Community leaders fight UB merger

 

BRIDGEPORT REPORT

                          

   By Reginald Johnson 

 

   BRIDGEPORT ---- A group of local activists and elected officials are trying to head off  the takeover of the University of Bridgeport by Goodwin University, saying the merger may not be in the best interest of the city or the minority community.

    The group, which includes the president of the Greater Bridgeport NAACP, a state senator and members of the city council, are complaining that community leaders like themselves have been kept out of the deliberations for arranging the merger, and the process has not been transparent.

  The group also questions whether Goodwin, a smaller college than UB which specializes in technical-career-oriented courses aimed at landing people jobs quickly, is not up to the task of running UB, a larger and more established university.

   There’s also fear that tuition rates at the new college may be too expensive for  lower-income minority students to enroll.

   The critics also voice suspicions that Goodwin, based in East Hartford, is not really interested in acquiring UB for academic reasons, but instead wants to buy up valuable waterfront property on Long Island Sound and then sell it off for high-priced housing development.

  The group has talked about various ways of stalling the Goodwin deal --- including legal action to block the merger, trying to get state leaders to consider the possibility of making UB part of the state’s public university system, or using finances from wealthy alumni to pay off UB’s debts and keep the university independent.

  But no definite course of action has been settled upon.

  The president of Goodwin University, Mark Scheinberg, has pushed back hard against the criticism and said the merger is going to be a positive development for both the city and the South End, where UB is located.

  “This is such a win for Bridgeport, and because it is our mission, a win for us, too,” he said.

   The plan for Goodwin to take over UB is far along, with a closing on the purchase of the university property expected within a matter of weeks, said Scheinberg. Once all accreditations are gained, Scheinberg said, the merger would be completed by July. UB would then become a nonprofit institution owned by Goodwin. Paier College, an art school in Hamden, would also be part of the new university.

   The move towards a takeover of the University of Bridgeport began last year, after several years of worsening financial conditions at the 94-year-old college. Scheinberg said he was contacted in June by city leaders, including Mayor Joseph Ganim and members of the higher education community, to see what Goodwin might be able to do to help.

   Then began a period of several weeks of work to hammer out a deal to essentially save UB through a merger. Initially a proposal was devised to have Goodwin, Paier and Sacred Heart University jointly merge with the University of Bridgeport. Later, however SHU officials dropped out of the deal, saying they were concerned about enrollment projections.

  By the fall, several members of the city council and others were expressing concern that the negotiations for finalizing a new arrangement for UB were being done behind closed doors and without adequate input from the council or the minority community.

   Councilman Jorge Cruz, who represents the South End, charged that officials from UB and Goodwin and the mayor were negotiating secretly on a matter that is critically important to the community, without getting any community or council input.

  “They’ve shown us total disrespect,” said Cruz.

The Rev. D. Stanley Lord, president of the Greater Bridgeport NAACP, said minority involvement in the process was not being taken seriously enough.

  “If they were really concerned about Bridgeport as a whole, they would’ve had a community conversation,” he said. “We don’t want somebody coming in here and just say ‘we’re going to do what we want with you,’ without talking with us.”

   State Sen. Dennis Bradley, D-Bridgeport, the spokesman for the group, (which doesn’t have a name), said  “So the issue is, there’s a lot happening behind the doors, behind the scenes and I think that’s not good … I think for something to be done right, whether it’s a private business or public business, specifically if it’s public, it should be done openly and transparently when it affects such a large entity like ourselves.”

   Scheinberg acknowledged that in the early stages, there wasn’t much outreach to anyone outside of the people directly involved in planning a merger. But he maintained that now, lines of communication are much better.

  “We were contacted in June by city government and members of our association to see if there was some way we could step in to help an ailing University of Bridgeport so we had about three weeks to put together a basic shell of a deal and other than my attorney, I didn’t talk with anybody and that’s a screening fact process and it takes years to do this stuff,” he said.

 “So when we did the initial announcement the only person I had talked to in the government in Bridgeport was actually the mayor to make sure I wasn’t mis- stepping and so you do the proper thing --- you check into the local government administration supporting this, so that’s what I did,” Scheinberg said.

  “After that day it was apparent to us that there were some people in the community that didn’t feel as though we were well enough in touch with them before the announcement took place. We took that the heart,” he said.

  At that point, Scheinberg said, he began calling Councilman Cruz “every couple of weeks whenever anything new was happening, I made sure to give him a call.”      

   Goodwin officials also met with the entire Bridgeport state delegation to give them input. They’ve also met with different church leaders, with local and private schools and with a council committee.

  “So there’s nothing that we’re trying to hide,” Scheinberg says, “it was simply a situation where things happen so quickly we hadn’t dug deeper into every layer of the government down there…Nothing is being held back, it’s just we didn’t have time to get to as many people as we would’ve liked.”

  Critics in the community are also worried about whether Goodwin will have a positive effect on the minority community. Bridgeport is a majority minority city and the South End’s population is heavily Black and Latino.

Bradley, an attorney in Bridgeport, said key issues for the group include minority involvement in the university, linking the university with the minority community and making the tuition structure accessible for minorities.

 “Universities have been priced out for a lot of students and I don’t personally believe that the university should be only available to the sons and daughters of the rich or that people in my situation should be burdened with astronomical levels of debt,” he said.

  Bradley added, “the University of Bridgeport for better or worse has always been an institution or one of the few institutions that allows for first-time college kids to come in and pay reasonable rates to get a degree and offer up robust programs of a four-year institution. So yeah, we want to make sure that continues.”

  In response to the issue about tuition, Scheinberg first noted that the University of Bridgeport historically has offered a lot of programs with the city and city residents to provide a substantial amount of institutional financial aid to those students to make sure they could start and finish at UB.

  “They have been very generous to the Bridgeport community. And the question is what will Goodwin do. Goodwin is about the lowest price private college in Connecticut and one of the lowest in the region. We have not raised our tuition in years, our students are very heavily supported by lots of institutional aid as well as other aid; we are a main trainer for SNAP recipients; we are main trainer for Department of Children and Families. Our contracts are hugely supportive of lower income people,” he said.

  On tuition levels, the Goodwin official said, “We will do our best. For any private college you have to do the best you can when you’re in a situation where you don’t get any state support.”  

 Unlike the state community college system or the state university system, Goodwin doesn’t get “tens of thousands of dollars for every student they serve,” he said. “For us we don’t have that and we are still trying to make our programs accessible to local residents.”

   On the issue of involvement by the university in the community, members of the critics' group, including Cruz and Bradley, say they want to make sure that Goodwin continues with the kinds of helpful programs UB has in the schools and in the community, such as providing interns for nonprofits, running computer camps and a health clinic.

Scheinberg said, “I don’t know if they get credit for the many things they (UB) already do and that’s just the beginning. For us, when we get there we will run many programs in addition to that in support of the community.”

 Another concern that has been raised by the community group is whether or not Goodwin has a high enough academic caliber to be taking over the much older and more established University of Bridgeport.

  “I think it should be pretty obvious that I don’t know what will qualify Goodwin college operating a four-year institution and I don’t see what’s in their repertoire or in their assets that it’s a model that I find to be a model of one of higher learning,” said Bradley.

  Rev. Lord also voiced concern about Goodwin’s academic credentials and taking over UB.

   “The University of Bridgeport is known to have one of the best engineering schools in the nation,” he said. “Given Goodwin’s repertoire, Goodwin does not cover that area academically. So what are they going to do with that component?”

  Scheinberg said later that Goodwin will retain the Engineering School.

   Goodwin, begun in 1999, has 3317 students and an endowment of about $9 million. Some 1,027 degrees, both associate and bachelor’s degrees, were conferred in 2019-20.

  The University of Bridgeport has 3152 undergraduate students and 2282 post graduates. UB’s endowment is about $34 million.

  The Goodwin website advertises the East Hartford college as a “Career Focused University in CT.”

   The curriculum emphasizes training in a number of technical oriented fields, many not requiring a four-year instruction and with almost no liberal arts courses.

  Bachelor Degree programs include APRN, advanced manufacturing, business administration, childhood study and others.

  There are several master’s programs, including APRN, public health, and education.

 Two-year associate degree programs are offered in nursing, dental hygiene,  manufacturing, funeral service, criminal justice, early childhood education, health science, CNC Machining and other fields.

 Certificates are offered in medical billing, welding and other areas.

 Scheinberg said that a key mission of the college is to get people into paying jobs.

 “At the end of a degree program here, one should expect that as part of our mission people are able to gain a living wage… As a general rule if any of our programs don’t have a 80% placement rate within 90 days they are put on a watchlist because our job is not to create education for its own sake. We don’t have a philosophy major. We don’t have a lot of majors which would be nice in a liberal arts setting but we want to make sure that our graduates can expect to be working when they finish,” he said.

 Scheinberg added, “So we make no bones about it. That’s not to say we don’t have lots of liberal arts or general education courses but in addition to that we want to make sure that they have enough of an emphasis that they are able to come out and get a job, too.”

   The most controversial charge made by critics of the Goodwin takeover has been the claim that real estate development may be a key motivation behind the acquisition.

  Cruz is outspoken on this issue.

  “Their interest here is the land --- it’s prime land. You got the university and the beach there, you got Seaside Park there and that’s prime land and I’m concerned they’re going to gentrify the place. Gentrification is going to spread and the next thing you know the minority population is going to be powerless. We have to stand up to these people,” he said.

  Others, such as Rev. Lord of the NAACP and Councilman Alfredo Castillo echoed Cruz’s concern about a possible “land grab.”

  Scheinberg is clearly upset by the allegation.

 “I’m sort of slack-jawed actually. So on what basis is that assertion being made?” he asked. “That question came up at the city council meeting as well and I was astounded by the question because I never even thought of that is being an option… There is nothing in what we do that would ever, ever suggest that what we’re doing is a land grab down there…What I’ve heard is astounding to me. We’re such good community members.”

 Scheinberg went on, “We’re not asking anybody for money. We’re not asking anybody for a handout. We’re spending about $50 million --- $50 million! This is the kind of thing that is so rare that I don’t expect to be canonized, but you know, for Pete’s sake, people should be appreciative before they start assuming we’re doing anything nefarious.”

   On the issue of financing, the Connecticut Post reports that Goodwin has an agreement with Citizens Bank whereby the bank is writing off $30 million of UB’s $60 million debt. The Post said Goodwin has a letter of intent to take on UB’s remaining $32.5 million in debt, plus invest another $20 million in the venture.

    But the community group is trying to find other options to keep Goodwin from taking over.

   Without giving many details, Cruz said there has been some contact with two wealthy alumni who are willing to put up the financing to absorb all of UB’s debt and keep the university independent.

  “They are alumni and they don’t like what they heard was being discussed and they called to help. They don’t want to see this institution go to somebody outside of Bridgeport and they want to maintain it as an institution to benefit the minority community,” Cruz said.

Bradley and Lord have expressed the desire to get the state to take over UB and put it into the state university system.

   “My view is that the government step in and specifically the governor’s office step in and make UB part of what is a thriving state system of higher education,” said Bradley. “I think that would be the ideal model. I think UConn and the rest of the state schools have a high degree of prestige and a good reputation.”

   

         

       

  

 

 

  

     

    

Biden: The right message

  By Reginald Johnson  

I really liked what Joe Biden said at his Inaugural about bringing people together and uniting the country. He promised he would represent all people, not just those who voted for him. His remarks were just what Americans needed to hear at a time when the nation is so divided.

  Here’s part of what he said: “We can see each other not as adversaries, but as neighbors. We can treat each other with dignity and respect. We can join forces, stop the shouting and lower the temperature. For without unity, there is no peace — only bitterness and fury. No progress — only exhausting outrage. No nation — only a state of chaos.”

  Very good. Now he needs to persuade members of the Democratic Party and their many supporters in the media to join in this effort. He needs to get people on the left to stop the namecalling and vitriol directed at Trump supporters. Stop the demonization and campaigns of blacklisting and censorship.

  This is a tall order. But I think Biden --- who comes from a blue-collar background and has years of experience in the political world where he learned to work with the opposition --- is capable of changing the tenor of the country. I will certainly support him as he tries to bring about a more united nation. 

 And it goes without saying that conservatives, from FOX News or wherever, have to step back and listen to what Biden has to say. Don’t jump on him from Day One, nitpicking over every move. Give him a chance, he might do something right.

 

 

Less rancor, more dialogue

 

By Reginald Johnson

For the new year I’m wishing for a more peaceful, less acrimonious America.

This country has been riven with division the last few years, and it’s really no good.

There’s been constant name-calling, with individuals and sometimes whole groups being smeared with the worst kind of labels. Terms like “fascist,” “racist,” “traitor,” “Russian agent,” “China stooge,” and “criminal” have been thrown around like candy.

 In some cases, these descriptions have been accurate. But many other times, they haven’t been, and reputations have been damaged, if not ruined.

 The constant back and forth and villification has not only poisoned the public discourse but made it much harder to get anything done with public policy.  

  It’s tempting to say it’s all Donald Trump’s fault.  Unquestionably, the man is a boor.  His personal attacks on people have often been hurtful and deeply offensive. But as the saying goes, ‘It takes two to tango.’ If Donald Trump jumped in the gutter, the left jumped in with him.

  Language coming from the left has often been rancorous and over the top. This is a departure from the left I knew years ago, when the right-wing seemed to have a corner on name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Not anymore.

 Michelle Obama a few years ago had a great line when she said: “When they go low, we go high.”

  Unfortunately, that suggestion hasn’t been followed. It’s time we follow it.

 I also heard some good words of advice from Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, who was commenting on healing the nation’s divisions during the riots last summer. He said people have to stop talking at each other and start talking with each other.

  “We have to listen,” he said.

Let’s bring the temperature down, stop shouting, stop accusing and listen a little bit to the other side.

 

 

Biden the best choice

 

   ELECTION VIEWPOINT

By Reginald Johnson

 

 I have to admit that I have my problems with the Democrats and Joe Biden.

 I don’t like the fact that the party has been weak in opposing future wars and reducing the military budget. In fact, many Democrats have been vigorous supporters of huge military budgets, which siphon away vital resources from domestic needs.

 I also don’t like the fact that party leaders embraced the phony “Russia-gate” narrative, which held incorrectly that  President Trump was some kind of Russian agent. All the talk about Russia collusion served to undermine the potential for a more peaceful relationship between the US and Russia. 

 Additionally, I’m not happy that the party failed to condemn the violence that engulfed American cities this past summer, violence which was provoked in considerable part by left-wing groups.

 Finally, I’m troubled by the recent allegations of possible corruption and ethical wrongdoing by Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. These certainly need investigation.

   Having said all that, I’m casting my vote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump in tomorrow’s presidential election. The choice is very clear --- based on a number of critical issues.

 First and foremost is climate change. This is clearly an existential threat and we have to marshal all our resources to fight it. That means the United States must get back into the Paris Climate Accords and the nation must change our energy use ---- moving to renewable sources and getting away from fossil fuels. That means implementing the Green New Deal. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for vice president, support going back to the Paris Accords and moving to green energy conversion, even if Biden has equivocated recently on the issue of fracking. They’re headed in the right direction.

 By contrast, Trump has rejected the Paris Accords and wholeheartedly supports the continuation of fossil fuel use. This kind of position is simply unacceptable, given the gravity of global warming and its consequences, which include ever worsening forest fires, deadly heat waves and ever more violent hurricanes.

  Second is health issues. President Trump has badly fumbled management of the Covid-19 pandemic and has consistently sent the wrong signal to the American people about how serious this crisis is. He has pooh-poohed the Covid threat and that has probably cost many lives. Biden would clearly set a better tone on handling this crisis and move to set up a comprehensive testing program. He would likely push Congress more vigorously to come up with a badly needed stimulus package to help the American people, and not just corporations.

  Relatedly, Biden and Harris would shore up and likely improve the Affordable Care Act program. “Obama-care” as it is known, clearly has deficiencies, but it is certainly better than what the nation had before, which was nothing. Trump has proposed to eliminate “Obama-care” altogether and come up with what he says will be a new and better plan. But he has offered no details on exactly what this would be. This situation again is unacceptable. While the ultimate goal should be for the nation to move to Medicare-for-all, retaining Obama-care for now is clearly the best option over doing nothing.

     Finally, I think Biden would try to heal some of the divisions that now the beset our country and be much better on the issue of race. Trump has all too often stoked racial divisions and been divisive with his rhetoric. Biden is not perfect either on the issue of race, but he’ll be a lot better than Trump.

   One important point to remember is that while Biden is not the most progressive person in the world, he will likely be pushed towards more progressive policies by people who will likely have serious power in Congress, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

 So, Biden-Harris is my choice tomorrow.

 And with that, I’m taking a break from writing for a while. 

 It’s off to the park to take a few fall walks and head back to the garden to harvest some late broccoli.

  Happy voting!

 

Progressive journalist quits over censorship

By Reginald Johnson 

      In the latest journalism travesty, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Glenn Greenwald has been forced out of the publication he co-founded because editors there were censoring his stories about possible corruption by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

  Greenwald, who started The Intercept in 2014 after he broke stories about unlawful surveillance of the American people by the National Security Agency, resigned from The Intercept after editors said they would not run any of his stories unless he removed all material critical of Joe Biden.

  The Intercept --- along with almost all of the mainstream and left media --- have blacked out all the revelations in stories done by the New York Post concerning apparent influence peddling and possible criminal wrongdoing in connection with payments by foreign nationals to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son. Also blacked out has been a statement by a Hunter Biden business associate that contradicted claims by Joe Biden that he knew nothing of his son’s business ventures in countries including Ukraine and China.

 The FBI is reportedly investigating Hunter Biden for money laundering.

   Biden, who served as Vice President from 2009-2017 in the administration of Barack Obama, was in charge of foreign policy concerning Ukraine and China, when his son went into business in Ukraine.

  Biden, who is facing Donald Trump in Tuesday’s presidential election, has denied any wrongdoing related to his son’s business dealings and said the stories were part of a Republican “smear campaign.”

  That denial has satisfied most of the media, the same media who acted like sharks smelling blood every time a report surfaced in the past about possible nepotism or nefarious activities by Trump family members.

  Biden supporters and many in the media have instead labeled the Post stories as “Russian disinformation” --- based on statements by former CIA Director John Brennan and former NSA Directors James Clapper and Michael Hayden.

 In an interview on FOX with Tucker Carlson, Greenwald said he was shocked to see even The Intercept ran a story referencing the claims by the former intelligence chiefs about Russian disinformation, even though the officials admitted in their full statement they had no hard evidence of a Russian link.

  Greenwald said The Intercept was founded on the idea that the media must be skeptical about the claims of the intelligence community, in light of the revelations about illegal mass surveillance by the NSA brought forth by whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported by Greenwald.

  The investigative journalist said that in recent years an "unholy union" has come about between the media, the intelligence community, neo-cons, Silicon Valley (tech companies such as Google and Facebook). Democrats and Wall Street to advance a certain point of view and rule out independent voices. 

 Part of the reason for that joining of forces is that the left, which used to criticize the CIA, now likes the intelligence community because the CIA and FBI promoted the Russia-Trump collusion investigation, which nearly drove Trump from office, Greenwald said. The collusion narrative fell on its face however, when Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation found no conspiracy had taken place between the Trump campaign and Russia in influencing the 2016 election. 

  That "union of power," Greenwald contended, fully backs the Democratic Party which is likely to take over the Senate and possibly the presidency on Tuesday.

   "That is a very alarming proposition because they are authoritarian, they believe in censorship, they believe in suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of critical light," Greenwald said.

  The media has behaved very unprofessionally in refusing to probe the Biden allegations. That failure, together with the mistakes the press made in not covering the Russia-collusion controversy more critically, has left the media as an institution in tatters.

 That has grave implications for our democracy, since a vigorous and objective press is vital for our system to work well.

 Glenn Greenwald has not sold out. In my book, he's a hero.

   

 

 

 

 

Local officials look to block UB merger

 

BRIDGEPORT REPORT

    By Reginald Johnson

     BRIDGEPORT --- A city council member and other officials are demanding answers about the deal for three colleges to take over operations at the University of Bridgeport --- an agreement which they say may have major implications for the city and the South End.

  According to City Councilman Jorge Cruz, D-131, the group is angry that Mayor Joseph P. Ganim secretly negotiated the merger without any council or community input.

    The councilman said the group of council members, district leaders and state elected officials have had several meetings, and are planning legal action to block the tentative UB deal.

  “We feel deceived, lied to, kept out of the loop and disrespected,” said Cruz, who represents the South End, a section with a heavy minority population. Many residents are low-income.

 Cruz said he has learned the academic classification for the university will be higher than that of the current UB, and that the new institution may not be affordable for minority students.

  That change, together with the demolition of the nearby low-income Marina Village housing project ---- to be replaced by a smaller complex with some market-rate units --- has Cruz and others concerned that gentrification will set in and poor people will be priced out of the South End.

  Under the tentative agreement, Sacred Heart University of Fairfield, Goodwin University in East Hartford and Paier College of Hamden will merge with UB, co-locate programs on UB’s campus and purchase all of the school’s property and programs.

  Cruz has submitted a resolution before the City Council, which meets Tuesday, calling for an “informational meeting to clarify the University of Bridgeport merger.”

  Cruz said his group is asking that representatives of the colleges attend the meeting, proposed for Sept. 16, to answer questions about the merger.

  The resolution reads in part “Whereas, the Bridgeport City Council understands these kinds of collaborations can lead to economies of scale, and long-term benefits for students, drive economic growth and create jobs, but many questions remain unanswered.”

  One question apparently is how the new Bassick High School fits into the equation. The new school is to be located on former UB land. Cruz said he just found out that the city paid UB $6 million for the land.

   Cruz said Ganim, who sits on the UB board and teaches part-time there, is in a “huge conflict” regarding the merger agreement.

  “What’s up with this? How could he do that by himself?” the councilman asked.

 

 

Marina Village torn down amid gentrification fears

BRIDGEPORT REPORT

    By Reginald Johnson

BRIDGEPORT ---  The Marina Village apartments, which provided public housing for thousands of poor people for nearly 70 years, is being torn down to make way for a far less dense housing complex which will provide both low-income and market rate units.

    Park City Communities, which has managed Marina over the years, is partnering with a private firm, JHM of Stamford to build the new complex, called Windward Commons. The new development will offer 1 and 2 bedroom garden-style townhouses, a big change from the 2-story brick row houses of Marina Village. 

   The first phase will have 54 units, of which just 5 units will be public housing. According to Dave Ghio, director of  planning, redevelopment and modernization for Park City Communities, the rest of the units will be market rate and others called "affordable" and "deeply affordable" --- for residents whose incomes are above federal poverty guidelines but who can't afford market rate housing.

  When completed, Windward Commons will provide 100 units on the 27-acre Marina site ---- a sharp reduction from the nearly 400 units in the old complex.  Though figures have not been finalized, Ghio said between 20 and 40 units would be public housing  The total project will reportedly cost $200 million to build.

  Ghio said the new complex will offer a better quality of life for residents than Marina Village, which was the kind of high density housing project the federal government is moving away from. "We don't like to warehouse people," he said

  "What you'll see being replaced at Marina Village are new, modern, everyday, market-rate looking properties that have a private investment aspect to it, but much less dense" he said.

   But one local city council official is blasting the new development and says it offers too little public housing. 

   "That doesn't sound too good at all ---- only 5 units public housing," said Jorge Cruz, city council member from the South End.

 "It's an absolute farce what they're doing," he said. "Deliberately, they're gentrifying the place, really. To me, it's a form of gentrification if you're giving people a little bit of crumb of five apartments for low-income housing, but the vast majority, no, when the whole interest of Marina Village was for public housing," Cruz said.

   The councilman also claimed that officials at Park City Communities, formerly called the Bridgeport Housing Authority, misled people at Marina ---- when demolition and relocation of residents was first discussed several years ago ---- by saying that residents there would have first choice on coming back to the new complex.

 "How can you promise that, knowing that 95 percent are not going to be able to come back?" Cruz asked.

 On the issue of possible gentrification in the neighborhood --- which is close to Seaside Park and the University of Bridgeport ---  Ghio didn't deny it was a possibility.

 "I'm very familiar with the term gentrification and that can be cross-referenced with evolution of a neighborhood," he said. "Gentrification can be defined as negative and I don't see this as negative. Certainly the intent is not negative or to change the neighborhood for purposes other than the safety, health and well-being of our clients, the residents of our community."

   Ghio also said everyone at Marina was relocated into some type of publicly-subsidized housing. Most of them, he believed, got housing through the Section 8 program, where families get a voucher to cover most of the cost of a rent in the private market. The resident usually has to pay about 30 percent of their income for the rent.

  "Ultimately, everyone was relocated, and peacefully, I have to say," the housing official said.

 Denese Taylor-Moye, a long-time resident of Marina and head of the tenants' association said she thought the process of relocation had gone well. "Some people moved out of state, some went to scattered site housing, some to Section 8, some went back to public housing...nobody was left without a place to go."

  Taylor-Moye, who also has a seat on the City Council with Cruz, said residents weren't rushed out of Marina to make way for the new development. "Everybody had choices. It wasn't like, 'We're taking down Marina. You gotta go.' It wasn't one of those things," she said.

   The councilwoman feels positive about the new complex. "Windward is going to be a great place coming up, if it's designed to be. It will be the future housing...It will be what's needed for people in housing."

  Ghio said there were a host of reasons for tearing down Marina Village --- which dates to the early 1950s.

 "There's a financial obsolescence formula used --- look down 10-20 years, what will be the cost to maintain and operate them, there's the drug and crime issues and primarily the end of its useful life," said Ghio.

   The demolition project is being done by Standard Demolition, a firm in Bridgeport, Ghio said. The company is a "Section 3" contractor, meaning that they are required to hire low-income residents from the local area, in return for receiving federal funds. The cost of the contract is $2 million.

  Cruz said he is concerned about the impact of the development on the neighborhood at the same time another major event is taking place in the South End ---- the dissolution of the University of Bridgeport.

The financially-pressed UB recently reached a tentative agreement with three other universities --- including Sacred Heart --- for taking over parts of the school. Cruz said the deal was worked out with the help of Mayor Joseph P. Ganim, who Cruz said has a teaching position at UB.

  Cruz said the agreement should have had some input from the City Council and that was not the case.

 "We've got a lot of questions about what's going on," said Cruz.

Cruz said a group of Black and Latino elected officials have been meeting recently to discuss the agreement and possible legal action to stop it.

 The councilman said people are concerned about the impact of the new school on the South End and Seaside Park.

   "We're not happy with this deal," he said.