Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, August 5, 2010 7:51 am

I submitted this letter to the editor on August 4, 2010. Because I doubt it will be published, I am doing so here. :

I am disgusted by the Hartford Courant’s coverage of the tragedy at Hartford Distributors. The murders, unfortunate and heartbreaking,  are not something that the Courant and other media should exploit. There is no reason to provide audio from the 911 call, publish paparazzi-style photos of Thornton’s (or anyone else’s) grieving friends and family, or barrage us with blow-by-blow details on Twitter. This incident has been damaging enough to the workers, their friends and families, and to the community. The Hartford Courant would do well to review the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, particularly: “Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage” and  “Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.” There are ways to report a story without dramatizing it.

This was sent to the Courant, but could easily be sent to a number of other mainstream media outlets in Connecticut that have been practicing poor judgment while reporting on this story. While it might be the norm to saturate the reading and viewing public with such lurid details, it should not be.

One of the few outlets that has demonstrated a truly journalistic approach has been the Hartford Guardian, which focused on difficult questions without providing graphic details.

Comments (4)

By Kerri Provost, July 19, 2010 7:51 am

A public hearing will be held tomorrow, July 20th, at 5:30 pm in the West Hartford Town Hall Auditorium. This is a chance for members of the community to speak out regarding the possible closure of the MDC properties (West Hartford reservoirs) to recreational use.

The West Hartford Reservoir on Route 4 is a way for Hartford residents to conveniently get our fix of nature. From Downtown, it takes about 15 minutes to drive there and maybe half an hour to bike. You can even take the bus there without much fuss at all. The MDC website describes the five reservoirs in West Hartford and Bloomfield as offering:

3,000 acres of beautiful forestland; there are more than 30 miles of paved and gravel roads for joggers and bicyclists, hiking trails [...], wheelchair-accessible picnic groves, cross-country skiing and snow shoeing.

There are also areas offering scenic views. Having a well-maintained recreational area is important for Hartford residents, most of whom have no (or small) yards because they rent rather than own. This site is a convenient, free, and fun mini-vacation spot for people who can not afford to (or choose not to) live in the surrounding expensive suburbs where green space is more plentiful.

Recently, a frivolous lawsuit filed against the MDC ended in a poor legal decision, which not only makes a mockery of the legal system, it has pressured the MDC to consider making poor decisions of their own. There is talk of them threatening to close the reservoirs to public recreational use.

For complete background, check out the numerous articles by Rick Green or the Save the MDC website. In a nutshell, what happened was that a cyclist was riding in the wrong direction on the paved trails and had been riding with her head down; as a result of this, she did not see a gigantic yellow gate, rode right into it, and wrecked herself. She damaged her vertebrae, but has since recovered and from several accounts, is still riding. A recent letter sent to the Courant by John Craggs says it best:

Maribeth Blonski’s lawyer stated that all the Metropolitan District Commission had to do was post a sign on the trail showing that there was a gate ahead. Yet, if Ms. Blonski did not see the gate, how would she have seen a smaller sign?

It’s difficult to see how the MDC could possibly be at fault on this one. Anyone who has been to the reservoir and has the ability to see has no doubt taken notice of the many signs (too many in my opinion) dotting the area. If someone abides by the site policies and walks or bikes in the correct direction, then she is given more than enough fair warning. Besides, one knows that there is a certain degree of risk involved in athletic activities. In this case, the gate used to keep motorized vehicles off the trails (making the area infinitely safer) only posed a risk to someone who was not riding right; by painting it yellow, rather than camouflage, the MDC had acted responsibly.

Now, since the MDC had to pay an outrageous lawsuit ($2.9 million) once, the concern is that future asinine lawsuits will continue to hurt them financially. While this concern is understandable, closing the reservoirs is not the answer!

A press release on the MDC website says:

The Water Bureau of the Metropolitan District (MDC) will conduct an informational
meeting relating to the recreational use of its reservoir land on Tuesday, July 20, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. in the
West Hartford Town Hall Auditorium, 50 South Main Street, West Hartford, Connecticut. The purpose of this
meeting is to receive public input on the issue. The Water Bureau will not take any formal action on this issue
at the meeting.

Under the MDC Charter, the Water Bureau is charged with making periodic recommendations to the District
Board regarding the uses permitted on and within MDC reservoir property. For example, in 1998, the District
Board, upon recommendation of the Water Bureau, adopted ordinances requiring bicyclists, skateboarders and
roller skaters using MDC property to wear certain protective equipment.

In response to a recent Superior Court decision in the case of Blonski v. Metropolitan District, the Water
Bureau, through its chairman, Commissioner Timothy Curtis of Windsor, has decided to reevaluate the MDC’s
policy in this area. “As a public entity funded by rate payer money, we have an obligation to assess our risks,
particularly in light of recent events. We intend to proceed in an open and deliberate manner as we review our
policies. In the meantime, the public should not assume that the Water Bureau has made, or will recommend,
any changes to the District’s recreational use policy,” said Commissioner Curtis.

On behalf of the District Board, and in response to a good deal of misinformation on the issue, Chairman
William DiBella stated, “Let me be perfectly clear. No decisions to change our current policies have been
made, specifically in regard to closing the reservoir property to the public. Any statements to the contrary
should be disregarded. The District Board has yet to take any formal action, and individual statements or
conclusions do not reflect Board policy. I commend Chairman Curtis for his leadership on this issue in
conducting an open and constructive dialogue.”

The meeting will include a brief presentation by MDC staff on its recreational facilities with public comments to
follow. Those attending the meeting who wish to speak will be asked to sign in for the record, and all speakers
will be limited to 3 minutes in duration. Organizations are welcome to choose a representative to speak on their
behalf.

They say that no formal decision has been made yet, but even an informal discussion of closing this area is cause for concern. If you share this concern but can not attend the meeting, you can email your thoughts on the matter to kshaw@themdc.com.

Continue reading 'Because Some of Us Do Not Like to Exercise in Gyms'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, July 14, 2010 6:01 pm

State Representative Robles’ absence from the candidate forum last night was made even more obvious as he was accused by opponent Alyssa Peterson of currently being under investigation. To recap, in a letter circulated and read that the event, Robles said that he missed the forum due to his obligation as an employee of the Hartford Police Department.

Today, WFSB’s Dennis House reports that Robles has indeed been under investigation — since September — regarding an “administrative issue.”

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, June 23, 2010 5:45 am

I recently stumbled upon one of the better uses for guns: manhole covers. You can read all about this project from the mid-90s here and here.

Comments (3)

By Kerri Provost, June 22, 2010 8:31 am

Here is, word-for-word, the press release sent out last Friday by Sarah Barr for Mayor Eddie Perez.

(June 18, 2010)—

Today’s verdict was a tremendous disappointment to me and my family. Anyone who has followed my forty year career of public service knows that I have never placed personal financial gain before the needs of my community or my city. I have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of support I have received from the residents of the City of Hartford during this difficult period. I am truly sorry for any actions that may have harmed the image and reputation of our community.

I intend to appeal today’s verdict. I believe that under further review by the courts, today’s decision will be overturned.

I have decided that it is not in the best interests of the City and my family for me to continue my duties as Mayor during the appeal of my case. I will formally notify the City Council shortly of my decision to relinquish my duties.

It has been a great honor and privilege to serve the people of this great city as Mayor. Since my election in 2001, we have rebuilt and reinvigorated our schools, significantly reduced crime, created hundreds of new homeownership opportunities, reshaped the face of public housing, revitalized downtown, improved the quality of life in our neighborhoods and made city government more responsive and efficient. As a community, our legacy of progress is tangible, concrete and visible in every city neighborhood. I am proud of what we have accomplished together and I urge all residents of our City to keep that progress moving forward.

It’s not terribly complicated to understand. Here is the dictionary definition of the word “relinquish”:

1 : to withdraw or retreat from : leave behind
2 : give up
3 a : to stop holding physically : release b : to give over possession or control of : yield

Oxford English Dictionary lists this as one of the definitions for relinquish: “To give up, resign, surrender”

A synonym of relinquish? Resign.

Everyone has been talking about who loses as a result of this conviction. Perhaps we should take a look at who won: newspapers, television news, and internet news. Until sentencing occurs, there is probably no substantial news related to Perez directly, so the milking of this story can stop now. That the City website is losing photos or that Perez remains at work (he said he would resign but he did not provide a date, so again, no news) are neither shocking nor interesting in the least. It would be more worthwhile to report on Pedro Segarra, who will take the place of Perez, and what will happen with the vacancy that Segarra would create on the City Council.

Comments (1)

By Kerri Provost, June 18, 2010 7:18 pm

To quote Sandra Bullock:

Now that we’ve done that, can we please go back to normal?” said Bullock. “Therapy’s really expensive. Go back to making fun of me. I don’t care. When we go to bed tonight I think we should think about all the people being affected in the Gulf and say a prayer for them.

Can we go back to real issues now, like the number of people affected by poverty, poor education, or the lack of health care?

Comments (14)

By Kerri Provost, May 27, 2010 8:03 am

This has been the question posed, but the definition of caring is one that I reject. The Courant has framed the issue as follows: Hartford residents do or do not care about the city based on political corruption and/or low voter turnout.

As if those were the only indicators of caring!

Don’t Blame Me for Perez
I have voted in every election. Because I am not able to see the world through rose-colored glasses, I know that people can be corrupt, evil, or just plain stupid, regardless of party affiliation; thus, I do not vote along any party line. Although I do not despise him as many do, I have never voted for Perez. And guess what? Many others in Hartford did not vote for him either. Citing as proof that Hartford residents do not care because Mayor Perez was reelected is like saying Americans did not care because GWB was elected twice. I do not understand why some would cast their votes in favor of certain candidates, but they do.

Low voter turnout is a problem, but it is not a problem unique to Hartford. Even in presidential elections, Americans do not take part as they could. Do we blame voters for not participating in a system that they view as broken or unable to be affected by the people? I don’t. I’ll admit to not always believing that my vote matters, but I do it anyway…in the same way that I wear a seatbelt or a bike helmet. It might be futile, but then, it might not, and it does not hurt me to do so.

Instead of framing the outcome of an election as a sign that Hartford residents do not care, why do we not ask instead why better candidates are not running for political office?

I do not care about Perez
Sure, I care about him as a human being. He’s never been unpleasant in my very few interactions with him. But I do not care about his trial. There. I said it.

The media cares about the Perez trial because it is scandalous (low grade scandal is what I would call it) and scandal sells papers, gets viewers, and allows “reporters” to sit in a court room tweeting inane, irrelevant observations, passing that off as news.

It’s not that I am a supporter of corruption. If the Mayor did in fact do something illegal, he should be punished appropriately for it. But — here’s a shocker — his fancy counter tops do not affect my everyday life. They are not the first thing I think of in the morning and the last thing before I go to sleep. No, the last thing I think about when going to bed is how the “noise ordinance with teeth” is more like one with dentures, in that when residents call for enforcement, the teeth have been removed. I care about the need for stronger enforcement of leash laws. There are people who let their pit bulls roam, which causes problems when they tangle with other dogs; there are some in my neighborhood who are afraid they will be bitten. Another thing I care about is how lackadaisical traffic law enforcement is. The police only need to park themselves at the corner of Broad and Capitol to meet any ticket quotas they might have. Every single time I am at this intersection I see people running red lights, speeding through the intersection, and doing other amazingly idiotic things, like texting while turning. Sit by the highway on and off ramps. I would feel safer standing in the middle of a driving school parking lot. I care about low literacy, bullying in schools, and the lack of employment for residents. I care that in certain neighborhoods where there are high rates of diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure, I see prominent billboards advertising alcohol and fast food. I care about the way downtown landlords price out low income residents or new small businesses, how the city demolishes buildings they own rather than maintain them so that they can be used, how the parks are not maintained as they should be, and how a minority of violent thugs make life unbearable in small sections of the city.

When I do not have so many other things to care about, then maybe I will have room in my brain for caring about a rather minor accusation made of a politician, who, by the way, has not gotten us into a war (or two), permitted torture, or wrecked the economy. Let’s prioritize our outrage. If Perez acted illegally, then he should be punished, but there is no need to sensationalize the trial, as this is not worthy of sensationalism.

Comments (3)

By Kerri Provost, May 10, 2010 7:29 pm

After a public hearing in which a few misinformed residents spoke out against the proposed City boycott and denouncement of Arizona, the resolution passed and awaits a signature from Mayor Perez.

The resolution to “denounc[e] SB 1070 and [...] boycott [...] discretionary City travel to Arizona and business with Arizona-based companies” was strongly supported by the City Council. Since the City has no apparent plans to travel to Arizona, and since it does no significant business with Arizona-based companies, this resolution is more symbolic than anything else. It is not an attempt to prevent residents from traveling to Arizona or buying goods from the state, as some believed it to be.
Continue reading 'Consider Yourself Denounced, Arizona'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, May 7, 2010 2:44 pm

Luis Cotto, the Minority Leader of Hartford’s City Council (Court of the Common Council) is introducing a resolution that calls for “denouncing SB 1070 and [...] a boycott of discretionary City travel to Arizona and business with Arizona-based companies.” Arizona State Senate Bill 1070 enables racial profiling and restricts the freedom of Americans to travel within the nation’s borders without being treated as guilty until proven innocent via the procurement of documents that normal Americans keep in safe deposit boxes, rather than in their wallets. This resolution, which Cotto says would ” exert pressure [on the Arizona government] by taking our business elsewhere,” is to come before the City Council on Monday, May 10th.

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost,

High Water Marks: Art & Renewal After Katrina opened in the Amistad Center for Art & Culture (within the Wadsworth Atheneum) at the beginning of May.

Music — which should be pumped throughout the museum, so that the deafening solitude which marks it vanishes into the background — plays in the exhibit, to help set the mood. One of my strongest recollections of a trip to MASS MoCA last summer was the music that was part of a New Orleans’ themed artwork. The uptempo jazz was juxtaposed with photos of New Orleans– a culturally natural and appropriate combination, but odd when the images were of Hurricane Katrina’s destruction. Here, at the Wadsworth, a similar thing happens when this music (though the volume is fairly muted) is the backdrop for a Katrina-themed exhibit.

This exhibit contains an interesting mix of materials — washboard, pots and pans, an umbrella, wood, and then more traditional media. The “Black Bowl” by Donald Boudreaux is a black umbrella against a black backdrop. The artist invites visitors to sit in a chair to view it. From this spot, one can look out the window and see the giant red Travelers’ umbrella. Luis Cruz Azaceta’s “At the Bottom of the Pot” is an assortment of pots and pans that are covered with photographs depicting Hurricane Katrina’s damage. Radcliffe Barley’s “Storm at Sea” is a dramatic mixed media piece that blocks off an entire hallway.

The exhibit runs through mid-September of this year.