

   

Protesters demand end to US blockade of Cuba

 

 By Reginald Johnson

 

   NEW HAVEN --- Daily news reports out of Miami have shown Cuban-Americans waving flags and marching loudly in support of the anti-government protests in Cuba.

 Demonstrators have denounced Cuban leaders for allegedly ruining the economy of Cuba and openly call for the United States to invade the island and topple the communist regime.

  Getting little attention from the media have been demonstrations in the US expressing support for Cuba’s government and demanding that the United States end its hostile policy towards the Caribbean nation.

 One of those rallies took place in New Haven last week, where a group of about a dozen activists marched to the office of Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn and urged her to lobby for relaxing harmful sanctions against Cuba and ending the 60-year-old trade embargo against Cuba.

  “The protest was very good,’ said Henry Lowendorf, chair of Greater New Haven Peace Council. “We had a couple of Cuban flags and we had one sign that said “Stop the Embargo --- Stop the Blockade.”

  A representative from DeLauro’s office came out and listened to the group make their case for changing American policy towards Cuba.

 “We pointed out that Rosa had signed a letter in March of this year along with 78 other members of Congress calling on President Biden to get rid all these restrictions, restrictions which Trump generated and pursue normalization of relations,” said Lowendorf.

  “But Biden has not done that,”  he said, adding that the president has instead “doubled-down” on the Trump sanctions, which include prohibiting the mailing of remittances from Cuban families in the US to their relatives in Cuba and closing down US tourism to the nation.

 Those sanctions have had a devastating effect on the Cuban economy.

 The end of the congressional letter called for an end to the US trade embargo in effect since 1961 --- one of the longest-standing trade embargoes in history.

  The blockade has crippled the ability of the Cuban government to trade with other nations and obtain badly-needed food and medical supplies. Right now, the government is unable to administer COVID vaccines due to a lack of syringes.

 “We need to take the knee of the United States off the neck of the Cuban people, because we’re asphyxiating them,” said Lowendorf. “This is Derek Chauvin on George Floyd on an international level.”

  Lowendorf said the group wants DeLauro “to follow up on the letter, pressure the White House and publicly announce that she’s done this. There’s no reason why she should not do a news release on this.”

  

Scene from Havana, Cuba. The nation has been under economic siege by the US for 60 years. (Photo from cubaeducationaltravel.com) 

 The rally also saw remarks by a Cuban who lives in the US and is “very much opposed to the embargo and efforts to destroy the Cuban people,” said Lowendorf.

  Also speaking was John Lugo, of Unidad Latina en Accion, an immigrant rights group. Speaking in Spanish, Lugo  “related what’s happening in Cuba and what’s happening elsewhere in Latin America from the point of view of immigrants who have to leave their country often because of actions that the United States takes that puts them in a position of either to flee or to die.”

  Another rally supporting Cuba will take place this Thursday at the federal building at 141 Church Street at 4:30 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City panel violates FOI law, slammed for secrecy

 

BRIDGEPORT REPORT

 

  

  By Reginald Johnson

   BRIDGEPORT ---- A little-known City Hall committee which makes key decisions on multi-million dollar school construction projects is routinely violating the state freedom of information law by failing to post timely minutes of its meetings.

   The School Building Committee, which is now working on the $127 million Bassick High School project, has been weeks and even months late in filing its minutes for regular meetings this year.

  The state Freedom of Information Act stipulates that all public agencies must file their minutes for public inspection within seven days of their meetings.

   The Pequonnock has filed a complaint about the school building committee’s late filings with the state Freedom of Information Commission. That agency enforces the state FOI law, which guarantees that the meetings and records of all local and state agencies be open and accessible to the public.

  Meanwhile, a City Council member is blasting the building committee for a "lack of transparency" and calling for changes in the committee’s power.

  Councilman Jorge Cruz of the South End said not only is the committee failing to provide a record of their meetings by the legal deadline, but presenting minutes which are, in his view, very inadequate.

  “I personally was in two of the building committee meetings and I heard a lot of discussions regarding funding for Bassick High school and the relocation to the University of Bridgeport.  The minutes I have reviewed have left out the details of the discussions and I find it offensive to me and to the residents of Bridgeport Connecticut. The question is WHY?” Cruz asked

  The councilmember went on to say, “I am feeling very uncomfortable with the fact that the building committee has sole independence of approving and allocating large sums of money without any full Council discussions and approval it is time for this Council to revisit the responsibilities of the building committee and make the necessary changes so that the building committee exercises a more transparent approach for the betterment of our integrity.”

Bassick High School. City officials plan to replace this with a new $127 million facility at the University of Bridgeport. The committee planning this project has been violating the state freedom of information law by withholding minutes of its meetings for weeks and months at a time. 

 Unlike the Board of Education, the School Building Committee is not well-known to the public, though the panel makes major decisions about the use of city funds for new schools.

 The committee is a hybrid group, composed of City Council members, Board of Education members, city development officials, and others.

  Trying to find information about the committee from the city’s website, both its meeting schedules and minutes, is not easy. This reporter was told earlier in the year that the committee is under the umbrella of the City Council. But on the city website, the City Council does not include the School Building Committee as one of its committees.

  Only at the bottom of the page covering council committees and their members, is is there a reference to the School Building Committee, under the title “Liaisons to various boards and committees.” There you find three councilmembers, Marcus Brown, Aidee Nieves and Ernest Newton listed as being members of the School Building Committee.

 But under the category  “City Departments, Agencies and Offices”, on the city website, the school building committee is not listed.

  Information about meeting notices and minutes of the group was finally located by scrolling under the subject “City Council” and then “Agendas and Minutes” and finding “School Building Committee,” along with a hodgepodge of other city offices, not listed in alphabetical order.

   Over the past year, the School Building Committee has taken important actions relating to the construction of a new Bassick High School.  Last year, after the Ganim administration abruptly reversed course and decided to build a new high school at the University of Bridgeport and not on a site on State Street, the committee authorized the payment of $6 million of city funds to acquire land for construction.

   The action became controversial when several current and former council members said the committee by itself could not approve the $6 million payment to UB. The transaction had to be approved by the City Council, they said, and since it wasn’t, the expenditure was illegal.

  City Council Member Maria Pereira claimed that the FBI is investigating the legality of the $6 million payment, but federal officials would not confirm this.

  Recently, the School Building Committee approved a proposal to add another $12 million to the Bassick project as well as plans to demolish dormitories at UB to make way for the school.

  In contrast to other public bodies, such as the City Council and the Board of Education, the minutes of the school building committee are spare and provide little detail. There is no recounting of back-and-forth discussions between committee members.

 The minutes of the school committee do record the votes that have taken place and the names of the people attending. As such, the panel is probably meeting the minimal requirements for the contents of minutes set forth in the state FOI law.

   Attempts to reach committee co-chair Aidee Nieves (who is also city Council President) for comment were unsuccessful.

   

 

 

 

   

   

 

F.B.I. probing $6 million payment to UB, says council member

 

         BRIDGEPORT REPORT

 

 By Reginald Johnson

 

   BRIDGEPORT ---- The F.B.I. is investigating the city’s payment of $6 million to the University of Bridgeport for land to build a new high school, according to a city council member.

  “Please note that I have it on good authority that the illegal $6,000,000 purchase of TWELVE U.B. parcels is ALREADY under investigation by the F,B.I. and I am all in for it,” wrote Councilwoman Maria Pereira in a letter to other members of the City Council, following a contentious meeting of the council’s budget committee Monday night.

  Pereira, a few other members of the council and some community leaders have been questioning the legality of the payment to UB ever since it was authorized by the city’s School Building Committee in July of last year. The money was intended to purchase property that would allow for the construction of a new Bassick High School.

 Pereira and others charge that the school building committee did not have the authority on its own to authorize the payment by the city and that the full City Council had to approve the payment before it was made, under the terms of the City Charter.

  Pereira, who represents part of the East Side, said in an interview that she did not make a complaint to the F.B.I., but fully backs a federal probe.

  “I have no doubt that the school building committee had zero authority to authorize a land acquisition to purchase 12 parcels of UB property for $6 million without any City Council approval. I’m 100% positive it was illegal,” said Pereira.

  An F.B.I. official at the Bridgeport office would not comment on any possible investigation.

  “We would not give any information out on something like that, one way or the other,” the official said.

  Jorge Cruz, a council member from the South End, backs the idea of a federal probe.

   “Definitely it needs to be investigated,” said Cruz, who has been a critic of the Bassick High School plan and also raised concerns about the $6 million payment.

  Cruz and others such as the Rev. D. Stanley Lord, president of the Bridgeport NAACP, said they wondered why the deed of sale for the property purchased said the tract was conveyed for $1, not $6 million.

  “What was that?” said Lord.

  The property in question sits off of Lafayette and Broad streets, and includes several UB dorms and the university soccer field. Under the tentative plans for the new high school, the dorms would be demolished.

The property at the University of Bridgeport purchased by the city for the new Bassick High School.

   The high school project at UB was pegged at a cost of $115 million, derived from both state and city funding. But city officials right now are moving to spend another $8 million on construction, though Pereira claims the figure is actually $12 million.

  The increase in spending was the subject of a May meeting of the school building committee, a group that is composed of city council members, Board of Education officials and city development representatives.

Several attempts to obtain the minutes of that meeting have been unsuccessful and as of Tuesday, the minutes were not posted on the city website.

  The committee is in violation of state law in this regard, since the state freedom of information act stipulates that minutes of all municipal committees have to be made publicly available within seven days of a meeting.

   Cruz said he and Council Member Alfredo Castillo have been trying to get the school committee minutes for weeks, but have been rebuffed.

  Cruz went to the City Clerk's office to find out what was going on.

  "The supervisory clerk told me they (the committee) decide when they want to send minutes in --- sometimes weeks, sometimes months," Cruz said.  "I asked why is that. She said,  'I don't know, that's the way they do it. We keep telling them they have to submit on time because of FOIA'. "

   The move to spend more money by the city on the Bassick project was also taken up by the City Council’s budget and appropriations committee on Monday night. City officials laid out their plan to spend another $8 million, to remediate the UB property and demolish buildings. That proposal was approved, but not before Pereira raised several objections, in which she referred to the original bonding that was set aside for the Bassick project and specifically what the city council had approved.

  When she referenced the recent indictment of State Sen. Dennis Bradley, D- Bridgeport on wire fraud charges and said that the F.B.I. should now be interested in what she claimed was an unlawful transfer of city money in the $6 million payment, council member and committee co-chair Ernest Newton said she was out of order by bringing up the Bradley case. The other co-chair, councilmember Scott Burns would not allow her to speak any further, saying “you’re not a member of the committee.”

 Pereira said in her letter to the full council that her constitutional right to free speech had been violated and her right to speak as a city council member under the city charter had also been violated.

  Aidee Nieves, president of the city council and a co-chair of the school building committee, could not be reached for comment on Pereira's claims of an unlawful payment by the city to UB, or about the lack of timely minutes of school building committee meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

Can we be honest on Memorial Day?

By Reginald Johnson 

 

I have a couple of objections to Joe Biden's Memorial Day address.

 First, he said our fallen military men and women died fighting to preserve democracy. No, unfortunately, except for World War II, that's not true. They died, very tragically, in wars that were fought to preserve corporate access to cheap resources (see oil) and cheap labor and prevent the advancement of socialist or populist governments that posed a direct threat to corporate profits.

Iraq, one year after US invasion. (Getty Images)

  Second, I found it duplicitous and outrageous that he would pull a card from his pocket to remind him, he said, of the number of Americans who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Biden --- along with Hillary Clinton and other Democrats --- who voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2003, despite ample evidence at the time that the pretext for that war --- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction --- was a lie.

I'm all in favor of honoring our war dead and veterans, but I am sick and tired of hearing politicians making self-serving and dishonest speeches about war on Memorial Day.

UB property buy violates city charter, leaders say

 

BRIDGEPORT REPORT

 

   By Reginald Johnson

 

  BRIDGEPORT ----- The administration of Mayor Joseph P. Ganim violated the city charter by failing to secure City Council approval for spending $6 million to purchase property from the University of Bridgeport to build the new Bassick High School.

 That’s the view of several current and former City Council members, who commented on the decision of the school building committee last year to pay the University of Bridgeport $6 million in order to acquire a parcel off Broad Street to build the new $115 million facility.

  The officials said that the committee, which is a subcommittee of the City Council composed of both administration officials and Board of Education officials, did not have the authority on its own to spend the money.

  Councilwoman Maria Pereira, D-138, said the charter is clear on this issue.

 “It is land acquisition. If you look at the city charter there is only one entity that could purchase municipal land or sell municipal land and that’s the City Council. I don’t care whether they want to sell a $40,000 a lot, or whatever, it has to go through the City Council that’s the law.” she said.

 Pereira said that originally in 2017 the City Council authorized a $27.5 million bond for construction of a new Bassick and it didn’t include anything for land acquisition, as there was consideration for building a new high school at the existing city-owned site on Fairfield Avenue. She said that later in early 2020 finance officials asked for an additional $5 million for the project, citing increased costs, but nothing was mentioned about land acquisition.

 “We weren’t informed --- it was never brought up,” Pereira said. “And clearly they already knew in February that they were going to pursue purchasing that land (at UB) for $5 million, okay, and they were hiding it. So this is all secretive.”

  Pereira continued, “until they have a press conference on July 6 last year with UB acknowledging that they were going to move Bassick there, I as an elected official had absolutely no idea this was going on. None.”

 Former councilmember and state representative Chris Caruso also said that the City Council should have reviewed the expenditure before it was approved since councilmembers “have budgetary responsibility for all the expenditures of the Corporation, in this case the city.”

  “And a committee of the Council cannot waive that responsibility,” Caruso said.  

 Some councilmembers and other individuals are reportedly in the process of filing a lawsuit to have the purchase reversed and an order be given that the Council review any land acquisition payment before it is made. However, it could not be confirmed that any court filing has actually taken place so far.

 Councilwoman Aidee Nieves, D-137, president of the City Council and also chairman of the school building committee, could not be reached for comment on the Bassick-UB issue.

 The purchase of the property at UB and payment to the university comes at a time when the University of Bridgeport --- which has been in financial trouble in recent years --- is about to be taken over by Goodwin University of East Hartford.

  Goodwin is partnering with Paier College of Hamden to buy UB, pending the granting of all needed accreditations.

The University of Bridgeport

 There has been significant criticism from leaders in the community about the Goodwin merger, with concerns being raised about whether Goodwin is strong enough academically to take over the University of Bridgeport. Officials of the NAACP and minority members on the city Council are also worried that the minority community will not be served by the new university.

  There is also some suspicion about Goodwin’s intentions in buying UB, with leaders such as the Rev. D. Stanley Lord, the president of the Bridgeport NAACP, saying that the upstate college is interested in acquiring valuable waterfront real estate and then profiting from selling properties later on.

 Goodwin officials have vehemently denied that claim and said they are only interested in building a strong academic institution in Bridgeport.

  Goodwin is intending to spend $52 million to acquire UB and is obtaining financing from Citizens Bank. Citizens Bank in turn has agreed to write off $30 million of UB debt.

  The property deed that was filed with the Town Clerk’s office regarding the property transaction for the new high school has raised some eyebrows. The deed in question says that the university was giving the land to the City of Bridgeport for one dollar, not $6 million.

  John Weldon, the chairman of the Bridgeport Board of Education and a member of the school building committee, said he did not know why the deed was written the way it was. “I can’t speak to what the rationale would be for that.  It’s just more like a legalese question. I’m sure there’s a rationale. I just don’t know what it is.” he said.

   Meanwhile, community leaders and city councilmembers are criticizing Mayor Ganim and Robert Berchem, head of the UB Board of Trustees, for being in a conflict over the Bassick situation and UB.

  “I think what we have here is the chair of UB is Bob Berchem with Berchem and Moses law firm. They are the law firm for the Board of Education that Joe Ganim got in there for them and they get millions from the city on an annual basis,” said Pereira. “So he’s chairman of the board of UB, he co-chaired a major fundraiser for Joe Ganim at Brewport when Joe Ganim was running for mayor in 2019 and Joe Ganim is serving as an adjunct professor at UB and serving on their board. So this is rife with conflict, right?”  

  Berchem could not be reached for comment about the Bassick property acquisition by the city and the claims about a conflict of interest.

 Ganim, as well, has not been available for comment.

  Caruso said that if the charter was violated with the Bassick property acquisition,  it isn’t the first time. “Time and time again you’ve seen it.  You saw it with the selection of a police chief, with the mayor just ignoring the charter. You see it with the civil service system and acting positions are created rather than permanent positions, again in violation of the charter.

 “And the list goes on and on,” Caruso said. “As long as this frankly lawlessness exists then you can’t expect too much, you can’t get too upset. Because frankly the people that are responsible to be the loyal opposition, to be that oversight, are MIA, they are missing in action.”

 In other developments at UB, Councilman Jorge Cruz, D-131, was unsuccessful recently in trying to get the Council to approve setting up a task force to study the idea of the city taking over the University of Bridgeport.

 Cruz, who has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Goodwin merger, proposed a resolution to set up a task force in the council’s education and social services committee “to review and recommend specific strategies to acquire the charter and assets of the University of Bridgeport…”

  However, Cruz withdrew his resolution when the city attorney advised that such a task force would not be appropriate. Other councilmembers also were not receptive to the idea of a public takeover, Cruz said.

 The city attorney did say however that it would be possible to set up an informational session in which there could be a discussion of ways that the city might assist the University of Bridgeport achieve better management.

The South End councilman said he is disappointed that the mayor and other members of the council are not more receptive to the idea of a public takeover, which he thinks would be doable.

“It would be like CUNY,” said Cruz, referring to the publicly owned City University of New York.

 

 

 

 

 

Leaders call out Bassick High School decision

 

 BRIDGEPORT REPORT

 

 

By Reginald Johnson

 

 

   BRIDGEPORT --- Months after city officials quietly decided to locate the new Bassick High School next to the University of Bridgeport, there are rumblings of discontent.

     A group of community leaders are asking why there was a sudden change to move the new high school from a previously discussed open space location on State Street to property at UB, which includes the university soccer field and several dorms.

   Though they don’t have proof, members of the group also think that Mayor Joseph P. Ganim was secretly involved in the decision to move Bassick to the UB site, instead of the parcel on State Street, where the Harvey Hubbell factory once stood.

  If so, they say, Ganim is in a conflict since he sits on the University of Bridgeport board in addition to being the city’s chief executive officer.

 “The Bassick location was going to be on State Street on the old Hubbell factory site but all of a sudden there was a change and they went to UB,” said the Rev. D. Stanley Lord, president of the Greater Bridgeport NAACP.  “They won’t give a real reason … (Hubbell) was the site and two weeks later it was UB.”

  “This whole deal stinks and it stinks of the mayor --- because the mayor sits on the board of UB so it’s all a conflict of interest. The attorneys involved work for the city and have ties with UB. They’re all in a conflict of interest,” said Lord.

 Ganim could not be reached for comment on Lord’s comments or on the Bassick decision-making process.

  Lord and others in the group --- which includes a state senator and some city council members --- say they also want answers on the nature of the transaction where the city paid $6 million for the UB property. The School Building Committee, a subcommittee of the city council,  approved of the payment by the city to UB, but the deed of sale shows that the land was conveyed by UB to the city for one dollar, not $6 million.

  “We paid $6 million for it but the deed says it was gifted for one dollar. How does that happen?” asked Lord.

   When asked why the deed of sale said $1 as opposed to $6 million, John Weldon, chairman of the Board of Education and a member of the School Building Committee, said: “I wasn’t aware of that, no. I can’t speak to what the rationale would be for that, it’s just more like a legalese question. I’m sure there’s a rationale, I just don’t know what it is.”

  Weldon was asked whether the mayor was involved in any of the decision-making on locating the new high school at UB. “I don’t believe so, no,” he answered.

   “My understanding is that OPED  (the city Office of Planning and Economic Development) was really in the trenches doing the legwork, negotiating with the University, doing the surveys, the appraisals and all that stuff. It was strictly a business transaction on the city’s end,” he said.

  Plans call for the new high school to be built on a site on Broad and Lafayette Streets, just off Seaside Park in the South End, at a cost of $115 million. The area now includes the UB soccer field and a number of university dorms. Three of the dorms --- Bodine, North and South Halls would be torn down to make space for the 200,000 square-foot facility.

  

One of the UB dorms that will be demolished to make way for the new Bassick High School

   Prior to last summer’s decision to place the high school at UB, there were years of public discussion about what to do with the currrent Bassick high school on Fairfield Avenue, which was deemed out-of-date and inadequate. Some felt the present building, which has historic qualities, should be rehabilitated and saved. Others thought the building should be torn down and a new facility built there.

  Later the focus turned to possibly building it on the Hubbell site, not far away in the West End. The city began negotiating with the owner on a purchase and that’s where matters stood early last year.

  Then apparently the idea of going to UB came up. The proposal was not publicly aired. The School Building Committee, meeting in closed session, approved the UB plan and site acquisition in July.

  State Sen. Dennis Bradley, D-Bridgeport, who was previously on the Board of Education, sat through many of the discussions on Bassick and said he’s not happy with the city’s decision and the way it was arrived at.

  “We had meetings until 2 and 3 in the morning debating those issues...after community input we come to find out in the ninth hour that the city of Bridgeport building department committee has switched the location to the UB campus, spend whatever, another $7 or $8 million to buy the property, when God knows how much property the city already has the tax rolls that’s owned by the city of Bridgeport that’s just simply been foreclosed on and nobody wants it.” Bradley said.

  “This is the stuff that just blows everybody’s mind away and everyone is saying Bridgeport is a lost cause,” Bradley said. “I mean all these deals behind the scenes throwing away community input and not doing things transparently.”

  The decision to place Bassick at UB came up as the financially-troubled university is about to be taken over by East-Hartford-based Goodwin University. Goodwin is spending about $52 million on the acquisition. Goodwin is obtaining financing from Citizens Bank, which has also agreed to write off $30 million in UB’s debt, according to the Connecticut Post.

 Paier College, an art school now in Hamden, will be part of the new university at UB.

   Rev. Lord, Bradley and city council members like Jorge Cruz have also been voicing concerns about the Goodwin deal, saying it may not be the best option for saving UB.  They doubt that Goodwin ---- known primarily as a two-year college offering associate degrees --- is up to the job of taking over the better-established University of Bridgeport, a four-year institution.

 There’s also suspicion about Goodwin’s intentions in taking over UB. Rev. Lord and Cruz both claim that Goodwin is really interested in acquiring valuable real estate on Long Island Sound, and then turning a profit by selling it for high-priced housing development.

  Cruz, who represents the South End, has said repeatedly that the Goodwin takeover will spur gentrification in the neighborhood and price out many minorities.

   But Mark Scheinberg, the president of Goodwin has strongly rejected those claims. “There is nothing that would ever, ever suggest that what we’re doing down there is a land grab,” he said. “We're such good community members.”

   Scheinberg said the merger is going to be a positive development for both the city and the South End. “This is such a win for Bridgeport, and because it is our mission, a win for us, too,” he said.

   Weldon said that contrary to what was widely believed, there had been no definite decision made to locate Bassick at the Harvey Hubbell site.

   “Actually a decision had not been made with respect to Hubbell. It was still in negotiation and there was a lot of back-and-forth going on at that time. While that was going on, the opportunity arose to take a look at the easternmost part of the UB campus in the Broad Street area and the city evaluated it,” he said.

A big factor in city officials deciding to go with the UB location was that the State Street site was contaminated and would need cleanup. With the purchase price for the two properties about the same, and considering the beauty of the UB parcel near Seaside Park, the decision about where to locate the high school became a “no-brainer,” said Weldon.

  The school board chairman said flooding concerns in the area are going to be resolved by the federal “Resilient Bridgeport” project so flooding will not be a problem with the new facility.

   There were no community meetings to discuss the Bassick-UB project before the decision to buy the university land was made. Also, the City Council was not asked to review or approve the $6 million land purchase, said Cruz.

  The Board of Education was briefed on the plan to locate at UB in executive session, said Weldon. The board approved the plan unanimously, he said.

  “I’ve been trying to put together kind of a public meeting to let the neighborhood and let the Bassick student body see what’s going on,” said Weldon.  “That’s been difficult for obvious reasons. But I’m hopeful that in the very near future with social distancing being relaxed we’ll be able to gather people in an auditorium, show some slides, show this is the overall site, this is where the building is going, you know, the whole thing.”

  

    

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Syria coverup: lying about chemical attacks

 

   

By Reginald Johnson

 

  For years, the United States government has been trying to overthrow the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad --- claiming that Assad is a brutal human rights violator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.

   The US claims Assad has done this on a number of occasions, the most recent being April 2018 when the Syrian military allegedly poisoned people in the city of Douma with a gas attack, leaving 40-50 people dead.

  That purported attack was used to justify a missile strike on Syrian government sites ordered by former President Trump. Six people were killed in the bombing.

  Now however, the truth is beginning to emerge that the 2018 chemical attack in Douma was a lie.

   Several former investigators and a former top official with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have come out and stated that a finding by the OPCW in 2019 which confirmed the chemical attack, was invalid.

  The former inspectors further stated that an interim report they authored determined that no such chemical attack had occurred, but that report was scuttled and the information and in it never made public. Key scientific findings were censored and the inspectors were removed from the probe.

 Documents which have been leaked to Wikileaks and to the Grayzone investigative news website, confirm what the whistleblowers stated, according to Aaron Mate, a writer with the Grayzone.

  “They show in great detail what was happening here and what a cover-up this was,” Mate said on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox TV March 12.

  Mate said there is a push on now to set the record straight. The former OPCW officials have demanded that the organization hold an open forum to discuss all the findings and determine the truth. So far however, OPCW management has refused to do that and in fact has publicly condemned the whistleblowers.

   Now, a group of distinguished authors, academics, antiwar activists and a former US presidential candidate have joined with the whistleblowers and a former top OPCW official to issue a “Statement of Concern” calling out the organization’s actions. Those signing the statement include Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, author John Pilger, Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and former presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.

  In the statement posted on the website for the Courage Foundation, which represents whistleblowers, the group criticized the OPCW management and demanded a transparent and open investigation of the April 2018 attack.

  “The issue at hand threatens to severely damage the reputation and credibility of the OPCW and undermine its vital role in the pursuit of peace and security,” the statement read. “It is simply not tenable for a scientific organization like the OPCW to refuse to respond openly to the criticisms and concerns of its own scientists whilst being associated with attempts to discredit and smear those scientists.”

   The statement on, “We believe that the interests of the OPCW are best served by the director general providing a transparent and neutral forum in which the concerns of all the investigators can be heard as well as ensuring that a fully objective and scientific investigation is completed.” 

 The United States has been militarily intervening in Syria over the past decade, first supplying arms to anti-Assad rebels and then introducing hundreds of American troops. During the intervention more than 400,000 Syrians have lost their lives.

   Trump is not the last president to order a military strike against Syria. In February, President Biden ordered airstrikes on Syrian targets, killing 22 people. The administration said the airstrikes were made in retaliation for rocket attacks launched by Iranian-backed militias in Syria against US targets in Iraq.

  Mate said it is critical that the lie about the supposed chemical attack in Douma be exposed.

  “These lies can lead to war.  We know the consequences in Iraq of going to war with Iraq based on lies.” Mate said during his appearance on FOX.

  He added, “Even now today these allegations of chemical attacks in Syria are being used to justify the ongoing military occupation there and the sanctions that are destroying Syria, preventing the import of food and medicine, destroying Syria’s economy and preventing it from rebuilding. That is not good for Syrians and that is not good for Americans. It’s only good for warmongers in Washington.”