Martin 'bothered' by colleagues' choice to reject chamber plan for Memorial Boulevard

To contact us Click HERE
City Councilor Henri Martin just issued this statement re the decision of the city's Real Estate Committee recently to reject a plan for Memorial Boulevard School's reuse by the Central Connecticut Chambers of Commerce:

City Councilor Henri Martin, left,
with Mayor Art Ward and
Councilors Ken Cockayne
and Kevin Fuller trailing

I’m bothered and disagreewith the recent decision by the Real Estate Committee of the City of Bristol toinitiate a new RFP (Request for proposal) regarding the future use of MemorialBoulevard School. Further I disagree with the member’s decision to discuss thismatter in an executive session rather than in public.
In its proposal, the CentralConnecticut Chamber of Commerce submitted a viable plan which I believe answeredthe wishes of our community — to protect and find a potential re-use for thishistoric property. The plan was visionary and provided innovative ideas foreconomic development to Bristol through the creation of an arts center thatincluded the preservation and future improvements of the theatre, and a businessincubator for start up entrepreneurs in the technology, media and bio-fields.
At its last Real Estate workshop,with a change of use from a building educating students to the anticipated usethe Chamber was proposing, city department officials offered their views of ADAupdates, fire and building code deficiencies, and future capitol improvementcosts that may lay ahead for any intended use.  Revealing these facts and costs may have worriedthe committee, but should not have warranted the rejection of the Chambersproposal or a motion and approval to request a new RFP.
I understand the city’sbudget is under pressure, but imagine the unknown costs associated with the innovativeidea of ESPN back in 1978/79 that gave city officials reason to pause. ThankGod we pressed forward. In my opinion, revealing all the facts and costs only facilitatesa better understanding of the risks for all involved.
The proposal was anopportunity for the City and Chamber to develop a Public/Private partnership,thus allowing them to work together to preserve the theatre and building, andsimultaneously bring some kind of economic development in the downtown area. Weneed new innovative vision—not the same old same old.
Downtown needs energy; artenergy, entrepreneurial energy, young professional energy, upscale energy,community energy—and the Chamber’s proposal offered all of this. Unfortunatelythis didn’t happen.  After a questionableexecutive session meeting, the committee decided to start the process all overagain.
The Real Estate committeefailed to work collaboratively with the Chamber to determine if a format couldbe established which met both their and the City’s goal. The process wasinstead adversarial in nature which was not fair to the Chamber and does adisservice to our citizens.
If the Real Estate Committeewas worried about the potential costs mentioned by the department officials orhad unanswered questions; those details could have been addressed duringnegotiations between the City and the Chamber before any final lease documentwas executed. The concept was still sound.
City officials should beworking collectively with our business partners in the Chamber to achieve thegoal of the community to preserve the historic Memorial Boulevard School. Inthe end, we either may have had an agreement that met the needs of both sides,or maybe it wouldn’t have worked for the either, but the decision would havebeen reached in a cooperative manner rather than the way it did.
Unfortunately, the Chamberhas decided to withdraw its proposal and not respond to the new RFP, and giventhe nature of the process which was followed who can blame them.
Now we’re back to square one…
Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com