Comments (1)

By Kerri Provost, July 26, 2010 10:05 pm

You might want to hold off until October to watch these, or at least sit in a very air conditioned room.

What committee meetings are all about:

You can also hear about the basics of City Council meetings in the first fireside chat video. If you don’t care about the basics, watch this anyway for a cheap laugh as a baby tries to pick a politician’s nose.

The second fireside chat is devoted to teaching us about what the deal is with commissions and task forces. I found this the most informative, as now I can prepare my letter to the mayor expressing my interest in any task force dealing with fashion, especially fashion mistakes.

The rest of the Council needs to step it up. Who’s going to do a poolside chat? Perhaps someone can cover how to effectively deliver an opinion at the beginning of a Council meeting.

Comments (1)

By Kerri Provost, June 28, 2010 7:28 pm

With only Calixto Torres playing the Debbie Downer role, the “Ordinance repealing Chapter 31, Article I, Section 31-5 of Code de Skateboards” was approved. This means that skateboards are now allowed on sidewalks. They had actually been banned since the late 1970s. Continue reading 'Antiquated Code Repealed!'»

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 (0)

By Kerri Provost, June 9, 2010 5:00 am

After yesterday’s update on the Lyric Theater, Councilperson Cotto provided me with a draft of the resolution which will be submitted to the City Council today. The language of it is as follows:

WHEREAS,     On March 27, 2010, the Broad Street portion of the Lyric Theater was demolished because it was deemed to be an imminent threat to public safety; and

WHEREAS,     The Park Street portion of the Theater is in severe need of renovation; and

WHEREAS,     The remaining portion on Park is in the heart of the busiest retail center in the City and upkeep of the area’s physical environment must be a priority; and

WHEREAS,     The Fiscal Year 2010-2011 budget has allocated eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000.00) towards the preservation of the remaining portion of the Lyric Theater, though some believe that may not be enough; and

WHEREAS,     There has been an outpouring of community support to preserve the Lyric Theater’s remaining portion; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED,   That the Court of Common Council requests that the Director of Finance establishes a “Lyric Theater Fund” so that individuals and organizations can make contributions towards the Lyric Theater’s preservation.

Comments (4)

By Kerri Provost, June 8, 2010 8:07 am

On June 10th, the Licenses and Inspections Division of the Hartford Department of Development Services should have answers.

At the May 27th Frog Hollow NRZ meeting, Building Official Michael Fuschi gave a presentation on the structural review and feasibility study of 585 Park Street (parcel 226-537-068) — the remaining part of the Lyric Theater. On March 27th, the main section of the theater — 856 Broad Street– was demolished. In the presentation, Fuschi shared a letter from Hallisey Engineering Associates. There were some inaccuracies in the letter: “This building is a three-story structure with a basement that was built in approximately 1900 based upon City records” and “Based on [conversations with Fuschi], the structure has been uninhabited for at least several years and possibly up to 15 years.” From the grand scheme of things, yes, the building was constructed around the 1900’s, but it’s more accurate to say that it was built in approximately 1920. Besides this, the building has been uninhabited for much longer than 15 years. It was destroyed by fire in 1979. It has been demolished by neglect for a time period of thirty years; it was acquired by the Hartford Redevelopment Agency about fifteen years ago.  Not attending to such details raises questions about the accuracy of content in the letter.

Based on the letter, the fate of the remaining structure does not look promising. A “significant mold infestation” due to “water infiltration over the years” was noted, as was the potential presence of asbestos (not likely) and lead (very likely). A “significant breach of the roof system” was found, which is not surprising, as the building languished in disrepair for so long.  The letter reports: “based on our experience, it is our opinion that the roof breach has significantly reduced the capacity of the structure. Although we cannot say with certainty that the structure will collapse, there is a danger that it could collapse in the near future due to the reduced capacity of the bearing walls and overloading the floor framing.” This sounds uncertain, and reflects poorly on the City of Hartford for ignoring the condition of the building for as long as it did.

There’s more. Continue reading 'Can the Remainder of the Lyric Theater Be Saved?'»

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 (16)

By Kerri Provost, March 24, 2010 9:01 pm

Wednesday evening’s Frog Hollow NRZ meeting was full of irony.

The meeting began with discussion about blighted properties, including the Capitol West building. While considering possible proactive measures to take about the Myrtle Street eyesore, which is one of the first sights to greet visitors to Hartford, Glenn Geathers — Project Manager of Department of Development Services Economic Development Division — basically told concerned residents that there was nothing to be done, even though no positive changes have been made to this property in years. He said that the economy dried up the owner’s grand vision of developing this structure into condominiums. So, we’re told to sit tight and wait.

When the main topic of discussion — the “emergency” demolition of the Lyric Theater — came up, Geathers espoused the same sentiment. Sorry folks. Nothing for you to do here. Move on. Continue reading 'Lyric Theater Demolition: “Order Letter is Official and Cannot be Changed”'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, November 15, 2009 11:44 pm

As reported by Cityline, rJo Winch’s recent taxpayer-funded trip to Texas for a conference cost $2600. Continue reading 'Math Problem of the Day'»

Comments (8)

By Kerri Provost, May 10, 2009 9:30 am

A few months ago when the revision process began, there was a public hearing. Subsequently, at every meeting of the Charter Revision Commission, the public have had the opportunity to vent voice their concerns for a few minutes. During the regular meetings, less than a handful of people bothered to show up to express their opinions. Predictably, some have already begun to complain about the outcome. This kind of kvetching into the abyss is purposeless and would be more effective if directed to those who have at least a semblance of control over the matter. Draft revisions are being made available beginning on Monday and can be picked up in the Town Clerk’s Office and in City Council Offices, as well as online. Since there are actually some major suggested changes, I do think it’s worth taking the time to read through and show up at the public hearing if Hartford’s politics even remotely matter to you. This Wednesday (May 13th) a public hearing will be held at 6pm in the Hartford Public Library.

Here is a preview of some of the revised sections:

Composition of the Court of Common Council. (it is changing!)

The Council shall consist of thirteen members, consisting of one member elected from each of five Districts and eight elected at large. The Council shall designate such council districts by number. The maximum number of at-large members of the Council who may be members of the same political party shall reflect the requirements of the General Statutes with respect to minority party representation.

The following section explains how the districts will be determined, providing an idea about why there is this desire to switch from At-Large to Hybrid.

Sec. 6 Establishment of Districts for Court of Common Council.
(a) No later than thirty (30) days following the completion of reapportionment of the General Assembly, as required by the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, as further set forth in the General Statutes, the Council shall appoint a districting commission consisting of seven (7) to fifteen (15) members, no more than fifty (50%) percent of whom shall be members of the same political party (“Appointment Date”). The districting commission shall report to the Council no later than seventy (70) days following the Appointment Date, setting forth the recommended boundaries of the five (5) Council districts.

(b) Council districts shall be:

(1) of substantially equal population and otherwise consistent with all federal and state constitutional and statutory requirements;

(2) to the extent possible, consistent with preceding, maintain the integrity of recognized neighborhood planning areas;

(3) geographically contiguous and compact; and

(4) to the extent possible consistent with the preceding, consistent with existing legislative districts.

(c) The districting commission shall be supported in its work by appropriate City staff which shall have available to it the necessary support to facilitate the work of the commission and well as such other professional assistance (subject to appropriation) as it shall choose.

(d) The districting commission shall hold a public hearing at least one week before it submits its report to the Council, and shall make a tentative map of its proposed districts available to the public electronically, in hard copy available at the City Clerk’s office, and by causing it to be published in one or more newspapers of daily circulation in the City at least three (3) days before the public hearing. The districting commission may modify the tentative districts before submitting its report to the Council.

(e) The Council shall vote on the establishment of Council districts within three (3) weeks of its receipt of the districting commission’s report. The Council may amend the district boundaries recommended by the districting commission before approving districts, but the districts approved by the Council must comply with the standards of subsection (c) of this section. A resolution approving districts must be affirmatively supported by a majority of the members of Council, and shall not be subject to veto by the Mayor.
Continue reading 'Revised, Ready, and Waiting'»