Flooding Linked to Remington Woods Development

    BRIDGEPORT REPORT

By Reginald Johnson

   BRIDGEPORT ----- Environmental activists and a city council member say new construction in the Remington Woods forest may have triggered the historic flooding which destroyed cars and damaged homes in an East Side neighborhood earlier this month.

 Homes along Ohio Avenue and some nearby streets were hit by the massive flooding after two downpours on June 30 and July 3rd, said Councilwoman Maria Pereira, D-138.

   Flooding two to four feet deep engulfed cars and poured into basements, she said.

 “Two cars were totalled and two people had to be rescued by the fire department,” Pereira said. “The city engineer told me that in his 20 years working for the city, he had never seen anything like it.”

  Some homeowners have had to spend thousands of dollars to clean up, and in some cases, insurance companies are refusing to pay for the damage, the council member said.

   A meeting will take place Thursday at 5:30 pm in the Thomas Hooker School to give residents a chance to air their concerns about the flooding with city officials, Pereira said.

  The big mystery is what caused the flooding in the neighborhood, which is in the northeastern section of the city, off East Main Street. Oddly, Ohio Avenue, which crosses East Main Street, was only flooded on the eastern end. The western side of the street was untouched.

   Instead of faulty sewers causing the flooding, Pereira said the cause might be new construction at the Remington Woods tract which sits on the eastern end of the flooded area.

  “This does not appear to be raw sewage, but water with dirt and grit,” Pereira said of the overflow.

  The Remington Woods site --- 422 acres of mostly woods and a 22-acre lake ---- is owned by Corteva, a subsidiary of DuPont, the giant chemical corporation. Corteva is planning light industrial development for the area.

 In recent years, Corteva has been conducting an environmental clean-up of the tract, which contains munitions waste left by the Remington Arms company. The firearms company, now owned by DuPont, had a factory in Bridgeport and used to test its products at the woodlands site.

  Environmentalist Lela Florel is also suspicious that recent tree cutting and construction work in the woods may have sparked the unprecedented flooding. Florel points to the fact that Remington Woods is at a significantly higher elevation than streets such as Ohio Avenue. Ohio Avenue is at 49 feet above sea level, while Remington Woods sits at 62 feet to about 138 feet, she says.

 “The woods is high!” Florel said. “The water runs down. Either the Woods is left natural to absorb it, or the neighborhood floods,” Florel said.

  Pereira said construction of a dam on the site might also have been a contributing factor.

  Meanwhile, Florel, Pereira and others in the group “Preserve Remington Woods” are fighting a long-term battle to save Remington Woods from construction. The group is seeking to have the city change the zoning designation for the tract from light industrial to one “that specifies preservation of the entirety of the woods as a Nature Wildlife preserve.”

  Florel says the tract is an environmental gem --- home to deer, fox, eagles, turkey and thousands of large hardwood trees.

  She and the other advocates say it makes no sense to destroy the woods to make way for new industry, when Bridgeport has so many vacant buildings that can be redeveloped to provide the same thing.

 Already, the city has granted a wetlands permit to Corteva to proceed with development. Florel says full-scale construction work could begin by the end of the year, unless the zoning is changed.

    

  

Debate rages over Bridgeport Ampitheater

By Reginald Johnson

 
  BRIDGEPORT ---- Is it salvation for a city still trying to remake itself years after industrial plants shut their doors?

  Or is it an expensive boondoggle, saddling the city with debt for years to come?

  Those questions are still being debated by city leaders and residents following the City Council’s vote to approve $4.5 million more in city funding to complete the Harbor Yard Ampitheater, a concert venue in Bridgeport’s South End.

  The ampitheater, being constructed on the old Bluefish baseball field and incorporating stadium seating, was slated to open in 2019.  Developer Howard Saffan and his partner Live Nation predict the entertainment facility will draw tens of thousands of music fans from around the region and provide much needed revenue to the city and boost business downtown.

  But Saffan told city officials earlier this year that he has run into unforeseen infrastructure problems which have driven up costs and the city needed to give him another $4.5 million to complete the project.

  Some of those infrastructure problems reportedly dealt with rerouting an old sewer line under the baseball field and which was interfering with amphitheater construction. Other issues concerned broken elevators and faulty sprinkler systems.

  Under the original agreement, Saffan said the city would have to put in no more than $7.5 million for the project, to be matched by the developer’s $7.5 million for a total $15 million project .

  Despite going back in his original pledge, a majority of the City Council went along with Saffan’s request, citing the ampitheater’s importance in helping to revitalize the city’s downtown.

    “I support this project here 100%,” said Councilman Jorge Cruz who represents the South End and the downtown. “We here in the South End need an infusion of energy of development,” he told the Connecticut Post.

  “If you want to grow things in the city, you have to begin with something to make it grow,” said Councilwoman Denese Taylor-Moye, who also represents the South End.

  Taylor-Moye said the city will benefit from the revenue from rent, ticket sales, the hundreds of jobs created and spin-off development from the amphitheater.

 “This will definitely benefit the city,” she said.

The concert ampitheater being built in the city's South End.

 But Saffan’s request for more money was not greeted favorably by all.

 Councilwoman Maria Pereira from the East End criticized Saffan and doubted the viability of the project overall.

  “The ampitheater is not an “economic development” project. It is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded handout to a developer closely aligned with Mayor (Joe) Ganim who is also a generous donor to Ganim’s political campaigns,” wrote Pereira in an opinion piece in the Connecticut Post.

   Pereira said that when you add in the interest on long-term bonded debt for the city, the cost of police and fire protection and facility maintenance, the city is looking at a final cost of $17.5 million, which she said will never be recouped.

   The council member also disputed Saffan's contention that he had no way of knowing about the infrastructure problems when he signed onto the project. The developer has maintained that the city denied him access to inspect the Bluefish Stadium before the agreement was reached.

  Pereira said in her op-ed that the the former director of city facilities had told her that Saffan had never requested an inspection and if he had, the city would have granted him access.

  Also expressing skepticism is AmyMarie Vizzo-Paniccia, a council member from the North End.

   Commenting on the problems at the stadium, Paniccia said “It was common knowledge… He knew about it.”

  Paniccia, who said she had reservations about the viability of the project when it was first proposed three years ago, questions how many people will actually come to the amphitheater concerts, given the fact that Live Nation also runs concerts at the Oakdale in Wallingford and the Mohegan Sun Casino. She said those concert sites will siphon away patronage from the Bridgeport facility.

  The amphitheater she said, may become a “big drain“ on the city financially.

 On the issue of the long-term bond debt and the financial burden that would pose for the city, Taylor- Moye disagreed with Pereira. She said the $4.5 million given to Saffan now is coming out of an “old” bond package approved for downtown improvements.

  “ It’s not new money,” she said.

 City Council President Aidee Nieves said she was not troubled by the fact that the developer had asked for more money based on his claim he had run into unforeseen problems in building the amphitheater.

  “Sometimes you find these things as you go along,” during a remodeling or construction project, she said.

   On the whole, Nieves predicted, the amphitheater “will be a big draw and reinvigorate the downtown.”
  There's disagreement as well over the number and quality of jobs to be created by the new facility. Pereira said she was skeptical that "800-1,000" jobs would actually be produced, as Saffan has promised. She also maintained the jobs would be "part-time and low-wage."  But Taylor-Moye countered that while the concert jobs would be part-time and seasonal, the same workers will have jobs during the cold weather months at the nearby Webster Bank Arena, giving them good, year-round employment.
   The baseball stadium now to be the ampitheater is located on the site of where a thriving factory, Jenkins Valves, once stood.  The manufacturing plant --- one of many heavy industrial facilities in Bridgeport in the 20th century --- employed about 400 workers, all union members and making solid pay and benefits for the day.  But Jenkins, along with dozens other plants, began shutting down in the 1970s and 1980s, as de-industrialization took over the Northeast. Companies fled Bridgeport to gain higher profits in low-wage, anti-union Southern states or in foreign countries.
   The Jenkins building sat vacant for years until it was demolished in the 1990s when Ganim in his first tenure as mayor proposed the idea of bringing a baseball team to Bridgeport, as a means of helping to redevelop the city.  After opening, the Bluefish were very popular and drew many people from the suburbs. Over time, however, the team ran into financial problems, there were issues with rent payments, and the city opted to move in another direction in 2017.
     

     

  

 

   

   

New York City: Catastrophe Looming

    

By Reginald Johnson

   

  

     NEW YORK --- The mayor of America's largest city is warning that unless hospitals in the city receive critically-needed medical supplies in the near future, people will die unnecessarily from the Coronavirus disease.

   Mayor Bill deBlasio told CNN Sunday the city has over 8,000 cases of COVID-19, a third of the total cases nationally and the “worst is yet to come.”

   But the federal government is not coming through with the level of assistance needed to deal with the crisis, he said.

  “We’re not getting shipments. We’re not getting the stuff we need,” deBlasio said. “If we don’t get more ventilators in the next 10 days,  people will die that don’t have to die.”

  Mayor deBlasio spoke as the nation continues to reel from the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic. Many cities and states are on a virtual lockdown, where non-essential businesses have been shut down and residents are being largely confined to their homes, as authorities try to stop the spread of the virus.

  Leaders from different areas of the country have been complaining that hospitals in their localities are facing shortages of key medical supplies and equipment to treat patients with COVID-19. And they’re demanding that the federal government do more.

  The most vocal critic has been deBlasio, who says that the Trump administration’s piecemeal efforts to deal with the pandemic are totally inadequate. The administration has encouraged various companies to ramp up production of needed supplies and then either donate or sell them to hospitals. Governors have also been authorized to use the National Guard where necessary to help out and the Army Corps of Engineers is being brought in some cases to build more temporary hospital beds.

    But the New York mayor said Trump has to go further and invoke the Defense Production Act, which will allow him to order private companies to go full speed on manufacturing vital supplies and equipment and get them to hospitals. The law will also enable the president to get the military involved in distribution and in providing medical personnel where needed.

  “If you don’t order companies to maximize production of ventilators, surgical masks and all the things that are desperately needed, and organize that, and prioritize where it's going to go, it won't happen in time," he said.

  Mayor deBlasio said that a "full-scale mobilization of the military is needed to deal with the greatest crisis domestically since the Great Depression."
  He added that invoking the Defense Production Act and mobilizing the military are steps that presidents in the past, Republican and Democrat, would have taken by now.
  "Eisenhower would have done it, Truman would have done it, John Kennedy would have done it. Come on!"
  US Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, agreed with deBlasio's view in another interview on CNN. She said officials from hospitals in her district are predicting shortages of ventilators and beds.
  She said Trump needs to invoke the Defense Production Act immediately. 
  "We cannot wait until people are really dying in large numbers to start production, especially of more sophisticated equipment like ventilators and beds," she said. 

  

Saving Remington Woods

  By Reginald Johnson    

    

   BRIDGEPORT --- It sits on the edge of the state’s most densely-populated city --- 422  acres of unspoiled woods and a beautiful 23-acre lake.

   It’s home to nesting eagles, deer, wild turkey and 70 species of birds.

   How many people have heard of Remington Woods?

   Not too many.

  “It’s Bridgeport’s best-kept secret,” says Lela Florel, a member of the group Preserve Remington Woods.

   The Remington Woods tract, with 347 acres in Bridgeport and another 75 acres in Stratford,  is owned by the DuPont Corporation. DuPont years ago bought up Remington Arms, which once had a manufacturing plant on the East Side, and tested its firearms at the Remington Woods site, located on the northeastern end of the city.

  The testing stopped long ago and the site has sat virtually untouched, except for pollution remediation carried out by DuPont, a chemical products company.

  Now, Florel and others in the group are sounding the alarm that Remington Woods may be destroyed, if a subsidiary firm of DuPont is allowed to go ahead with development plans.

  “Dow/DuPont with its spin off Corteva are planning to destroy the living forest community. They plan to build a road splitting it in two, a large industrial complex by the lake, cutting off wildlife access to the lake, and another building complex on the edge of the forest, which they call a research facility,” said Florel.

  There will be construction of infrastructure --- including roads, water piping, and sewer and electrical lines.  Florel estimates that thousands of trees --- many of them decades old --- will be removed in the process.

  “The forest is not an object, it is a living organism.  Destroying part will destroy the whole,” she says.

   

Remington Woods

  Recently, Florel and others in the group spoke at a City Council meeting, alerting officials to the environmental threat and asking for their help.

  They are asking the city to change the zoning of Remington Woods from industrial to one which preserves the entire woods. They are also asking that the city not issue any permits that would allow development to proceed.

  Dr. J.D.  Smith spoke of the many environmental and health benefits that the Remington Woods provides --- including holding carbon and controlling global warming; cooling air; mitigating drought; aiding in the physical and mental health of local residents; and giving off oxygen.

 He also noted that the forest helps to fight air pollution, which has been a significant problem in Bridgeport and Fairfield County.

 “Air pollution is a serious threat to our health and safety,” he said. “Bridgeport deserves clean air. Forest cleans the air.”

  Smith also commented, “Destroying nature has a terrible cost, but it never makes it to the ledger books.”

  Erik Kuranko talked about environmental racism in Bridgeport, and how in more affluent, whiter communities, nature is valued and people have access to it.

   The group also noted that Bridgeport’s 10-year Master Plan emphasizes the need to “Value Nature,” and that preserving Remington Woods will honor that goal.

   Florel says that a "win-win solution" is possible --- preserving Remington Woods in its entirety and using "the many vacant existing commercial buildings" in Bridgeport for commerce instead.

  

     

Protesting a War with Iran

      By Reginald Johnson 

   NEW HAVEN  ---  Scores of protesters gathered here Sunday to condemn the US airstrike in Iraq which killed a top Iranian military official, an act which they said could touch off a catastrophic Middle East war.

   “Unless the people rise up and stop it, this war will engulf the whole region and quickly turn into a global conflict,” said a speaker from the anti-war group A.N.S.W.E.R, which sponsored the rally.

  “For all who believe in peace and for all those who want to avert another catastrophic war, now is the time to take action,” she said.

   The rally in New Haven was one of more than 70 protests around the country which took place over the weekend, following the assassination airstrike which killed Qaessem Soleimani after he arrived at Baghdad, Iraq airport. Soleimani was the head of Iran’s elite Quds military force and considered the second most powerful person in Iran.

   President Trump said that he ordered the airstrike after receiving intelligence which indicated that Soleimani was planning a number of deadly attacks on American forces in the Middle East. The American administration also blamed Soleimani for orchestrating the killing of hundreds of Americans in the past.

  But speakers at the rally questioned the intelligence and said that Trump and other officials are lying just the way Bush administration officials lied 16 years ago about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction (which were never found) to provide a pretext for the invasion of Iraq. That invasion began a long and bloody war which led to the deaths of 5,000 Americans and upwards of 1 million Iraqis.

  “If he (Soleimani) was the kind of person they are claiming, he would’ve been taken out years ago,” said one speaker from A.N.S.W.E.R, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.

   That speaker also said that the Iraq War cost hundreds of billions of dollars --- money diverted from funding social services and human needs back home.

   Another speaker who identified himself as an indigenous person, reminded people that the land where they were standing on was once land held by the Quinnipiac Indian tribe.  But the land was later taken away by European colonial governments.

  “Just like the Quinnipiac people, the people of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, don’t have a say in how they are treated by this illegal, imperialist and immoral government.  This is what’s been happening for the last 527 years,” he said, referring to the landing of explorer Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492.  Columbus’s arrival began a wave of European immigration to North and South  America and in the process the systematic decimation of native peoples on the continents.

   The speaker went on, “There has not been a period in the history of this government when it hasn’t been attacking some country around the world. Whether it is in South America, Central America, the Middle East,  Asia, the Philippines,  Puerto Rico, Cuba... this government is criminal and what happened the other day was an act of war and a war crime.”

   He then led the crowd in a chant: “Trump says more war. We say no war!  Trump says more war. We say no war!”     

    

   

  

  

  

Building a Peace Economy

   By Reginald Johnson

   Unlike years ago, when Connecticut’s economy was diversified and there were numerous companies manufacturing a wide variety of consumer goods, today the state’s industrial base is heavily dependent on defense firms.

  Such companies as Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Electric Boat make helicopter gunships, fighter aircraft and submarines for the nation’s military.

 But there are a growing number of peace advocates who think it’s time that we create a new economy based on addressing human needs instead of making  weapons of war.

   This Saturday there will be a discussion about this issue at a conference called “Retooling the Connecticut War Economy” at Middlesex Community College in Middletown. The event in Chapman Hall will take place from 12 noon to 4 pm.  The event is free and open to all.  I’ll be done with this pretty soon

   The keynote speaker at the conference will be Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace organization Code Pink.

   “What we hope to discuss is what things workers could build and what kinds of industries we might establish to move out of the making of weaponry,” said Henry Lowendorf, a member of the CT Peace and Solidarity Coalition, which is sponsoring the conference.

   Lowendorf said as the climate crisis is forcing our society to move away from fossil fuels, there will be more and more skilled workers displaced from the fossil fuel based economy and nowhere to go.  “This is going to happen….these people are going to have to do something else,” he said.

   As a result, it is imperative to create new industries where people can work. It is in the area of dealing with civilian needs --- building new housing, new infrastructure, schools, and green jobs ---- where opportunities will open up.

     “We have to make provision for what is going to happen,”  Lowendorf said, otherwise there will be a “employment contastrophe.”

   Lowendorf, also with the Greater New Haven Peace Coalition, said the funds needed to build the new industries should come from substantial cuts in the US military budget.

   “We have to cut the military budget. That’s where the money is. It is coming to over $1 trillion dollars on weapons and war every year,” he said.

  As cities like New Haven and Bridgeport struggle to provide services due to lack of funding, the Pentagon is handed huge budget allocations every year.

  Most political leaders, including members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation, enthusiastically support the massive military budgets, because lots of money goes to local defense firms, which in turn spells votes and contributions for them.

  “We are making the argument that we cannot continue spending 69% of our national treasure --- our federal dollars --- on wars and weapons into the future. It’s just not sustainable.  We’re killing our cities and states and killing our communities,”  Lowendorf said.     

  

    

Cut the military, fund social needs!

    By Reginald Johnson

    Democrats fight for a lot of good things --- steps to combat climate change, a saner immigration system, a more equitable tax system, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, ending racism and controlling guns. Check, check, check.

  But where Democrats keep falling down is on the question of whether to cut the bloated military budget --- a budget that dwarfs the military spending of many countries around the world combined.
 A number of  Democrats, including presidential candidates, vacillate on this crucial issue. They talk of possible cuts in the defense budget but don’t take a strong public stand on the matter, and sidestep critical votes.  Others actually support massive increases in the war budget, and back President Trump on Pentagon spending.

  According to an August 2^nd story in the World Socialist Website, Senate Democrats recently gave strong support for a record $738 billion defense budget outline, a plan backed by President Trump.  Democrats voted 38-5 for the plan, which won passage in the Senate.  Self-described “Democratic  Socialist” presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said previously he would vote against the budget, but did not bother to return to D.C. to actually cast a vote against it. Candidates Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and  Kamala Harris also were absent for the vote.

  Why didn’t they go back to Washington, blast this wildly excessive spending plan and cast their votes in opposition? These people are going around the country demanding that we rebuild our infrastructure, invest in education, fund health care and build more affordable housing. They denounce Trump for not addressing  critical social needs. But the huge amount of spending on the military siphons billions of dollars away from funding domestic programs.  In fact, the massive outlays for the military year in and year out make it impossible for domestic needs to be adequately addressed.

  People like Sanders and Warren have to know this fact. But apparently, out of fear they’ll be labeled as “weak” on national security or afraid they’ll lose votes and contributions from defense contractors and their workers, they hedge on the issue of reducing the Pentagon budget.

   Other leading figures in the Democratic Party are voting in favor of Trump’s war spending.  Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, for instance, voted in favor of the Trump budget.
   Also backing Trump's war budget was freshman Congress Member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has been in the headlines continuously for the past year condemning Trump’s immigration policies and calling for the president’s impeachment.  Her vote helped the House of Representatives pass the budget overwhelmingly. Apparently Ocasio-Cortez didn't care that this obscene budget steals money from domestic needs like education and housing, which are vitally important to the constituents in her mostly poor Bronx-Queens district.

  You expect Republicans to go along with sky-high defense spending proposals, year in and year out. You wouldn’t think Democrats would be so supportive.

  But they are, and this support undermines the promise by Democrats they will create a government that is more compassionate and addresses domestic needs.

  Democrats have to overcome this contradiction, otherwise they cannot continue to claim they are  “the party of the people.”

   The U.S. military budget is by far and away the largest of any country in the world and exceeds the total military spending by many other nations --- including China, Russia, France and England --- put together.

   Our military budget should be cut by at least 30 percent. There won’t be the slightest fall-off in U.S. security.

  Thirty percent of $738 billion is about $220 billion. Think of what that money could do for building new schools, new infrastructure and new housing.

  It’s time for Democrats to step up to the plate.

  Cut the military budget!