AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT …uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/2006Bridgeport...2 An Advisory Services Panel Report U LI–the Urban Land Institute is a non-profit research

A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P A N E L R E P O R T

BridgeportConnecticut

Urban LandInstitute$

BridgeportConnecticutCitywide Economic Development Strategies

January 16–21, 2005An Advisory Services Panel Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Panel Report2

ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a non-profit research and education organiza-tion that promotes responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance

the total environment.

The Institute maintains a membership represent-ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors awide variety of educational programs and forumsto encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar-ing of experience. ULI initiates research thatanticipates emerging land use trends and issuesand proposes creative solutions based on thatresearch; provides advisory services; and pub-lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminateinformation on land use and development.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 25,000 members and associates from 80 coun-tries, representing the entire spectrum of theland use and development disciplines. Profession-

als represented include developers, builders,property owners, investors, architects, publicofficials, planners, real estate brokers, apprais-ers, attorneys, engineers, financiers, academics,students, and librarians. ULI relies heavily onthe experience of its members. It is throughmember involvement and information resourcesthat ULI has been able to set standards ofexcellence in development practice. The Insti-tute has long been recognized as one of America’smost respected and widely quoted sources ofobjective information on urban planning, growth,and development.

This Advisory Services panel report is intendedto further the objectives of the Institute and tomake authoritative information generally avail-able to those seeking knowledge in the field ofurban land use.

Richard M. RosanPresident

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2005 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

ULI Catalog Number: ASB086

Cover photo © Hugh Smith

Bridgeport, Connecticut, January 16–21, 2005 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, militarybase reuse, provision of low-cost and affordablehousing, and asset management strategies, amongother matters. A wide variety of public, private,and nonprofit organizations have contracted forULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI panel teams are interdisciplinary and typi-cally include several developers, a landscapearchitect, a planner, a market analyst, a financeexpert, and others with the niche expertiseneeded to address a given project. ULI teamsprovide a holistic look at development problems.Each panel is chaired by a respected ULI mem-ber with previous panel experience.

The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in-tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-sor representatives; a day of hour-long interviewsof typically 50 to 75 key community representa-tives; and two days of formulating recommenda-tions. Many long nights of discussion precede thepanel’s conclusions. On the final day on site, thepanel makes an oral presentation of its findingsand conclusions to the sponsor. A written reportis prepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meetwith key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partic-

ipants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments areable to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’sissues and to provide recommendations in a com-pressed amount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended to pro-vide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffRachelle L. LevittExecutive Vice President, Policy and Practice

Mary Beth CorriganVice President, Advisory Services and Policy Programs

Nancy Zivitz SussmanSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Nicholas GabelAssociate, Advisory Services

Jason BellPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Yvonne StantonAdministrative Assistant

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Julie D. Stern/JDS CommunicationsManuscript Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Kim RuschGraphics

Diann Stanley-AustinDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services


The panelists and ULI–the Urban Land Insti-tute appreciate having had the opportunityto convene an Advisory Services panel inthe historic city of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

The panel process is a massive undertaking, onethat was made successful by the support and dedi-cation of numerous people. Specifically, the panelwould like to thank Mayor John Fabrizi and hisstaff, particularly Deborah Caviness, Ruben Felipe,Nancy Hadley, Caryn Kaufman, Ed Lavernoich,and Mike Nidoh, for their assistance both beforeand during the panel’s visit. The panel also wouldlike to thank Paul Crisalli, chair of the ULI Dis-trict Council for Westchester/Fairfield County,Connecticut.

Several corporate sponsors helped make thispanel possible. Special thanks go to Peter Hurst,John Klein, and Peter Brestovan of People’s Bank;Ray Rizio and David Quatrella of Quatrella &Rizio; the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation; Neil Sa-lonen, president of the University of Bridgeport;Mary Pat Healy of SBC; Paul Antinozzi andGeorge Perham of Antinozzi Associates Architec-ture & Interior Design; Shelly Saczynski ofUnited Illuminating; John Stafstrom of Pullman &Comley; Charles Firlotte of Aquarion Company;Ernest Trefz of the Trefz Corporation; AugustSerra of General Electric; William Carroll andSean Carroll of Merit Insurance; Kathleen Gard-ner of Wheelabrator Bridgeport; Robert Parnellof PSEG Power; Ted Hofbauer of Bridgeport En-ergy; Katherine Saint of the Schwerdtle StampCompany; George Wiles of Wiles Architects; andMichael LaBella of Wachovia Bank. Organizingthe effort was the panel’s chief sponsor, theBridgeport Regional Business Council (BRBC).

The ULI Advisory Services panel process re-quires hard work on the part of agency staff mem-bers as well as panelists. The panel would like tothank the following people for their hard work be-fore, during, and after the panel’s week in Bridge-

port: Erica Bartelson, Tim Bartlett, Alisa Batten,Laura Hoydick, Stephanie Lindley, Janice Martin,and Kathy Valadares of the BRBC; Jeff Bishopand Marie Dallas of the Bridgeport Economic Re-source Center (BERC); Louis Zuckerman fromLeadership Greater Bridgeport; and Mark Anas-tasi, Rebecca Cabanas, Charles M. Carroll, NeidaCartagena, Bill Coleman, Greg Conte, GeorgeEstrada, Mike Feeney, Lynn Haig, Kathy Hunter,Lydia Johnson, Sabine Kuczo, Shurley Lazarus,Curt Leng, Mike Lupkas, Rich McHugh, BillMinor, Jennifer Nacewicz, Bill O’Brien, Peter Paa-janen, Ron Pacacha, Max Perez, Elizabeth Pil-grim, Tony Polumbo, Marilyn Rodriguez, SamShaw, Thomas Sherwood, Lisa Trachtenburg, andSteve Tyliszczak from the city of Bridgeport.

The ULI Steering Committee, led by George Ochsand Paul Timpanelli, was instrumental in bringingthe panel to Bridgeport. The committee’s input onthe scope and expectations of the panel processwas an important driving force for the week’s ac-tivities. Other members of the Steering Commit-tee include U. S. Congressman Christopher Shays,Fourth District of Connecticut; State SenatorErnest Newton; Andres Ayala, president of theBridgeport City Council; John Dye and RichardPaoletto, co-chairs of the Economic and Commu-nity Development and Environment Committee ofthe Bridgeport City Council; Trevor Babb of theInterdenominational Ministerial Alliance; PeterBrestovan, senior vice president of People’s Bank;former state representative Jackie Cocco; RosaCorrea, chair of the Bridgeport Housing Author-ity; Janis Hadley, president of Housatonic Com-munity College; Nancy Hadley, director of theBridgeport Office of Planning and Economic De-velopment; Peter Hurst, CEO of the CommunityBank; Cindy Kissin, president and CEO of theGreater Bridgeport Area Foundation; John Klein,president and CEO of People’s Bank and chair ofthe Bridgeport Economic Development AdvisoryCouncil; William Kosturko, executive vice presi-

Acknowledgments


dent and general counsel of People’s Bank; PhilipKuchma, chairman of the Downtown Special Ser-vices District; Robert Laska, publisher of theConnecticut Post; Carmen Marcano, CEO of Help-ing Hands, Inc.; Deborah Sims of the Charles D.Smith Foundation; Jennifer Smith-Turner, deputydirector of the Connecticut Department of Eco-nomic and Community Development; Robert Tre-fry, president of Bridgeport Hospital; Pedro Was-mer, president and CEO of Somerset CapitalGroup, Ltd; State Senator Bill Finch; Robert Kee-ley, director of the Downtown Special ServicesDistrict; Kevin Nunn, president of the BERC; andJames Wang, executive director of the GreaterBridgeport Regional Planning Agency.

Conducting a panel requires the use of severalvenues and services. The panel would like tothank the following institutions for providing

meeting space, food, or services: High on the HogBBQ Bistro, Ralph n’ Rich’s, Joseph’s Steakhouse,the Bridgeport Holiday Inn & Conference Center,the University of Bridgeport, the Playhouse onthe Green, the Greater Bridgeport Transit Au-thority, and the Bridgeport Police Department.

Finally, the panel members also wish to thank themore than 225 individuals who participated in theinterview process. This diverse cross section ofprivate citizens, business leaders, interest groups,and government officials offered invaluable infor-mation and perspectives on the issues before thepanel and the city of Bridgeport.


ULI Panel and Project Staff 8

Foreword 9

Overview and Summary of Recommendations 12

Strengths, Constraints, and Opportunities 15

Community Inclusion and Leadership 20

Administrative Process 23

Economic Development Administration 27

Initiatives and Action Items 35

Real Estate Market Opportunities 42

Conclusion 51

About the Panel 52

Contents


Panel ChairWilliam H. (Bill) HudnutSenior Resident Fellow, Public Policy, andJoseph C. Canizaro Chair for Public Policy

ULI–the Urban Land InstituteWashington, D.C.

Panel MembersJonathan BarnettProfessorUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Jeffrey T. BondSenior Planner for Real Estate and HousingUniversity of California at BerkeleyBerkeley, California

Ernest FreemanDirector of Community DevelopmentTownship of PlainsboroPlainsboro, New Jersey

Jack IllesManaging PartnerUrban LabsSan Diego, California

Jeffrey D. JeepAttorneyDiver, Jeep and Blazer, L.L.C. Wheaton, Illinois

Cecilia A. MowattPresidentStrategies In Site, Inc.Chicago, Illinois

Kerri D. RogersPresidentPublic Private Partners, Inc.New York, New York

Adviser to the PanelDavid S. WatsonVice President/Regional ManagerCDG Real Estate Lending GroupJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.New York, New York

ULI Project DirectorsMary Beth CorriganVice President, Advisory Services and Policy Programs

Alexander BondAssociate, Policy and Practice

ULI On-Site CoordinatorCarmen McCormickCoordinator, Meetings and Events

ULI Panel and Project Staff


Bridgeport is at a crossroads. A relativelynew mayoral administration, new devel-opment interest, and other new opportuni-ties all are helping the city to reinvent it-

self. Before Bridgeport can move into a new era of prosperity, however, it is important for electedofficials, business owners, and residents to under-stand their place in today’s marketplace. Bridge-port must choose between two paths: strugglingto revive the city’s fading manufacturing econ-omy or seeking out new growth industries in thecommercial, high-tech, residential, and servicesectors.

Unlike many neighboring communities, Bridgeporthas not been able to fully develop a stable and vi-brant economy. In part, this is because Bridgeporthas clung to its image as an industrial city, one thatdoes not fit its current position in the regional andnational marketplace. Historically, Bridgeport hasbeen an independent city, supporting the surround-ing region with shopping, transportation connec-tions, and plentiful jobs in factories and water-dependent industries. In more recent decades,however, the economic base of the city has de-clined. Other Connecticut communities such asNew Haven, Norwalk, Stamford, and Westporthave cultivated new identities and economiesmore in tune with modern life in New England.

In the recent past, many of the towns south ofBridgeport have reinvented themselves as bed-room communities of New York City, taking ad-vantage of transportation connections and theonce-cheap supply of land in demand by workersseeking to escape urban life. Towns in other partsof Connecticut have developed vibrant job mar-kets in the service, technology, and research sec-tors. The city of Bridgeport has not been able toadopt either of these identities.

The panel believes that rebuilding Bridgeport’sdeclining manufacturing sector is the wrong pathto take. While the manufacturing industries that

Foreword

remain in Bridgeport play an important role inits economy, the city’s prosperity can no longerbe tied solely to industries like metalworking,shipbuilding, and the manufacturing of specialtyequipment. While the panel believes that Bridge-port should continue to support and embrace itsexisting manufacturing firms, it also believes thatthe city must recognize that future growth in thissector is highly unlikely and not in the best inter-est of the community.

The decline of manufacturing is not the fault ofBridgeport’s industry leaders or city government.Indeed, the city boasts a comparatively large num-ber of industrial jobs. However, producers of con-sumer goods have been moving their operationsoverseas for decades. Communications improve-ments, cheap labor, and innovations in transpor-tation have simply made it more economical forcompanies to locate new factories overseas. Thereality is that if a company wants to establish

Bridgeport is located insouthwestern Connecti-cut, about an hour fromNew York City.

LONGISLAND SOUND

Hartford

New York

Bridgeport

New Haven

Stamford

Waterbury

Bristol

Danbury

East Hartford

Meriden

New Britain

Norwalk

Stratford

West Hartford

West Haven

Port Jefferson

NEW YORK

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW YORK

C O N N E C T I C U T


new factories, it is far more likely to locate themin China or India than in Bridgeport or any otherAmerican city. The U.S. economy long ago shiftedaway from manufacturing toward the commercial,high-tech, and service sectors. The panel believesthat Bridgeport is far better positioned for em-ployment growth and diversification in these areas.

The challenge is to carve out Bridgeport’s nichein the new marketplace. Shifting the economicbase of a city is never easy. Bridgeport is not alonein facing this challenge. Dozens of other cities suchas Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Hoboken, and Cin-cinnati experienced similar economic doldrumsbefore reinventing themselves in the postindus-trial age.

Other factors have played a role in Bridgeport’sinability to attract new development. The mostpervasive is the enduring legacy of corrupt gov-ernment. The city has had a reputation of quidpro quo governance for many years. Private in-vestment in Bridgeport declined as developerswere unable and ethically unwilling to deal withthe city’s bureaucracy. In 1991, Bridgeport be-

came the first major U.S. city to file for federalbankruptcy protection. This resulted in a verypoor—and, for a time, nonexistent—credit rating,eliminating the city’s ability to borrow money. Un-able to issue bonds to finance long-term construc-tion and improvement, city infrastructure becamebacklogged. This had the added effect of deterringdevelopers, who had no assurance that their in-vestment would continue to be supported by thenecessary infrastructure.

The turbulent times of past decades have passed.The city’s credit rating has been restored, and re-sponsible elected officials are now in place. How-ever, the city’s reputation still suffers from the mis-takes of the past. In order for Bridgeport to regaineconomic prosperity, it must attain a sound repu-tation. Beyond ethical governance, reforms to cityadministrative procedures and quality-of-lifeenhancing services prove that the government iscommitted to the city’s best interests. Perhaps thelargest roadblock for Bridgeport is the lack of mo-mentum for development in the city. The panelbelieves that development interest in Bridgeport

The Port Jefferson Ferryenhances Bridgeport’stransportation connec-tions. Its terminal will bea part of the plannedIntermodal Center.


will quickly rise after a number of small, easilyattainable projects are completed.

The Panel’s AssignmentThe ULI panel’s assignment was a complex one.The panel was charged with advising the city onthe potential of its developable land portfolio, alongwith a prioritization of proposed projects. Beyondthe site-specific questions, the panel was asked toevaluate the city’s economic development adminis-tration, permit approval process, and quality-of-life issues to uncover potential roadblocks to de-velopment interest in Bridgeport.

The panel believes strongly in Bridgeport andhopes the city can believe in itself once again. Itneeds to actively craft a new image, based on acommunity vision that claims its unique positionin the region. Lying just over an hour from NewYork City and surrounded by prosperous Connec-ticut cities, Bridgeport is suited to be a commu-nity with a balance of housing and jobs. Whetherappealing to daily, part-time, or telecommutingworkers, Bridgeport’s portfolio of available land,buildings for adaptive use, excellent transporta-tion connections, and diverse community will ap-

peal to many workers with jobs located betweenNew Haven and New York City. Bridgeport alsocan avail itself of its plentiful labor supply to culti-vate service, retail, and specialty small businesses.

This report begins with a discussion of what thepanel believes to be the city’s strengths, of whichthere are many; its constraints, which all citieshave; and its opportunities, which can be capital-ized upon to propel Bridgeport into the future. Thereport then discusses the foundation of all of thepanel’s recommendations, the Bridgeport Partner-ship, in detail. This is followed by a discussion ofthe changes the panel feels need to be made to thecity’s economic development and land use adminis-trative processes. The report continues with a de-scription of initiatives and action items the pan-elists believe are achievable in the immediate,short, and long terms. It concludes with brief dis-cussions of more than a dozen properties underconsideration for redevelopment by the city ofBridgeport.


Administrative ProcessThe panel recommends several changes to thecity’s administrative processes. First and fore-most is the ethical foundation of the city. Bridge-port has lost the public’s trust as a result of pastethical improprieties. The city now must strive toprovide transparent and inclusive government.An important step in ethical government is thecreation of an ethics panel to undertake a top-to-bottom review of the city government, includingits budget, hiring, and promotion procedures.

The panel also found that the city’s master planhas not been satisfactorily implemented. The cityshould continue to update its master plan andshould resolve any outstanding differences in thecommunity during that process. Bridgeport’s mas-ter plan must be strictly adhered to in the future.Further, the development review process shouldbe streamlined to simplify the approval processand allow developers to be reasonably certain oftheir applications’ outcomes. Finally, the panelrecommends that city board members be requiredto attend training and that board seats should bereserved for members of the community with per-tinent expertise.

Economic Development AdministrationThe panel feels that Bridgeport’s economic devel-opment administration is not as sophisticated asthose of comparable cities. The city’s request forproposals (RFP) process is not sufficient to ensurethat high-quality projects are built by experienceddevelopers. The panel recommends that Bridge-port move to a request for qualifications (RFQ)process, followed by an RFP process, to ensurethat only experienced developers are involved inthe final selection process. The city also must fol-low up on subsidized projects to ensure that de-velopment is proceeding satisfactorily.

The city of Bridgeport presents a complexset of issues. The panel arrived at a varietyof conclusions and recommendations for thecity. It made these recommendations and

conclusions after an intense, weeklong study ofthe city, including site tours, a comprehensive in-terview process involving many members of thecommunity, and review of data and documentsfrom various agencies. The panel’s recommenda-tions are summarized below and described in de-tail later in this report.

Community Leadership and InclusionThe panel feels that Bridgeport needs to cometogether as a community to set goals for the city.This consensus-building process will be an impor-tant step in ending the period of mistrust betweengovernment and city residents. To help heal thewounds of the past and build consensus for thefuture, the panel proposes two initiatives to spurpublic and private sector involvement in economicdevelopment and quality-of-life issues.

The first initiative proposed is the Bridgeport Part-nership, which is to be an ongoing commitment ofpublic input events. The partnership’s first activityshould be the Bridgeport Summit, a daylong meet-ing to which the community at large should be in-vited, along with city staff. The Bridgeport Sum-mit should present the ULI panel report to thepublic, hold preliminary public discussions, anddecide on a format for inclusive public input in thefuture.

The second initiative suggested by the panel is asemipermanent roundtable of corporate leaders.This group, dubbed the Bridgeport LeadershipCouncil, should meet regularly to advise the mayorand his staff on reforms that would lead to greaterprivate investment in the city. This group alsoshould pool its resources and clout to help repairthe city’s relationship with state agencies.

Overview and Summary ofRecommendations


Brownfields are a serious problem in Bridgeport,and the panel makes several recommendations toremediate them. First, the city needs an accurateinventory of contaminated parcels, along with alist of contaminants. The panel suggests that thecity aggressively pursue responsible parties topay for cleanup, and recommends that it alsowork cooperatively with the state to help pay forcertain projects. In addition, Bridgeport shouldconstruct a state-of-the-art treatment facility toreduce cleanup costs. Finally, the city and stateshould make remediation guidelines more flexi-ble to allow for other types of brownfield reme-diation, including engineered controls to containpolluted soil.

Initiatives and Action ItemsThe panel feels that the city could take several ac-tions to improve the quality of life and foster eco-nomic development. These initiatives and actionitems fall into three categories: immediate, shortterm, and long term. Immediate initiatives includeceasing the sale of tax liens and foreclosed proper-ties; a commitment to repair the Congress Streetdrawbridge; and the creation of an arts and enter-tainment commission. The short-term initiativesconsist of upgrading the municipal Web site; rein-stating bulk trash pickup service; and creating acitizen information line. Long-term initiatives in-clude improving the city’s education system; cre-ating a city identity and brand; and investing inneighborhood revitalization.

Real Estate Market OpportunitiesThe city of Bridgeport has a vast array of develop-able properties, many of which will require retro-fitting. The panel feels that the city places toomuch emphasis on bringing new heavy industryto Bridgeport, and also believes that the city hasstrong market potential for housing and retailspace. Many of the city’s old industrial buildingsare suitable for adaptive use as housing or smallbusiness incubators. The panel reached conclu-sions about several properties and, in some cases,departed substantially from the city’s current vi-sion for these sites. Short summaries of the panel’sconclusions appear below, and are elaborated onlater in the report.

• The city should pursue funding for the resto-ration of the Palace and Majestic theaters, per-haps in conjunction with the construction of aperforming arts magnet school.

• The Lafayette Center office site would be a goodlocation for the development of a signature of-fice building.

• The Remington site on Main Street would besuitable for luxury residential development,provided that an adjacent parcel will not beused in the future for power generation. If thatparcel will be used by the power plant, the siteis not suitable for anything other than indus-trial space.

• The Pequonnock site deserves a low prioritybecause of its function as a parking lot for thecity’s ballpark and arena. It is doubtful that any

Panelists discuss issueswith local stakeholdersduring the interviewprocess.


development would be financially feasible if thesite plan must include 800 parking spaces.

• The Father Panik Village site is suitable formore than 100 affordable for-sale homes. How-ever, these homes should be located away fromthe railroad tracks, where a school is presentlyplanned. The school should be placed near therailroad, and homes developed on the currentschool site.

• The city should explore the possibility of acquir-ing excess land from the University of Bridge-port in order to construct luxury waterfronthousing.

• The Intermodal Center is a desirable addition to the city.

• The panel developed a conceptual site plan forSteel Point to replace the existing one. Thepanel’s plan does not incorporate the United Il-luminating parcel or the adjacent marinas be-cause these properties are not controlled by thecity. The panel encourages the city to issue anew RFQ/RFP for the parcels it owns, and sug-gests high-end, destination retail accompaniedby a waterfront boardwalk on this site.

• The city should explore the possibility of devel-oping the Sikorsky Airport as an office park orsell the property altogether.

• The Lake Success Business Park deserves a lowpriority for city funding and staff. The long timehorizon for this project and its location reduceits importance in the city’s economic develop-ment plan. Lake Success can be a long-termgoal for the city’s Seaview Avenue corridor, butpriority must be given to infill and redevelop-ment sites in the center city. Further, the citymust focus more on residential, office, and retailland uses than on industrial ones.

• The city should issue an RFP for a seasonal en-tertainment and recreational venue on PleasureBeach.

ULI panel chair Bill Hud-nut (right) discussesbackground informationwith Bridgeport MayorJohn Fabrizi.


The panel spent considerable time readingdocuments, being briefed by city and agencystaff, and talking with people in the commu-nity. Through these activities, the panel ob-

served the following strengths, which make Bridge-port a unique and exciting place; constraints, whichprevent Bridgeport from achieving its full po-tential; and opportunities, of which the city cantake advantage to realize its full potential. Thesestrengths, constraints, and opportunities aresummarized below and addressed in further de-tail throughout the remainder of this report.

StrengthsThe panel believes that Bridgeport has numerousstrengths, some of which it recognizes and is ex-ploiting, and others that have not yet been recog-nized. These include the following:

• Civic Commitment. The panel repeatedly heardthat people in the community believe that Bridge-port can be much more than it is today, and thatthey want it to be the best that it can be. Giventhe right opportunities, the community is com-mitted to achieving these goals. People are will-ing to serve on committees, invest time and en-ergy into their neighborhoods, and work hard tokeep their businesses in Bridgeport.

• Committed Corporate Partners. The panel heardfrom several businesses that believe in Bridge-port and are willing to continue to invest in thecommunity. These companies will do what isneeded to remain in Bridgeport, as long as thecity shows an interest in working with them.

• Private Sector Interest. Several private devel-opers have begun investing in Bridgeport in thelast few years. The Lofts on Lafayette, Bridge-port Landing/Steel Point, and the CityTrustbuilding renovation are just a few examples ofprivate interest in Bridgeport.

• Integrated Transportation System. Bridgeportis fortunate to have several modes of transpor-tation available. The city has excellent accessto Interstate 95 (I-95), the major corridor forcars and trucks along the eastern seaboard. Ac-cess to rail transportation is superb: more than60 trains stop at Bridgeport’s station each day,connecting the city to New York, Boston, andnumerous points in between and beyond. Bridge-port also has a good public transit system, and asuccessful ferry connects the city to Long Island.

• Reduced Crime. The panel heard that the city’scrime rate has dropped over the past five years.This is a major accomplishment that should beadvertised and exploited. The trend also needsto continue.

• Opportunities to Expand the Labor Force. Oneof Bridgeport’s untapped resources is its poten-tial labor force. People want to stay in Bridge-port, and will do so if there are jobs. Job train-ing already exists at Housatonic CommunityCollege (HCC) and other institutions. In addi-tion, there is an educated workforce coming outof the University of Bridgeport, Sacred HeartUniversity, and HCC. If Bridgeport offers at-tractive jobs and a high quality of life, many ofthese institutions’ graduates can be enticed tostay in the city.

• Entrepreneurial Spirit. The panel spoke withseveral small and upstart business owners whohope they can stay in Bridgeport, given theavailability of workspace and labor.

• Consumer Buying Power. While Bridgeport isnot the wealthiest community in Connecticut,neither is it the poorest. The city’s residentsearn more money and have more wealth thanthose in many American cities. There is buyingpower in the city, and even more in the region.Both city residents and commuters to Bridge-port have substantial purchasing power.

Strengths, Constraints, and Opportunities


• Waterfront Development Opportunities. Thepanel believes that the waterfront is one of thecity’s greatest assets. It needs to be a majorfocus of Bridgeport’s physical and economic re-development. Cities around the country wouldbe envious of the amount of valuable waterfrontland available in Bridgeport.

• Ballpark and Arena. The city already has madepublic investments in the ballpark and arena.While these facilities may have some issues,they are an asset for the community and helpkeep it competitive with other communities inthe region.

• Blossoming Arts Community. As art space inNew York becomes more expensive, artists arelooking for alternative live/work spaces. Bridge-port is becoming home to a small but growingarts community. Artists tend to be pioneers forurban renewal, since they are willing to usespace that may otherwise be unmarketable,leading to neighborhood improvements throughtheir mere presence. Maturing artists’ commu-

nities often attract young professionals andempty nesters.

• Cultural Diversity. More than 60 languagesare spoken in Bridgeport. This cultural diver-sity needs to be celebrated and enhanced, be-cause it helps to differentiate Bridgeport fromthe surrounding communities.

• Adaptable Historic Structures. Bridgeport isfortunate to have a significant inventory of his-torically significant buildings that can be pre-served or renovated for future use.

• Good Health Care System. Bridgeport has twomajor hospitals that provide the community andthe surrounding area with outstanding healthcare, as well as two community health centers.These health care facilities take pride in thecommunity and are good corporate citizens.

• Parcels Available for Development. Severalprime properties are available for development.These properties already have been assembledand are ready for a developer.

A Metro North commutertrain bound for New YorkCity leaves the Bridgeportstation.

Bridgeport, Connecticut, January 16–21, 2005

• Excellent Park System. Bridgeport is, after all,known as the Park City.

ConstraintsAll major cities have physical and institutional con-straints. The following are some of the barriersthat the panel believes Bridgeport must addressin order to realize its full potential:

• Tarnished Image. Bridgeport suffers from a poorimage, both internally and externally. While thisimage may have been earned in the past, timeshave changed. It is now time for the city’s repu-tation to change as well.

• Lack of Vision and Master Plan. While the cityhas undertaken several plans of various scalesand complexity, the panel believes there is nocohesive vision or functional master plan for thecity. This is a major roadblock for developers orcorporate entities that want to do business inBridgeport, because it makes it hard for themto understand the city’s goals, how a proposedproject fits within city’s vision, and if the proj-ect has a serious chance of being approved.

• Perception of Closed Decision-Making Process.The panel heard during its community inter-views that citizen input and concerns are notheard or otherwise taken seriously. This percep-tion, truthful or not, erodes public trust in gov-ernment. The city must do all it can to includethe community in decision-making processes.

• Capacity at City Hall. Bridgeport’s citizens arefrustrated with city agencies’ lack of resourcesto get their jobs done. Many departments areunderstaffed, overworked, or otherwise improp-erly staffed. This leads to delays in getting in-formation and approvals from city hall. A lackof technology may be exacerbating this prob-lem. Implementation of modern technologiessuch as geographic information systems (GIS)—one program already underway—are a step for-ward for the city.

• Schools. A recurring theme during the panel’sinterviews was the poor quality of the educationsystem. Poor schools make it difficult to attractfamilies to live in Bridgeport. Middle- and upper-

class families are the mainstay of a healthy econ-omy because of their purchasing power, andBridgeport’s schools must be improved to at-tract and retain these families.

• Legacy of Unethical Practices. Corruption with-in former administrations has saddled the citywith a reputation for unethical politics. The per-ception of quid pro quo within city hall is chang-ing, but Bridgeport must continue to practicethe highest standards of ethical government topublicly prove that the city is no longer a placewhere one must “pay to play.”

• Lack of Housing Options. Bridgeport suffersfrom a dearth of appropriate housing stock forall income levels. Housing for middle- and upper-class households is at a premium. The panel be-lieves that Bridgeport can have a strong hous-ing construction market. The city has an arrayof attractive sites suitable for residential con-struction, but has not identified them for resi-dential use. Instead, some superb locations forresidential development are being targeted forindustrial, commercial, or office development.

• Underutilized Parks. While Bridgeport is knownas the Park City, its parks seem to be underuti-lized by residents of the city and the region.

• High Property Taxes. While not the highest inthe state, Bridgeport’s property taxes are sub-stantial and can dissuade companies and indi-viduals from buying and developing propertyin the city.

17

Bridgeport’s extensivepark system includes sev-eral hundred acres ofwaterfront green space.


• Difficult Permitting Process. The panel heardanecdotal stories about how difficult it is to se-cure a building permit in Bridgeport, and ob-served an excessive bureaucracy and approvalsprocess in the documents presented to it. Thisdifficult permitting process discourages poten-tial developers from working in Bridgeport andencourages them to develop projects elsewhere.

• Poor City/State Relationship. Interviewees re-ported a lack of cooperation and communicationbetween the city and the state. Many city proj-ects cannot be completed without state support,in large part because of Connecticut’s fiscal sys-tem of state control of sales tax revenue. It is inBridgeport’s best interest to foster its relation-ship with the state and do what is necessary tosecure state support for its projects.

• Redundant Economic Development Groups.The panel feels that the 11 economic develop-ment groups functioning within the city are fartoo many. At times, these groups work counter-productively. Combining their resources into amore coordinated and aggressive economic de-velopment approach is a better strategy for at-tracting and retaining businesses.

OpportunitiesThe panel believes that Bridgeport possesses sev-eral opportunities that can be harnessed to stimu-late economic development. These opportunitiesare market advantages that only Bridgeport pos-sesses. Some of the following opportunities al-

ready have been recognized by the city, which hasacted upon them to varying degrees in the past:

• Waterfront. Bridgeport has an opportunity totransform much of its waterfront into a localand regional destination. Waterfront resources,both in the port area and the south end, offerboundless possibilities for residential and retaildevelopment.

• Private Initiatives. The panel heard from sev-eral private investors who are interested in oralready undertaking activities in Bridgeport.Supporting existing initiatives and promotingnew ones are opportunities to expand the de-velopment potential of the city’s diverse eco-nomic base.

• Desire for a Better Bridgeport. Citizens andbusiness owners indicated a strong desire tosee Bridgeport become a better place. Ampleopportunities exist to harness this desire forthe betterment of the city.

• Blueprint for the Future. There is a danger ofthe city becoming reactionary to developmentproposals instead of guiding growth and devel-opment. As interest in Bridgeport grows, moreand more time will be spent responding to de-velopment interest. Now is the time to createa blueprint, or functional master plan, for thefuture of Bridgeport that will allow the city tocontrol its own destiny.

• Regional Cooperation. Surrounding communi-ties are expressing a growing commitment towork together to enhance the region. Bridge-

Bridgeport’s deepwaterharbor is an importanteconomic driver for thecommunity.


port, as the region’s true urban center, has theopportunity to lead this regional cooperationand collaboration effort.

• Key Development Sites. The city features sev-eral key sites that, if developed or redevelopedproperly, will help spur the revitalization ofgreater Bridgeport. These key development siteswill be discussed in detail later in this report.

• Consensus for Political Reform. Popular sup-port exists for the political reform that hastaken place in city hall over the past two years.Now is the time to capitalize on this newfoundsupport and use it to forge stronger relation-ships with citizens and business owners. Manyinitiatives that have stalled in years past nowcan be moved forward.

• Unremediated Brownfields. The city does notappear to have a handle on the extent of itscontaminated lands or a system in place to haveknown brownfields remediated by current orprevious property owners. Until this informa-tion is compiled and available—and a strategyfor remediation is developed—it will be difficultto attract developers for infill development. Al-though contaminated sites can present difficultproblems, after they are cleaned they can leavethe city with attractive infill parcels and historicbuildings for reuse.

Captain’s Cove is a popu-lar waterfront restaurantin Bridgeport. The cityshould promote its exten-sive waterfront as a loca-tion for more residentialand retail uses.

19

Cities are a reflection of the people who live,work, and play within their boundaries. Thecommunity’s perception of itself projects thecity’s culture to outsiders. Therefore, the

city’s culture is the foundation of its external repu-tation. The panel notes that Bridgeport suffers froma victim mentality, due in part to neglect by previ-ous local and state leaders. Citizens, business own-ers, and officials feel that the city’s reputation hasbeen tarnished in the past. There is a critical needfor all of these stakeholders to come together inpartnership to ensure that the image Bridgeportprojects accurately reflects the reality of the cityin 2005. It is equally important that Bridgeportstop viewing itself as a victim of circumstance.

Economic development initiatives cannot succeedunless the city addresses its quality-of-life issues.Quality of life is comprised of factors that includehealth care, education, housing, welfare, and safety.There is a direct correlation between successfuleconomic development and improvement in a city’squality of life. The panel believes that Bridgeportmust address its quality-of-life issues to enhancethe city’s desirability and prospects for economicdevelopment.

Bridgeport has all the necessary ingredients forinclusiveness and partnering. The city is comprisedof various long-tenured ethnic communities, andalso has had a recent influx of immigrants. Com-mitted civic groups comprised of community, busi-ness, and nonprofit leaders—organizations thatinclude members of the city’s diverse racial andethnic groups—have demonstrated a desire towork with the city administration to maximizeBridgeport’s possibilities.

Throughout the panel’s weeklong visit, panel mem-bers heard the recurring theme that the rank-and-file public is excluded from the city’s decision-making processes. Nearly every constituencyexpressed the belief that it has limited opportu-nity for providing meaningful input or receiving


attention in economic development activities. Thegap in trust among government, business own-ers, and residents creates a roadblock to invest-ment in the city. This section outlines two recom-mended initiatives intended to increase communityparticipation and inclusion. The first, known as theBridgeport Partnership, is to be an ongoing com-mitment from the city to broaden public participa-tion and inclusiveness. The second initiative aimsto bring the city’s corporate and private sectorleaders together in an ongoing forum known asthe Bridgeport Leadership Council to advise thecity, foster regional cooperation, and present aunified front to state agencies.

Bridgeport PartnershipThe Bridgeport Partnership should seek to createa platform for genuine community outreach andinvolvement, with the end goals of economic de-velopment and enhanced quality of life. Its func-tion should be to provide community participationin economic development and other city processes.The partnership will be a symbolic joining of thecity with its citizens to ensure an inclusive citydecision-making process.

The Bridgeport Partnership should be started bya day- or weekend-long summit convened by themayor. This summit should take place within 60days of this report’s publication. The BridgeportSummit should include a variety of constituentsfrom across the city, similar in scope to the crosssection of stakeholders interviewed by the ULIpanel. Neighborhood action councils, communitydevelopment councils, business leaders, religiousleaders, arts and entertainment groups, and thegeneral public should be invited. The panel feelsthat attendance should be mandatory for all politi-cal leaders, including elected city council mem-bers, appointed city board members, and statedelegates. The goal of the summit will be to cometogether and begin the process of consensus build-

Community Inclusion and Leadership


ing on what Bridgeport wants to become. Eachparticipating organization would prepare organi-zational goals, activities, and concerns to beshared with others.

The Bridgeport Summit should have three princi-pal goals. The first should be a discussion of theULI panel’s report with the citizens of Bridge-port. Second, the assembled group should outlinethe city’s economic development goals and citi-zens’ quality-of-life concerns. City staff shouldprepare and circulate a written report. The cityalso may wish to draft or revise agency missionstatements that reflect the outcome of the sum-mit. Third, the community should settle on a for-mat for community input into master planning,visioning, and economic development goal set-ting. The community may decide to use workshops,public hearings, town halls, charettes, surveys,or other public-involvement tools. An importantsecondary goal is to raise the profile of the city’sneighborhood- and community-based organiza-tions, so these groups can play a substantial rolein future public-involvement events.

The Bridgeport Partnership will not be a newagency or entity. It will have no employees ordirector. It will be a commitment among the cor-porate, public, nonprofit, and private sectors tocome together on a regular basis to share ideasand concerns. The panel hopes that the summitwill help clear up any grievances harbored by thecitizens of Bridgeport. Further, the panel hopesthat the public interest and involvement observedduring the panel’s visit will carry over into the on-going series of public workshops held by the Bridge-port Partnership. By proactively soliciting theinput of the entire community, city governmentwill help to build community consensus and dispelthe rumors of a closed decision-making process.

Bridgeport Leadership Council To begin to address the city’s needs, corporateleadership proposed initiating a dialogue betweenthe mayor and state leaders through the creationof a corporate leadership roundtable, similar to aninitiative successfully implemented in New Haven.This model envisions a strong regional council con-sisting of committed leaders from the private sec-

tor with clear authority to represent their individ-ual organizations and constituencies. Working withthe mayor and the administration of the region’surban core, the council seeks to achieve consensuson common regional economic development strate-gies and priorities. The council also may choose tocommit its collective financial, time, and staff re-sources to achieving these priorities.

This regional leadership council should advise andinform the mayor on ongoing efforts to reorganizeBridgeport’s 11 existing economic developmentorganizations by clearly defining roles, eliminatingcompeting priorities, and consolidating responsi-bilities. Based on the leadership council’s consen-sus plan for moving Bridgeport forward, the re-constituted economic development structure canwork seamlessly to achieve the prioritized objec-tives of the region’s economic development planand can maintain focus and momentum throughelection cycles. Simply put, the private sector al-ready works daily with city agencies and is bestsuited to comment on the restructuring of the eco-nomic development process in Bridgeport.

Corporate leaders believe that the development ofa consensus plan is essential to securing continuedstate investment in Bridgeport. Such a plan, whenpresented to state legislators and private sectordecision makers, will demonstrate clearly the re-gion’s unity and its commitment to achieving eco-

The panel listens to pre-sentations from Bridge-port’s leaders aboutissues facing the city.


nomic development goals. The region’s corporateleadership likely will be able to connect with statelawmakers and agencies in a different way thanlocal government leaders can. Therefore, a majorgoal of the Bridgeport Leadership Council shouldbe to work with state government to repair thestate/city relationship and move forward into anew era of cooperation.

In addition to pinpointing issues, corporate leadersprovided insights into their vision for Bridgeport.The city’s central location in southern Connecticut,coupled with the state’s need to provide more af-fordable housing for its workforce, prompted somecorporate leaders to profile Bridgeport as a poten-tial “residential city”—one that provides afford-able housing for entry-level managers and officeworkers. Becoming a residential city would re-quire revitalizing downtown and city neighbor-

hoods. The private sector must champion thegoals of affordable housing provision and neigh-borhood revitalization. Going further, corporateleaders observed that in order for the city to rede-fine and reposition itself in the regional economy,Bridgeport must cater to the information and ser-vice economy, rather than revitalizing its portsand antiquated manufacturing facilities.

As a direct result of this process, the ULI panelrecommends the establishment of a regional lead-ership council within 90 days of this report’s publi-cation. The Bridgeport Leadership Council shouldbegin work immediately to provide a vision anddirection for the development and implementa-tion of a comprehensive regional economic devel-opment agenda.


In this section of the report, the panel discussesbroad changes to the administrative processesof city government. These processes includethe monitoring of ethical standards, master

planning, development review, the request forproposals (RFP) process, and brownfields remedi-ation. At the time of the panel’s visit, the city ofBridgeport’s administrative processes fell shortof those typically found in comparable U.S. cities.

Ethical FoundationThe panel came to Bridgeport 20 months afterthe conviction of the former mayor and six monthsafter the conviction of the former governor on pub-lic corruption charges. These convictions have sub-jected Bridgeport to unfavorable national mediacoverage. The mayor’s conviction exposed long-held suspicions that city hall was untrustworthy, aplace where people had to “pay to play.” The panelchallenges the city, the community, and the stateto embark on an ambitious plan for the economicdevelopment and renewal of Connecticut’s largestcity, beginning with ethical reforms.

The current mayor is committed to transparentand honest government. The panel believes themayor and a cross section of the community haveworked hard since his election to rebuild publicconfidence in city hall. However, the mayor has in-herited a deep moral deficit. The single greatestchallenge confronting the city is how to regain thepublic’s trust. Without that trust, the city’s rede-velopment plan—no matter how well conceived—is destined to the fate of dozens of previous plansand false starts seen over the past 20 years. Muchwork needs to be done to heal the community’swounds and build consensus around a commonvision for the future. Success in meeting the chal-lenges outlined in this report demands a unity ofpurpose. That unity will be achieved only if themayor and his administration succeed in trans-forming government from a closed system domi-

nated by insiders to a truly transparent one thatengenders trust from the citizenry. Only the pas-sage of time and positive experiences will restorefaith in Bridgeport’s government.

In addition to the various initiatives that the mayoralready has instituted, the panel recommends thefollowing specific actions to rebuild public confi-dence and build the unity of purpose necessary toachieve the economic and social renewal of the his-toric and proud city of Bridgeport.

Ethics Task ForceThe city should convene a bipartisan Ethics TaskForce to undertake a top-to-bottom review of thecity’s business and government ethics. The mayorshould appoint representatives of the city, stateand federal law enforcement officials, local attor-neys, clergy, and the general public to this taskforce. The task force should conduct interviews,hold public hearings, and seek public comment. Itshould publish its findings and recommendationsin a written report.

The panel learned that the city has a standing eth-ics commission, but did not hear reports of its ac-tions in recent years. The city’s ethics monitoringactivities need to be broadly promoted and inte-grated into the Ethics Task Force as appropriate.

Merit Hiring and PromotionThe city must ensure that its staff meets the high-est professional standards. The public must be as-sured that staff members are not hired or retainedas a result of political cronyism or nepotism. Cur-rent employees should be evaluated to ensure thatthey have the necessary certifications and train-ing. Examples of required credentials include, asappropriate for the position, certification as a pro-fessional engineer (PE), acceptance into the Amer-ican Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), or abachelor’s degree in a relevant discipline. Guide-lines for the future hiring of employees should beissued in writing, and only those applicants meet-

Administrative Process


ing or exceeding minimum criteria should behired. Merit, not political connections, should bethe criteria for hiring and retention.

BudgetThe city budget should be prepared in accordancewith generally accepted accounting standards.Bridgeport’s current budget is confusing, poorlyorganized, and not fully comprehensible to the av-erage citizen. It should contain a summary show-ing the budget for each city department. The cur-rent year’s budget should be measured against thebudgets of the two preceding years and the pro-jected budgets two years into the future. It shouldbe well organized and easily understood. For ex-ample, the budget should contain, at a minimum, awritten analysis, line items, summaries, graphs,analyses of trends, and a written budget state-ment from a responsible party. To increase com-munity engagement with the budget process, thepanel recommends that the city schedule publicbudget workshops. All members of the publicshould have access to the budget, either as aprinted document or on the Internet.

Transparency and AccessThe city must strive to put all decisions in the pub-lic eye. City council agendas, minutes, requests forproposals, plans, and budgets all should be madereadily available to anyone who requests them.Many cities post all of this information on theirWeb sites. At the minimum, these items should beprinted and available to be mailed to or picked upby any citizen who requests a copy.

Bridgeport’s citizens—let alone those throughoutthe rest of the region and the state—will not takethe city’s redevelopment initiatives seriously un-less the city adheres to the highest ethical stan-dards. Before the city can inspire and lead, it firstmust be trusted. The following principles canserve as a foundation for moving forward:

• The governing process must be open and trans-parent. It must listen to all of the diverse voiceswithin the city.

• Those who lose a vigorous and heated debatemust accept the final decision and recognize thatthey participated in a fair process in which theoutcome was not predetermined by insiders.

• Government must do its best to forge a commu-nity consensus—or at least a healthy majority—in support of redevelopment initiatives.

Master PlanningThe city of Bridgeport has a lengthy history ofpreparing master plans for public and private landuse decisions. Unfortunately, those plans have notbeen enforced or otherwise institutionalized. Thefirst plan was adopted in 1952, with subsequentupdates occurring in 1962, 1971, 1986, and 1996.These documents focused on economic develop-ment, housing, transportation, parks, coastal man-agement, and future land use. Despite the best in-tentions, many recent decisions on land use andzoning have not been based on the master plan. Insome cases, decisions appear to be made in reac-tion to short-term opportunities instead of long-term vision. Over time, these decisions under-mine the integrity of the plan until it is essentiallyignored. It appears to the panel that the 1996Bridgeport plan is no longer utilized.

Without a guide, development becomes more dif-ficult to propose and approve. Property ownershave no certainty regarding neighboring landuses, resulting in “NIMBY-ism” (an acronym for“not in my backyard”). City staff is placed in a re-active mode. Investors feel a sense of unpredict-ability, because the existing zoning for a neigh-borhood cannot be relied on. These uncertaintiesmay cause property values to decline or stagnate.A firm future land use policy will help remediatethese problems. There is a strong relationship be-tween master plans and zoning ordinances. Masterplans serve as guiding documents for the devel-opment of the city, while zoning ordinances directthe implementation of development.

Panelists were made aware of a plan to locate ajail for juveniles on the site of the former publicworks department garage on the city’s waterfront.The panel believes the jail proposal is a compli-cated issue that must be settled by the citizensand leaders of Bridgeport. Consequently, thepanel declines to support or oppose the project.The aforementioned master planning and Bridge-port Partnership processes will provide an ampleplatform for community-based decision making.


The city and its residents should carefully con-sider the future use of each piece of land withinBridgeport and craft a master plan that reflectsthat vision. By rigidly enforcing the adopted mas-ter plan, the city can provide its citizens and fu-ture elected officials with reasonable assuranceof the location of future institutional land uses. Be-cause the master plan will be crafted through acommunity visioning process, it will reflect asmuch of a community consensus as is realisticallypossible. Thus, many major controversies can beaverted before they arise. The panel strongly rec-ommends that the site for the jail for juveniles—among other future institutional facilities—shouldbe determined during the comprehensive masterplanning process.

Development ReviewThe panel found that the city’s zoning requirementrestricting as-of-right development is overly pro-tective and in need of change. Further, the panelfound that the regulatory process is perceived notto be developer friendly. In most other U.S. cities,the approval process is more streamlined. If a pe-titioner submits an application to build and theproposal meets the basic requirements of thezoned district as adopted in the master plan, theapplication goes through an administrative staffreview for compliance. In Bridgeport, however,the petitioner is required to go before the Plan-ning and Zoning Commission for review of allproposals, except those for low-density residen-

tial projects. The development community viewsthis process as overly restrictive and time con-suming. The process currently lacks predictability,and there is widespread misunderstanding aboutthe responsibilities of the Planning and ZoningCommission and the Zoning Board of Appeals.The panel stresses that the development reviewprocess should not be made easy for any and alldevelopment. Indeed, the process should be thor-ough and rigorous. What the current system lacksis clear rules, a reliable process, and a level play-ing field.

The city’s master plan and its zoning currently arebeing updated. City staff already is briefing thePlanning and Zoning Commission on the proposedzoning amendments. It is important for the city toupdate the plan with a sustainable, achievable vi-sion. The plan should take into account as muchpublic input as possible. Ultimately, the city needsto abide by the plan. The panel strongly encour-ages the work on the plan revision to proceedquickly. Further, the panel recommends changesto the zoning code that confer as-of-right zoningrights to most types of development. The Plan-ning and Zoning Commission should review onlycomplicated or particularly intricate applications.City staff should expeditiously review proposalsfor less complicated commercial, office, and resi-dential development projects. Moving ahead withthese revisions will be a critical step in helping thecity and the private sector to realize Bridgeport’sdevelopment potential.

A proposal to build adetention facility for juve-niles on this site hasstirred controversy inBridgeport.


Recently, the city has taken steps to address com-plaints from developers about the cumbersomepermit approval process. Essentially, the city’sgoal is to move departments directly involvedwith development permitting to one location. The“one-stop” permitting process will place all officeswith review, oversight, and approval of buildingpermit responsibilities in one location. The newprocedure also would include tracking software toidentify project bottlenecks and a more extensivepublic relations program to make the broader de-velopment community aware of the new, easier-to-use process. Concurrent reviews by differentdepartments would save time in the approvalprocess and a comprehensive handbook would bedeveloped for the public to explain the new pro-cess. The city also plans to implement a geographicinformation system (GIS) in the near future, en-abling the quick access of spatial information byseveral departments.

The panel believes these efforts are excellent ideasthat should be implemented as soon as possible.The process can be made even more user friendlyand transparent by posting development reviewprocedures, documents, and applications on thecity’s Web site. The panel also recommends thatthe city seriously consider designating or hiring a staff member to serve as an ombudsman whowould be available to the general public to deter-mine the status of applications, explain the pro-cess, and resolve unnecessary delays.

Training and StaffingThe panel notes that members of the city’s regula-tory boards and commissions receive little train-ing for their assigned responsibilities. In somecases, training has been offered but appointees

have expressed little interest in it. The panel ac-knowledges the hard work of the civic-mindedvolunteer commissioners, but feels strongly thatmandatory training is needed for board and com-mission members. A wide variety of options existfor providing this training, ranging from on-siteworkshops to video conferencing. The AmericanPlanning Association (APA), the InternationalCity/County Management Association (ICMA),and other organizations can provide training op-portunities and publications.

The panel also found that appointments to boardsand commissions require no relevant experienceor background. In most other cities, certain seatson boards are reserved for individuals whose pro-fessional expertise is closely in line with the scopeof the board. For example, a nine-member historicpreservation board typically will reserve two seatsfor registered architects, professional historians,or preservation specialists. The other seven seatsleave ample room for citizen involvement in theboard, and the two reserved positions ensure thatprofessional expertise is always present when de-cisions are being made. The panel recommendsthat objective criteria be developed for boardmember selection, ensuring that relevant exper-tise is present among the body of appointees.

The panel heard from several sources that staffingshortages exist throughout the government ofBridgeport, not just in departments involved inplanning and economic development. Acknowledg-ing the limited resources available, the panel feelsthe effort that is underway by the city adminis-trator to reengineer staff responsibilities is a goodfirst step in building a more efficient government.


Once a new master plan is adopted, the citywill have to embark on a thoughtful imple-mentation program to bring the plan to life.One of the most important functions of a

master plan is to serve as the basis for an inter-face with the development community, articulat-ing in a consistent manner the city’s priorities,what the city expects to achieve in various neigh-borhoods and other areas, the tools available tostimulate development, and the criteria necessaryto use those tools. Implementation nearly alwaysinvolves a partnership with existing propertyowners, businesses, the real estate developmentcommunity, and citizens. Most importantly, themaster plan is a contract between the city and theprivate sector. This section details the changesthat the panel feels will make the economic devel-opment process more successful.

Project Conceptualization to DeveloperSelectionThe selection of a development team for a specificsite is one of the most critical aspects of the devel-opment planning process. The panel observed thatsubstantive issues have been raised about the com-prehensiveness of the selection process in the past,most significantly with respect to Steel Point. Thepanel believes that the current Steel Point pro-posal, while visionary in its urban design and am-bitious in its economic development objectives, isspeculative because the city does not control all ofthe property included in the site request for pro-posals (RFP). Because the property represents asignificant economic development opportunity forthe city, every effort should be made to put theproject back on a realistic track. Later in this re-port, the panel suggests a vision for Steel Pointthat can be implemented once the planning andapproval process is upgraded.

Developers typically are selected through someform of a request for qualifications (RFQ) and

RFP process. For most complex projects, such atwo-stage selection process is typical, although asingle-step RFP can be effective for smaller, well-defined projects with very objective selection cri-teria. A traditional RFP articulates the city’s vi-sion and sets forth development specificationsthat must be met by the successful developer.

The RFQ process is an important first step for long-term projects in which the layout and compositionof the future development is difficult for the cityto conceptualize. This process asks developers tosubmit their firm’s profile and body of prior workto the city. No designs or proposals are submittedat this time. The city then selects a short list of de-velopers based on their related experience, staffcapacity, and other factors. Subsequently, devel-opers selected in the RFQ process are presentedwith a RFP that asks them to propose a design forthe site. This process ensures that developers notonly have good designs, but also have related ex-perience and a proven track record. The panel be-lieves that Bridgeport should use the RFQ pro-cess more frequently.

The developer selection process sets the tone for a relationship that will last for many years. It pro-vides an opportunity to vet the developer’s experi-ence, set design guidelines and development stan-dards, and establish project schedule expectations.More subtly, the RFP is the critical document thatplaces the city in a position of strength during sub-sequent negotiations. The panel believes that thelack of clarity in the RFP document issued forSteel Point continues to haunt the planning anddevelopment process.

For the city of Bridgeport, it is particularly im-portant that the developer selection process beclearly outlined and as specific as possible aboutsubmission requirements, selection criteria, andthe decision-making process. In order to reversenegative perceptions of the planning and economicdevelopment process in Bridgeport, it is critical

Economic Development Administration


that the process and the documentation be—at alltimes—state of the art and above reproach. Selec-tion criteria should be based on the qualificationsand capacity of the developers, the real estatemarket, the financial feasibility of the proposals,and how well the proposed project meets the city’svision as articulated in the master plan.

The quality of proposals will reflect the quality ofinformation available to prospective developers.Thus, the city’s time investment in proper duediligence is key to the RFQ/RFP process. While awealth of information about the city was providedto the panel, the absence of comprehensive techni-cal resources, plans, and handbooks can make itdifficult for potential investors to locate neededinformation. The panel recommends that the citymake all documents—including plans, RFQs/RFPs,studies, market analyses, and policy objectives—available from one repository of information in cityhall. In addition, these documents can be postedon the city’s Web site.

Further, the city should take all reasonable stepsto lay the groundwork for a development projectin order to improve its value to respondents. Landacquisition, project entitlement documentation,and environmental remediation plans all shouldbe complete before a RFP is released. The citywill find it valuable to retain an experienced con-sulting firm familiar with similar projects in othercities to review the RFP in advance. The consul-tant assignment not only provides the city withthe benefit of other communities’ experience, butalso lends credibility to the project. While it isimportant that the RFP be distributed to all localinterested parties, it is equally important that thecity ensure that the RFP will attract qualified re-gional and national developers. National tradeorganizations often offer forums to post RFPsand RFQs.

The panel recommends that all significant public/private development projects—defined as all proj-ects that receive public funding or infrastructureimprovement—be undertaken only by developerswith demonstrated qualifications in the producttype and scale. The RFQ process ensures thatthese qualifications are clearly outlined and de-scribed in a transparent manner understandableby stakeholders and city residents. The ensuing

RFP process is an additional step that builds onpotential uses identified for a site in the commu-nity master plan, and offers the developer the op-portunity to propose creative approaches that mayextend beyond the city’s vision for the site.

Finally, preparation of the RFP is an excellent op-portunity to involve the community, regional part-ners, and state officials in the early stages of aproject. Not only does the city gain the benefit ofa wide range of perspectives and technical input,but it also builds a constituency for the project—or reveals that the project lacks broad-basedcommunity support.

Developer Selection to Project ApprovalTypically, upon selection of the development team,agencies enter into some form of exclusive negoti-ation agreement. The key business issue duringthis phase of the project is identification of thetimeline for development and the responsibilityfor predevelopment costs in the event the proj-ect does not reach the approval milestone on theagreed-upon schedule. Generally, it is not neces-sary—or even desirable—to declare that the de-veloper has rights to the site unless the developeris expending funds on predevelopment costs. Theright to develop multiple parcels should be earnedonly by demonstrated progress. Stated in anotherway, a developer who is working on one parcelshould not automatically gain the rights to adja-cent parcels.

It is important that the negotiation process con-tain specific milestones for both the city and thedevelopment team. Moreover, termination provi-sions should be included that will come into play if the project is not moving forward as expected.The panel believes that the Steel Point project isan example of a project that should be fully reeval-uated within the context of a new planning andRFP/RFQ process because it has remained stalledfor so long. Appropriate accommodations shouldbe made for the current developer in the event itis not the best qualified respondent to the RFP, orif it does not have the resources to implement analternative project.


Deal StructureThe panel heard a number of comments duringits interviews—and observed firsthand—varyingdegrees of sophistication among the players andagencies involved with economic development inBridgeport. With some exceptions, economic de-velopment initiatives in Bridgeport are not at thelevel of sophistication that panel members haveobserved in other communities. While the initia-tives themselves may have tremendous merit,weak documentation, failed deals, and overstatedexpectations often reinforce the wrong perception—a perception that perhaps was valid in years past—about decision making in the city of Bridgeport.Consistent application of a disciplined process ofanalysis and broad community participation in keydecisions is critical to reversing this perceptionand moving the city’s critical initiatives forward.

The key issue in structuring a deal is understand-ing the regional marketplace: the potential sup-ply, potential demand, and Bridgeport’s potentialshare of the market. Bridgeport is indeed in anadvantageous position, as noted earlier. Land val-ues are lower in Bridgeport than in neighboringcities, and a large inventory of potential infillsites is available.

The panel believes that it is not appropriate forBridgeport to continue broad subsidies of eco-nomic development efforts. While situations cer-tainly exist in which subsidies are appropriate,proposals for subsidies should be presented in thecontext of each particular site, with considerationgiven to the project’s ability to achieve the com-munity’s economic development goals as stated inthe master plan. All projects are not equal, andfocusing available resources on projects that cangenerate cumulative benefits for the whole com-munity is a better policy than subsidizing any andall economic development efforts. It may be evenmore effective for the city to streamline the devel-opment process, establish a reliable master plan,and then let the real estate market dictate the useof a particular site.

Many excellent references are available on eco-nomic development metrics and deal structures.The key factors are the allocation of project risk,project return, and net benefit to the community.

It is imperative that the city sustain its recentpractice of setting criteria for prioritizing its eco-nomic development initiatives. It should take thefurther step of applying these criteria to the struc-ture of the deal and the degree of public subsidy.Net increase in local tax revenues, business reten-tion, job creation, increased business activity, pub-lic amenities, and return on city investment aretypical objectives.

Real estate transactions as a tool of economic de-velopment must not only meet these criteria, butalso must be financially feasible and rewarding. Thecity must estimate pro formas that show sourcesand uses of funds, operating revenues, operatingexpenses over time, and debt service levels thatmeet typical underwriting criteria. The quantifi-able economic benefits also should be detailed. Forexample, jobs created should be tracked, with con-sideration given to net new jobs generated with-in the community and within the state. Data likethese are particularly important if the state is asource of subsidies.

BrownfieldsLike other historically industrial cities, Bridgeportsuffers a legacy of pollution from its industrial past.Macroeconomic forces have caused manufacturersacross the country to close, go bankrupt, or moveabroad, leaving hundreds of contaminated, aban-doned, and underutilized properties.

Brownfield InfrastructureThe city needs to develop a comprehensive strat-egy for redeveloping its brownfields in a mannerconsistent with the city’s master plan. The citymust bring the parties who are legally responsiblefor cleaning up the pollution at these sites to thenegotiating table. Decisions regarding when andhow polluted properties will be cleaned up shouldbe an integral part of the city’s redevelopmentstrategy. These decisions are too important toleave entirely to the parties legally responsible forthe pollution; they also are too important to leaveentirely to state or federal environmental agen-cies. Nor should outside government agencies dic-tate the level of cleanup, for they have no vestedinterest in the success of the city’s redevelopment.The city’s determination of the highest and best


use for a site—consistent with the master plan—should dictate the cleanup standards for pollutedproperty. Ultimately, the city may have to adjustthe master plan on a case-by-case basis. The judg-ment to settle for less than the highest and bestuse, however, should be made by the city, not thoselegally responsible for cleaning up the site.

Strategic opportunities will be missed if cleanupplans for each of the city’s more than 200 brown-field sites are developed in isolation and withouta view toward advancing the goals of the masterplan. A comprehensive brownfield strategy shoulddetermine what type of “brownfield infrastruc-ture” is needed to clean up all the sites to levelsconsistent with their future uses. Cost effective-ness also should be a concern for the city, sinceoutside agencies and companies currently mustaccept all polluted waste. The panel feels the cityshould explore the option of building state-of-the-art treatment and disposal facilities within Bridge-port. These facilities would achieve an economy ofscale, reduce the cost of cleaning individual sites,and thereby advance implementation of the mas-ter plan’s brownfield remediation component.

The goal of the brownfield strategy should be tominimize the volume of waste requiring off-sitetreatment and disposal. The strategy should em-phasize the use of engineered barriers and institu-tional controls that allow for redevelopment con-sistent with the master plan. The city also shouldmake some general estimates of the volume ofcontaminated soil and debris within Bridgeportthat may require off-site treatment or disposal.Such an assessment will help the city evaluate theneed for, and feasibility of, centralized treatmentand disposal facilities. The 1996 BridgeportBrownfield Pilot Project report is a starting pointfor this analysis.

Net Environmental GainThe city should explore the feasibility of partner-ing with other regional governments that are con-fronting waste disposal problems to site a central-ized waste treatment or disposal facility. Theconcept of “net environmental gain” should guidethe city’s review of these opportunities. Waste fa-cilities are controversial, particularly in a commu-nity that already carries an unfair burden of thestate’s unwanted infrastructure. However, the

panel believes that locating waste disposal facili-ties within Bridgeport will improve the environ-mental quality of the city and advance brownfieldremediation.

The problem presented by the disposal of dredg-ing materials and the city’s sewage sludge maypresent an opportunity for a net environmentalgain. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and thestate confront a dilemma: what to do with millionsof tons of dredge materials from the harbor andshipping channel. A dredging project also couldbe of vital importance to the implementation ofthe city’s master plan. The success of the dredg-ing project depends upon finding a cost-effectivesolution for treatment and disposal of the dredgematerial. The city also is presently paying for thetransportation and disposal of its sewage sludge.

The city should examine the economic and tech-nical feasibility of building a state-of-the-art ther-mal treatment facility with the flexibility to handledredge material, sewage sludge, and contaminatedmaterial from brownfield sites. Although it maybe impractical to build a thermal treatment facil-ity to treat only contaminants from the city’s brown-field sites, constructing a facility to treat the city’sbrownfield wastes in conjunction with other wastestreams might be quite practical. This is particu-larly true if the city is required to pay a portion ofthe nonfederal share of the dredging project, andbecause the city already is paying for the trans-portation and disposal of its sewage sludge.

Emissions of air pollutants from a state-of-the-art thermal treatment facility are minimal. Thesefacilities produce a useable product, an aggregatematerial that can be used as backfill at construc-tion projects on the waterfront and elsewhere. Athermal treatment facility also may provide energy—in steam or electric form—to local industry. Forall of these reasons, the panel feels the city shouldseriously examine siting a thermal treatment fa-cility in Bridgeport.

EnforcementThe panel recommends that the city explore—either in cooperation with the state or indepen-dently—the feasibility of accelerating the paceand level of cleanup by those legally responsiblefor the pollution they have caused in Bridgeport.


Constraints on the federal and state budgets meanthere will be limited public funds available to fundcleanup of brownfield sites in the city. Bridgeportneeds to develop a strategy for mobilizing the fi-nancial resources of the persons legally responsi-ble for the contamination—or their insurers—topay for the cleanup of polluted properties. Thepanel also recommends that the city adopt ordi-nances dealing with buildings lying vacant be-cause of environmental hazards.

State PartnershipThe panel recommends that Bridgeport continue towork closely with the state on reviewing whetherchanges might be made in environmental regula-tions that would advance browfield developmentin the city. Other Connecticut cities such as Water-bury, Bristol, and New Britain likely have brown-field issues of their own, making this a truly state-wide issue.

Bridgeport can work with the state and othercities to simplify and streamline the brownfieldremediation process without compromising publichealth, safety, and the environment. By way of ex-ample, Connecticut’s cities might explore the useof “presumptive remedies” for brownfield sites, aremedy that repeatedly has proved effective forsites characterized by common soil, hydrogeo-logic, and contaminant conditions. Experience maydemonstrate that certain categories of brownfield

sites are always cleaned up in the same way. Oncea demonstration is made that most brownfield sitesfall within a given category of cleanup methodand need, the time and costs associated with indi-vidual site studies could be diverted to the actualcleanup costs. Additional means of expeditingcleanup and reducing costs no doubt would beidentified through dialogue among the cities andthe state.

Brownfield CoordinatorThe panel recommends that the city identify oneor more persons to develop and coordinate theimplementation of the city’s brownfield strategy.This does not necessarily require hiring a newstaff member. A consultant or a team of consul-tants could perform the role of brownfield coordi-nator. The brownfield coordinator should possessthe following expertise and qualifications:

• A passion for urban renewal, brownfield devel-opment, and accomplishing the goals of the city’smaster plan;

• The ability to see the “big picture” and thinkstrategically;

• Demonstrated success in recovering cleanupcosts from legally responsible parties or com-pelling legally responsible parties—or insurers—to clean up contaminated properties;

General Electric maintainsa small operation in itsearly 20th-century indus-trial complex. Buildingslike these have strong re-development potential afterany needed environmentalcleanup is complete.

• At least ten years of experience in remediatingcontaminated sites and siting pollution controlfacilities;

• Experience in, or knowledge of, the waste industry;

• Political acumen; and

• Strong communication, negotiation, and projectmanagement skills.

Other RecommendationsBrownfield remediation is a complex issue. Thepanel arrived at several other recommendationsthat will help the city with the process of cleaningup polluted sites. These recommendations arelisted below.

Conduct Groundwater Studies. The environmentalassessment process in Connecticut requires bothsoil and groundwater studies. Engineered controlscommonly are used to address historical soil cont-amination and integrated with the owner’s reuseplans. Engineered controls involve erecting physi-cal barriers between polluted soil and future landuses on the site. They do not, however, addressgroundwater issues.

Sizable sums of money are spent studying ground-water that has never been, nor ever will be, used.In the urban/industrialized areas around NewEngland, groundwater characterization can bechallenging because of complicated glacial geologyand the proximity of bedrock. Even in areas wheregroundwater is not utilized for potable use, con-taminated groundwater plumes may have to bestudied to assess the presence of pollutants, theimpact on surface water bodies, and the potentialfor volatilization. The environmental assessmentprocess and Connecticut Department of Environ-mental Protection (DEP) regulations should rec-ognize the viability of engineered controls, partic-ularly in areas where groundwater is not used.

Focus the Search for Responsible Parties. The char-acterization process follows the traditional invest-igation for all responsible parties. A process fora focused investigation—an investigation of theconstituents of concern that are likely to be pre-sent, based on known past uses of the property—is needed. Once the pollutants present are known,

the search for responsible parties becomes morefocused.

Give Owners the Right to Use Engineered Controls.

An engineered control such as an asphalt cap usu-ally is the least expensive, most adaptable, andsimplest brownfield remediation tool to imple-ment. However, the DEP commissioner will notapprove an engineered control unless the prop-erty owner demonstrates it is an option of last re-sort. The DEP and the city should recognize thatengineered controls are less expensive than manyother options, and thus may be the option of choice.The DEP also requires that holders of utility ease-ments and other “subordinate” interests in theproperty consent to the use of the engineered con-trol. The city should work with the state and tryto change its policy to match the rest of the coun-try, and acknowledge that engineered controlsare an equally effective option for environmentalcleanup in urban areas.

Modify the DEP Cleanup Approval Process. Prop-erty owners generally do not want to incur thecost of creating a site plan unless the DEP willapprove the cleanup plan. The DEP, on the otherhand, will not approve the cleanup plan without acomplete site plan that depicts the location of en-gineered controls. The DEP should approve clean-up plans that provide the owner with various op-tions for engineered controls, including geotextileliners or soil cover over areas that will not be cov-ered with concrete or asphalt. The property ownerthen would submit “as built” plans depicting thelocations of the preapproved engineered controlsat a later stage in the development process, mostlikely after zoning approval. This process wouldremove a historically difficult roadblock to brown-field infill development.

Revisit the Property Transfer Act. The primarypurpose of the federal Property Transfer Act wasto protect unsuspecting buyers from unscrupuloussellers of contaminated property. Buyers of prop-erty in industrial cities already are alert to thelikelihood of contamination; even if they are not,their lenders are. Federal law already dictates thestandard of appropriate inquiry necessary to qual-ify as an innocent owner or bona fide purchaser.The best thing the DEP can do to promote rede-velopment in Bridgeport is to let the city pursueremedies and responsible parties as the city deems



necessary. Developers and their financiers shouldbe allowed to determine the type of covenant toseek from the DEP.

Economic Development AgenciesThe city of Bridgeport has not ignored economicdevelopment issues in the past. Economic devel-opment concerns have captured political and mediaattention for years, dating back to the early daysof industrial job loss. Various administrations andprivate sector initiatives have attempted to rem-edy the situation by creating economic develop-ment agencies and organizations. Most of thoseagencies still exist, and the city currently has 11of them. Unfortunately, economic development ef-forts have not taken hold. The panel spent consid-erable time investigating the city’s economic devel-opment processes and agencies, and believes thatthese groups can be better organized and thatthey should, in some instances, be consolidated.

Local OrganizationsThe city of Bridgeport benefits from a large groupof extremely committed citizens who participatein the economic development process throughlocal agencies and organizations. While the typesof agencies are typical for cities like Bridgeport,the panel found it difficult to differentiate amongthe roles of each organization. As noted above,Bridgeport has 11 different economic development

agencies. Some are private, some are public, andothers are public/private partnerships. The panelrecommends that the city review the mission,scope, and resources of each of these agencies.The panel believes that Bridgeport’s economic de-velopment efforts would be more effective if agen-cies were consolidated into three or four distinctgroups, each with a mission that is clearly definedin the city’s master plan. Agencies currently areunderstaffed, infringe on each other’s “turf,” andlack the monetary resources needed to entice de-velopment. Consolidating some organizations willbetter channel personnel and fiscal resources. Theprocess of evaluating the roles of the various orga-nizations could be a key task of the BridgeportLeadership Council.

As part of this effort, various organizations’ char-ters should be reviewed and compared, to ensureseamless coverage of economic development goalsand clear assignment of responsibilities. Further-more, while local leaders may be familiar withthe history and role of each agency, the panel isunclear about the specific roles each organizationplays. Prospective developers likely would havesimilar uncertainties. The confusion is compoundedin some ways by easy-to-change items such as or-ganization names with similar acronyms. Thisconfusion—combined with the lengthy develop-ment review process described earlier in thisreport—could discourage developers from work-ing in Bridgeport.

Many of Bridgeport’s neigh-borhoods feature high-density single-family homesthat once were occupiedby factory workers.


tions that could affect the feasibility of economicdevelopment efforts in Bridgeport. The panel feelsthat local agencies have not planned ahead to re-act to the approval of nearby development.

The panel believes that the city of Bridgeport hasseveral competitive advantages, compared withother communities in the region. These advan-tages will become clearer as Bridgeport begins tobetter communicate with its neighbors. Thus, it iscritical that economic development be conductedin the context of Bridgeport’s role in the region.This means that Bridgeport must foster more co-operation with its neighbors and develop a re-gional strategy. It also means that Bridgeportmust shape its citywide plan in a way that is basedupon its place in the region, keeping in mind theimpacts of new development in other cities.

State PartnersIt is clear that the city will not have the financialresources necessary to be successful without sup-port from the state. However, the panel heardthat the actions of Bridgeport’s government inyears past have done little to engender the con-fidence of state elected officials and staff mem-bers. The panel believes that success will not beachieved without the establishment of a masterplan that clearly articulates a vision and a seriesof policy initiatives that are reasonable and con-sistent with state initiatives.

Once Bridgeport drafts a workable, feasible planand begins to make progress toward fulfilling it,others in the state will take notice. The plan willarticulate the amount of state money needed byBridgeport, as well as placing priorities on im-portant projects. Over time, open dialogue andinteraction will restore the state’s confidence inBridgeport. The dialogue also will help build con-nections between Bridgeport and other cities inthe state. One important element of the city’s re-lationship with the state is a good state legisla-tive delegation. The panel heard complaints aboutthe ineffectiveness of the state delegation fromBridgeport, and challenges the members of thestate legislature to assert their considerable influ-ence in Hartford. The city and its representativesmust move beyond their victim mentality and playupon the strengths of the city.

The panel noted a lack of cohesion between thecity and various economic development agencieson overall priorities, as well as differences of opin-ion about particular sites or uses. Furthermore,the panel observed that even when there was con-sensus among economic development officials, thecommunity usually did not share the same priori-ties. Differences within the economic developmentcommunity, as well as a lack of community support,undermine the collective effort.

The panel believes that the city must prepare andadopt a master plan based on community input,and follow the plan religiously. Disagreementsshould be addressed during the preparation of theplan or during regularly scheduled updates to theplan. Plan updates should occur at least every fiveyears, and the plan should be amended only in casesof extreme need. Failure to work within the para-meters of the plan will only reinforce negative per-ceptions of the city decision-making process, andwill reduce the attractiveness of the city to out-side businesses and investors.

RegionalismThe city’s objectives should be focused on initiativesthat will improve the quality of life for Bridge-port’s residents and the prosperity of its institu-tions and businesses. On several occasions, how-ever, the panel was struck by a lack of sensitivitywithin the city to regional issues. Bridgeport mustacknowledge that it cannot target its economicdevelopment program solely toward people whoboth live and work in the city. It must pursue eco-nomic development initiatives that cater to peoplewho live in the city but work elsewhere, and topeople who live elsewhere and commute to workin Bridgeport. In fact, the city is well positionedto be a regional center of employment, a bedroomcommunity, or both. The population outside Bridge-port influences the demand for office, retail, andhousing space within the city. Market area calcula-tions performed by private investors pay littleheed to political boundaries.

Bridgeport must prepare for changes outside ofits borders as well as inside them. In nearby cities,development is progressing that could threaten orenhance Bridgeport’s success. The planned trainstation in Fairfield and the Trumbull Office Parkare examples of projects in neighboring jurisdic-


Initiatives and Action Items

Bridgeport must seize current opportunitiesto implement services and programs. Tak-ing direct actions that improve some aspectof the city will foster confidence among res-

idents, investors, the state government, and others.The items that follow serve as real indicators ofBridgeport’s commitment to change its economicfortunes.

Real estate and economic development projectswill transform the business climate over time.However, some aspects of the city currently donot foster a positive business climate. Many themes—several of which relate to quality-of-life issues—were echoed by members of the community through-out the panel process. Without an improved qual-ity of life, broad economic changes are unlikely.The panel also recommends policy changes, serviceenhancements, and other key ingredients to cre-ate a more viable city and, consequently, a moreviable business environment. Some action itemscan be put into effect immediately and will helpprove that Bridgeport is serious about improv-ing its fortunes. Others will take more time. Thefollowing list is divided into immediate actions and short- and long-term initiatives.

Immediate ActionsBridgeport can help build momentum toward eco-nomic development by taking immediate action.The items discussed here can be completed duringa single city council meeting. The panel believesthat instituting these action items will prove thecity is serious about stimulating development inBridgeport.

Sale of Tax Liens and Handling of ForeclosedPropertiesBridgeport has a practice of selling tax liens fromits delinquent/foreclosed property portfolio. Whilepast fiscal crises may have prompted the city tosell tax liens as a means of generating revenue,the practice should cease immediately. When liens

are sold to third parties, the title to the propertybecomes unclear, and the city loses control overthe property’s redevelopment opportunities. Oftenthe liens are sold and resold in bulk, resulting inconfusion over who holds the lien when a propertycomes up for sale.

Site control and land acquisition are pivotal andfundamental steps in determining the feasibilityof any development project. Although tax liensare a good investment for purchasers and a re-liable source of income for the city, clouding thetitles of potentially developable parcels will onlydeter and discourage developers from pursuingownership of those parcels. If a property remainsunder city control, the foreclosed property re-mains a good prospective site for a developmentproject.

The panel recommends that Bridgeport stop sell-ing tax liens immediately to resolve the title con-trol issues that can arise from such sales. Further,Bridgeport should reassess its program of fore-closure and eminent domain use. These exercisestake properties off the tax rolls because municipalland is tax exempt. The city has a fiduciary dutyto manage its assets, and properties should not beallowed to stand in limbo. The panel suggests thatthe city take the following measures to addressthis issue:

• Identify existing lienholders and compile a con-tact database;

• Identify areas where the potential for land as-sembly may exist;

• Compile a list of all information regarding city-owned or -controlled properties, and make thelist available to the public;

• Earmark the above property types for inclusionin a “land bank;” and


• Develop a program of short-term option sales ofparcels to the Bridgeport Housing Authority,community development corporations, nonprofitgroups, or private developers for housing pur-poses. If development does not proceed accord-ing to agreed-upon schedules, the propertyshould revert back to the city.

The process described above presents a proactiveway of putting properties back into service andtax revenue generation, and could help ease thecurrent housing affordability crisis. If developersfail to get through the financing and permittingprocess during the option period, then the prop-erty would revert back to the city. Success withsuch a program could result not only in increasedtax revenues, but also in the elimination of blightin neighborhoods across the city.

Congress Street Bridge Repair CommitmentMany interviewees raised the issue of the stigmaassociated with the need for repair of the Con-gress Street drawbridge, which once connectedthe downtown area with the East Side. While al-ternate routes do exist, East Side residents sufferfrom a sense of being disconnected from down-town. They also see the lack of repair as an im-pediment to businesses along Congress Street.Interviewees report high turnover and a loss ofeconomic vibrancy along the corridor. East Sideresidents are more likely than other city resi-

dents to be pedestrians or bicyclists, and alternateroutes are too distant or lack satisfactory bicycleand pedestrian infrastructure. If the bridge wasusable—even if only by pedestrians—East Sideresidents could easily walk to downtown. Per-haps worst of all, neglect of the broken bridgegives East Side residents the sense that their citygovernment views them as second-class citizens.

The panel recommends that the city make animmediate commitment to repair the CongressStreet Bridge and develop a plan that presents arealistic timeframe for its rehabilitation. The cityshould thoroughly explore all alternatives, includ-ing the historical drawbridge format and a lesscostly fixed-span bridge. Choosing a fixed-spanbridge likely will require the city to purchase mar-itime properties upriver from the bridge. The in-vestment in the bridge—which will cost more than$28 million to repair—will be well worth the pub-lic relations boost that will come from removingan embarrassing eyesore. In addition, economicvitality along Congress Street will improve andthe East Side will become a better option forhousing. This will increase property values andcreate jobs.

Arts and Entertainment CommissionThe condition of the arts community is a strongbarometer of the quality of life in any city. Artistsoften are the first group to move into an area ripe

The Congress Streetdrawbridge connecteddowntown with Bridge-port’s East Side until sev-eral years ago, when itbecame inoperable.


for redevelopment. Bridgeport has very encour-aging news in this regard. The city has seen aninflux of artists in recent years, attracted byBridgeport’s proximity to New York City coupledwith inexpensive prices. Thriving theaters and anarena with national performing artists help bringin patrons from around the region.

Approximately four years ago, Bridgeport estab-lished an arts committee to help foster diverse cul-tural activities. The panel feels that the idea was agood one, but heard that the initiative stagnated,in large part because the city’s artistic environ-ment had not yet matured. The panel believes thatthe artistic environment today is robust, and de-serves a dedicated commission to foster its ongoinghealth and growth. Thus, the panel recommendsthat the mayor establish an Arts and Entertain-ment Commission charged with providing sup-portive policies for existing businesses and futuregrowth. Appointments to the commission shouldinclude members from the pioneering artist com-munity to ensure that the commission’s policiesmeet artists’ needs.

Short-Term InitiativesThe city can continue to build momentum towarda better economy by instituting a handful of short-term initiatives. These initiatives can be accom-plished in a six- to 12-month time frame. How-ever, the process of instituting these initiativesmust begin quickly if they are to be completedwithin a year.

Municipal Web SiteThe dissemination of information via the Internethas revolutionized business and spilled over intothe public sector. Cities throughout the countryhave found that a comprehensive, informativeWeb site is a powerful tool for providing govern-ment services, enhancing transparency, publiciz-ing information, and stimulating public involve-ment. Younger generations turn to the Internetas their first source of information. The currentBridgeport Web site falls short when comparedwith the content and usability of other cities’ sites.The panel believes that an enhanced city Web sitewould lead to greater interest in Bridgeport.

The city should develop and implement a newWeb site within the next year. The site should con-tain links to all city documents—from the masterplan to RFPs to the city budget—in order to pro-mote transparent government, a condition thatBridgeport sorely needs. Agendas for city councilmeetings and every commission meeting shouldbe posted several days before the meetings, andminutes should be posted promptly after theytake place. All city ordinances and administrativerules, including the zoning map, should be avail-able for access. Application forms and requestsfor city services should be available online, evenif the document must be presented in person orby fax. Information about current events in thecity, job opportunities, and economic opportunitiesshould be available. As the city implements its ge-ographic information systems (GIS) program, in-teractive maps can be made available over the In-ternet. The city’s Web site can become a one-stopinformation center for prospective developers,who can retrieve anything they need without re-questing information from the already overbur-dened city staff. Finally, the city’s Web site is anexcellent venue to showcase the positive changestaking place in Bridgeport.

The Web site does not have to be expensive;effective online content does not require bellsand whistles. Animated homepages, computer-generated graphics, and flashy content only getin the way of a user’s attempts to access needed in-formation. A single person—the city Webmaster—can maintain the site. Each city departmentshould designate one person as its liaison to theWebmaster. Each week, this person should col-lect documents to be posted and forward them,along with text updates, to the Webmaster.

Bulk Trash Pickup and Public TrashReceptaclesReinstituting bulk trash pickup as well as thedistribution of trash receptacles will improvethe city’s image and quality of life. Clearly de-fined scheduled or arranged pickup rules willserve to standardize the process. Loose trash,especially large items, can be a serious eyesore,and reinforces old notions of Bridgeport as a ne-glected place.


311 Information LineMany municipalities have a dedicated phonenumber—usually 311—that people can call forcity information and nonemergency services.Bridgeport should consider instituting this ser-vice so that residents, business owners, tourists,students, and even investors can reach all govern-ment services with one phone call. The 311 phonenumber will become a single point of contact forall nonemergency services, including landlord/tenant issues, social services, public recreationalfacilities, transit information, and more.

Long-Term InitiativesSeveral issues will require the city’s ongoing andlong-term efforts. Although there may be earliermilestone goals, these initiatives and action itemswill take more than a year to implement. In somecases, the initiatives will have no end, becausethe city must always strive to improve in thoseareas. The panel believes that these initiatives willgreatly improve the quality of life in Bridgeport, akey component of economic development.

EducationThose who spoke to the panel repeatedly empha-sized the importance of improving the quality ofBridgeport’s public education system and facilities.Years of underfunding, overcrowding, and bureau-cracy have victimized the school system and, moreimportantly, its students. It is discouraging to seeneighboring school districts receive more fundingor be shielded by legal loopholes that have se-cured higher state funding levels for them.

The panel heard that of the 35 schools in Bridge-port, 14 are more than 50 years old and have notbeen renovated. Many have no recreational facil-ities. The panel understands that four new schoolsare in various stages of planning. However, the pro-cess for bringing them online quickly is stymiedby a building committee that is ineffective andbureaucratic. The difficulties are exposed by thedisparity in local funding. Bridgeport funds 80 per-cent of its school budget, while other Connecticutcities fund less than 70 percent of theirs. Lead-ership at the state level is needed to secure morefunding for Bridgeport’s schools, and local authori-ties must make educational reform a top priority.

Schools are critically important for attracting adiverse and educated workforce. “School sprawl”is one of the most oft-cited factors in promotingsuburban sprawl. Couples with children—typicallyparents in their prime working and spending years—will relocate to areas with good schools, and to-day the region’s best schools lie outside of Bridge-port. The state exacerbates this problem by re-quiring that new schools be built on large parcelsand designed with suburban-style features. Thesetypes of schools are difficult or impossible to buildin Bridgeport, because of the lack of available land.The state should alter this rule so that cities suchas Bridgeport are not at a disadvantage.

Fortunately, corporate leaders have stepped for-ward and agreed to lend their expertise and makea commitment to improving Bridgeport’s schools.Recognizing that workforce development is tanta-mount to economic development, several nationaland statewide initiatives focus on vocational train-ing and job preparedness, as well as matriculationat institutions of higher learning. Examples ofnew investments in education are the ConnecticutScholars Program and the Governor’s Task Forceon the Future of the Regional Vocational-TechnicalHigh School System. Bridgeport should build uponthese commitments to demonstrate the city’s sup-port for education.

The goal of improving primary and secondary edu-cation is separate and distinct from the quality ofpost-secondary education. Beyond helping thechildren already enrolled make a better future, amajor reason for improving schools is to make thecity attractive to new middle- and upper-classfamilies. The panel feels that the city should ac-commodate its institutions of higher learning how-ever possible. These institutions, however, alreadyare relatively healthy, while its K-through-12 in-stitutions are not.

Seaview Avenue Corridor EnhancementThe enhancement of the Seaview Avenue corridoris an important long-term strategy for the city.Access to many of Bridgeport’s redevelopmentsites requires enhanced transportation connectiv-ity to I-95 and U.S. Highway 1. Many trucks can-not access the East Side because of a low railroadoverpass. Trucks ranging from FedEx and UPSdelivery vehicles to tractor-trailers must be able


to reach infill development sites. Further, trafficcongestion along the current Seaview Avenue—located just east of the planned new road—limitsthe viability of new businesses.

The panel reiterates its strong feeling that heavyindustry is a mediocre growth sector at best. Bridge-port should consider this fact in the master plan-ning process, and ensure that sufficient land is re-zoned from industrial to other, more viable landuses. The motivation for the Seaview Avenue cor-ridor’s construction must not be access for truckssupporting heavy industry. Instead, the motiva-tion should be reduced traffic congestion and ac-cess for support vehicles for office, light indus-trial, retail, and other types of business space.Many properties along the Seaview Avenue cor-ridor could have the potential for developmentas office, small business, retail, or even residentialuse. Although the Seaview Avenue corridor en-hancement will have little effect on attracting newheavy industry to Bridgeport, it will have an ex-tremely positive effect on the viability of existingbusinesses, and will remove a major roadblock toeconomic development on Bridgeport’s portfolioof infill parcels.

The panel feels that construction of a new truck-friendly underpass and an initial segment of thenew Seaview Avenue is an important addition tothe city’s economic development plan. Work on therailroad bridge and the first road segment shouldbegin as soon as possible to stimulate infill devel-opment on parcels that will benefit from accessi-bility. The ultimate goal of connecting Lake SuccessBusiness Park, however, would be of no economicvalue until the cleanup of that site is finished in sixto eight years. Road access to Lake Success shouldnot be the city’s top funding priority. Instead, thecity should construct the first portions of the roadand focus on stimulating infill development in theEast Side. Until the city’s infill parcels are ab-sorbed and development pressure grows at LakeSuccess, the city should not shoulder the financialburden of connecting Seaview Avenue all the wayto the Lake Success Business Park.

Market Identity/Branding and NeighborhoodIdentityCitizens want to overcome the negative percep-tions that surround Bridgeport. These perceptions

are based on historical truths that are no longeraccurate. The panel urges the city to adopt a newidentity that closely reflects the city’s current re-ality, which includes a lower crime rate, diversity,waterfront resources, culture, and heritage. Thepanel recommends that Bridgeport hire a publicrelations firm to coordinate this effort. While thepanel recognizes that the city has expended largeamounts of money on public relations in the past,it believes that a new campaign—combined withother reforms—will be more effective than pastefforts. Bringing in a consultant instead of a newemployee will enable the skills and funding levelsrequired by this effort to change over time. Thegoals of the identity/branding program includethe following:

The proposed SeaviewAvenue corridor.

Key:Proposed Seaview Avenue CorridorAmtrak RailroadRedevelopment ParcelsRecommended Phase I Endpoint

N

95

To LakeSuccess

RemGritProperties

LaceyManufacturing

GeneralElectricComplex


offer a sense of comfort and accessibility. City fa-cilities should be well maintained and safe.Housing should be available and should meetsafety and accessibility standards.

It is imperative that Bridgeport set standards andcriteria for its economic development activities toguard against unacceptable transactions and pro-posals. Increasing revenues, business retentionand attraction, and job creation are typical eco-nomic development objectives. Real estate trans-actions, including the use of eminent domain pow-ers, must meet these criteria and also “pencil out”or make financial sense. Sources and uses of fundsmust be equally distributed, with particular atten-tion paid to spreading funds evenly across the city.Revenues generated should cover costs, includingdebt service, operating expense, and return onequity. Projects that receive funding assistance—including bank mortgages and public loan guar-antees—should insist that their tenants/users arecreditworthy, to help ensure that rents are paid.Lastly, job creation should be measured in term ofnet new jobs. “Sector killers”—large stores thatsupplant small retailers—should be discouraged,since they produce minimal net job gain.

Numerous successful case studies exist of citiestaking the lead role in revitalizing their down-towns. However, neighborhood associations andcommunity development corporations also can

Washington Square inBridgeport’s East Side ishome to several historicchurches and Victorianhomes.

• Assist in the comprehensive planning thatwill take place with the Bridgeport Summitand the creation or reactivation of neighbor-hood associations;

• Facilitate the efforts of local chambers of com-merce and arts and entertainment groups inpromoting Bridgeport events and offerings;

• Begin proactive efforts to develop a mutuallybeneficial positive relationship with the media;and

• Help attract a network television affiliate toBridgeport.

Beyond redefining the city’s identity, Bridgeportshould move forward with additional identityprograms for individual neighborhoods. Giventhe city’s great cultural diversity, neighborhoodbranding can bring a source of pride to parts ofBridgeport currently identified only by theircompass directions.

Investment in Community and NeighborhoodRevitalizationIt was suggested to the panel that a comprehen-sive resource be created that describes all ofBridgeport’s city attractions, services, and events.Quality of life often is measured by these offerings.It is critical that physical infrastructure remain intop condition. Streetscapes need to be inviting and


sider making city-owned or -controlled propertyavailable to the center and/or similar organizationsas a means of providing needed social services.This process also puts delinquent properties togood use and, depending on the circumstances, canbring in limited tax revenues from currently un-productive properties.

The Charles D. Smith, Jr. Foundation. Founded bythe former National Basketball Association playerand Bridgeport native in 1989, this community-based 501(c)3 organization promotes youth devel-opment and support services for families. Locatedin a 13,000-square-foot historical landmark build-ing in the East End, the foundation’s programs in-clude youth activities, a wellness center, and edu-cational and job training skills. The programs caterto the East End’s 9,800 residents, 97 percent ofwhom are African-American or Latino. The foun-dation also has begun partnering with private de-velopers who specialize in urban projects. A shop-ping center and grocery store are under discussion,but developers likely will require city assistanceto assemble the needed five-acre site.

successfully rebuild neighborhoods. Rebuildingneighborhoods is important, since attracting fami-lies and middle-class people back to Bridgeport issuch a crucial part of the revitalization process.

In the past, the city of Bridgeport has partneredwith the Local Initiatives Support Corporation(LISC) to promote community redevelopment.LISC strengthens nonprofits by building the ad-ministrative capacity of neighborhood associations.The city should continue its partnership with LISCto continue to build the strength of existing neighbor-hood groups and foster new ones. It is not just theindividual housing development or retail develop-ment project that builds a community, but also thecapacity of the community developer to address awide range of community issues and to play a mul-titude of roles that enable a comprehensive ap-proach to the revitalization of a community.

The following are two examples of community-based organizations that have strong potentialto rebuild Bridgeport’s neighborhoods. The cityshould make focusing resources—including avail-able land—to groups like these a top priority.

Center for Women and Families. The Center forWomen and Families serves 3,300 clients annually,many of them victims of domestic violence. Theorganization’s primary goal is providing transi-tional housing for broken families seeking to re-gain economic self-sufficiency. The city should con-

Bridgeport’s diverse EastSide offers a variety ofhousing options, whichare quickly becomingunaffordable.


In terms of real estate, Bridgeport can be de-scribed rather simply by two words: locationand transportation. Well within the sphere ofinfluence of the one of the world’s largest and

greatest cities—New York—Bridgeport is a partof the megalopolis that extends from Washington,D.C., to Boston and beyond. Bridgeport’s marketregion includes, at the very least, western Con-necticut and New York City. Its favorable loca-tion is enhanced by superb transportation connec-tions. Interstate 95, Amtrak and Metro Northtrains, and the Port Jefferson Ferry connectthe city to the rest of Connecticut, Boston, NewYork, and points beyond. The panel believes thatBridgeport can seize upon its advantageous loca-tion to stimulate economic development. Bridge-port is a dream location for many types of de-velopment, with inexpensive land, developedinfrastructure, transportation connections, andan extensive waterfront.

What may be more difficult to consider is Bridge-port’s markedly shifting role in the regional andglobal marketplace. The history of Bridgeportheavy industry—including 12-hour workdays,labor disputes, environmental pollution, and theboom-and-bust cycle—should not be viewed withnostalgia. The industrial sector constructed in theearly part of the last century has dwindled andwill not return. Heavy industry is no longer aneconomic base in the United States, and evidencesuggests that even light industrial parks frequentlyare being converted to back office and small busi-ness uses.

Bridgeport’s future lies in capturing the plentifulopportunities available now, which follow a verydifferent path from attracting heavy industry. Thecity will meet with substantial success if it reachesout to developers of retail, service, and residen-tial properties. Bridgeport today is surrounded bysome of the most affluent communities—both resi-dential and corporate—in the world. The panel

feels that Bridgeport should seize the opportunityto participate in that affluence. This requires play-ing on the city’s strengths to take advantage ofthe tremendous resources available to Bridgeportright now.

City Real Estate PolicyThe panel heard that taxes in Bridgeport are muchtoo high. The solutions to that problem are few.Although the city could try to get more moneyfrom the state and federal governments, such at-tempts are unlikely to succeed, given the recordbudget deficits of recent years. The city could cutservices or staff, but that likely would compoundother existing problems. Bridgeport could raisetaxes or find new ways to tax. The lower tax ratesavailable to companies in nearby towns make at-tracting established companies to Bridgeport aneven more daunting task. However, surprisinglyfew companies will locate in a city simply becauseof its low taxes. Companies look for many otherfactors: a unique business advantage, a labor forcewith desirable attributes, the demographics of thecustomer base, or a high quality of life. The com-panies with the best staying power are those thatbegin in a city, remain there, and grow.

Bridgeport must cultivate these important at-tributes to overcome its high tax rates. The cityalready has a large, untapped labor pool. It alsooffers a variety of economic incentive programs.The region boasts some of the wealthiest con-sumers in the country, and a variety of businessspaces—some of which need to be retrofitted—that can meet today’s business needs. Bridgeporthas a solid foundation upon which to build an out-standing quality of life, with some changes in gov-ernmental processes and outside investment.

Old theories regarding the development of thiscity must be discarded. The first theory thatshould be discarded is the historic notion that

Real Estate Market Opportunities


Bridgeport needs to attract new heavy industryand large corporate headquarters. The solution isto bring in smaller companies and to grow smallbusinesses from the ground up. Neighboring com-munities such as Stamford have an impressive col-lection of corporate headquarters, but have suf-fered recently as many of those companies haverelocated to more suburban locations, left thecountry, or consolidated. Bridgeport should notposition itself in this way. Instead, it should favorthe stable enterprise of hosting small businesses.

The second theory to be discarded is the tradi-tional bias against new residential development.New homes mean new residents and a larger taxbase to draw upon. Parcels lying vacant and pay-ing little or no property tax can experience mete-oric rises in value through the construction ofhousing. The early beginnings of a new residen-tial community have begun to take root in innerBridgeport, courtesy of developers who see theappeal of the urban lifestyle to a new generationof residents. Bridgeport has the density, water-front views, and appealing streetscapes valued byurban residential developers. Residential retro-fitting of old industrial buildings is an intriguingway to preserve the city’s beautiful historic struc-

tures and cultural heritage while making effectiveuse of its land. The panel believes that this resi-dential development trend should be encouragedand nurtured by both the public and private sec-tors. Concerns about affordable housing createadded housing pressure for Bridgeport.

The city has exercised eminent domain to assem-ble vast tracts of land that it has planned to con-vert to office, retail, or other uses. Development inthose sectors has not materialized, partly becauseof the complicated approval process, partly be-cause of the city’s focus on large projects, but inlarge part because of the lack of residents whowould provide the market for such development.The obsolete housing stock near Bridgeport’sdowntown can easily be converted to interesting,valuable lofts, condominiums, and rental apart-ments. Examples of successful urban housingretrofits can be seen in the South End of Boston,South of Market in San Francisco, and Chelseaand the Meatpacking District of New York. Bridge-port’s current housing shortage has driven upprices unnecessarily. The price spike and, conse-quently, the affordability concerns can probablybe addressed simply by building more housing.

Artists seeking inexpen-sive rents and proximityto New York City nowoccupy the formerRemGrit factory.


The panel believes that Bridgeport’s economic de-velopment strategy does not incorporate enoughretail space. The bias against large-scale retail de-velopment in the city likely is attributable to thefailure of the former downtown mall and the factthat sales tax revenue goes to the state. Unfortu-nately, the results of this policy burden Bridge-port residents by forcing them to travel out of thecity to make major purchases and get service-sector jobs. New retail space means more prop-erty tax revenue, more selection for residents, abetter quality of life, more outside visitors comingto the city, and more entry-level jobs, many ofwhich offer prospects for advancement.

Adaptive Use ProjectsOne of the most compelling real estate resourcesin Bridgeport is its exceptional collection of for-mer industrial and commercial buildings. Loftspaces in such buildings adapted and reused forlive/work environments have been made popularthrough both movies and television. Much of thenew residential construction in urban areas mim-ics these building types. In Bridgeport, outsideof downtown, these are typically brick and tim-ber structures. Many are located in desirable areas,often in established residential or commercialneighborhoods. Today, some of these spaces areused for creative or start-up businesses in need offlexible, inexpensive space in a noncorporateenvironment. The flexible interior space of a for-mer factory allows for easy conversion betweentenants and can evolve as tenant needs change.

Outside of downtown, the opportunity for adap-tive use is growing, as the beginning of a creativecommunity has taken root and is starting to grow.On the East Side, the RemGrit complex serves asan incubator for the kind of small business thatprovides high-paying jobs with a future to peopleinterested in the type of urban setting that Bridge-port offers. Surprisingly, Bridgeport officials haveexpressed an interest in evicting these currenttenants, perhaps in favor of more heavy industrialuses. The panel believes this would be a step inthe wrong direction. Economic development offi-cials need to connect with the emerging creativeand small business community, now found all overthe city in locations such as the Bridgeport Inno-vation Center in the East End. New opportunities

for these kinds of development include locationsin the West End such as the proposed Cherry Av-enue site, the now derelict Hubbell complex and,potentially, 110 Mountain Grove.

In addition to the appropriate renovation andrestoration of the RemGrit complex, the originalRemington Arms facility, now owned by GeneralElectric, should be viewed as a showcase projectfor the city and should be converted to live/worksmall business and creative space. This project, to-gether with the current downtown activity at theCityTrust building, Arcade complex, and GoldenHill, could give Bridgeport an exciting story totell about interesting and unique spaces for newbusiness. These spaces are available now for thenext generation of U.S. industry, one that is basedon talent and innovation, and offers wages un-matched by heavy industry.

Development Sites of InterestThe panel is very excited about several develop-ment opportunities and less enthused about oth-ers. The panel disagrees with current city goalsfor several sites, and suggests a different ap-proach for them. It is important to explore theshort- and long-term opportunities available toBridgeport. The following discussion is dividedinto two sections: existing development sites andpotential development opportunities.

Existing Development SitesSeveral development opportunities have generatedlocal interest, and the community brought thesesites to the panel’s attention. Panelists have formedthe following basic opinions about these sites:

Congress Plaza Urban Renewal Sites. The city ownssubstantial amounts of property along Main Streetnorth of Congress Street, which it acquired as partof an urban renewal area. These properties havebecome more usable since the demolition of the el-evated railway spur that ran through the area.However, the city has landscaped these propertiesand deferred decisions about them because of un-certainty about the future of the Majestic and Pal-ace theaters at the corner of Congress and Main.These buildings have deteriorated badly, but sincethe city took ownership the roof has been repairedand water damage is no longer taking place. Yet


The Congress Plaza urbanrenewal site contains twoattractive historic the-aters. The panel supportsefforts to reuse one orboth theaters as part ofthe redevelopment effort.


the theaters still have serious problems. Built asfilm theaters, they have stages that are not suit-able for all theatrical productions. They also arevery large: the Palace alone has 3,600 seats. Sincea rule-of-thumb estimate for restoring comparabletheaters is around $12,000 a seat, the cost of re-storing the Palace Theater could be roughly $43million.

The panel heard about the concept of creating amagnet high school for the arts in Bridgeport,which would include visual arts as well as perfor-mance arts. The panel also heard of potential in-terest by groups in Fairfield County that mightbe capable of raising the very large sum of moneyneeded to preserve, restore, and reuse the the-aters. The theaters also could be used for film ortelevision production, as well as for the perform-ing arts. This additional use could help financerestoration.

The city should explore these options thoroughly.If a magnet school is possible, its location, parking,and open space requirements easily will absorb allof the remaining land in the urban renewal district.It would have a very useful relationship with therestored theaters and could share some facilitieswith them. A magnet school should be consideredfor these sites even without the theaters, as this isan appropriate downtown use. Its presence willmake the theaters’ ultimate restoration more likely.

If there is no possibility of building a magnet schooland restoring the theaters, the city should releasethe urban renewal sites for medium- to high-density residential development. Even if the the-aters are demolished, this location remains a verysuitable place for such residential development.

Lafayette Center Office Sites. These sites and thelarger office site to the west are both highly ap-propriate locations for office development. Thelarger site is on an axis with Lafayette Boulevardand would be a highly visible location for a signa-ture office building lined up with the boulevard.West of this location, within the circle, there isroom for a parking deck to serve this building.

The Lafayette sites could be a catalyst for sur-rounding development. For example, if LafayetteCenter succeeds in attracting office development,

the Firestone site and the parking lot just east ofit also will become highly suitable for office devel-opment. The city should make stimulating officecampuses a high priority and, if necessary, shoulduse innovative financing to get the developmentprocess started.

60 Main Street (Remington) Site. The Investors’Handbook published by the Bridgeport EconomicResource Center (BERC) describes this site as of-fering, among other possibilities, an ideal locationfor a corporate headquarters or office building. Ifit is suitable for these uses, it also would be suit-able for luxury residential buildings. The panel be-lieves that housing is the highest and best use forthis site, which commands excellent views of Sea-side Park and Long Island Sound and is locatedclose to an I-95 exit and the railway station. How-ever, any proposed design must keep in mind thefact that the site also is next to four fuel oil tanksbelonging to the adjacent power plant complex.

The panel also understands that the site immedi-ately to the north, far from being additional avail-able land, as described in the Investors’ Handbook,is to be the site for additional power-generatingfacilities. If this is correct, the only likely use forthis site is for industry, and the site will not beable to realize the potential of its waterfront andpark location. The city should consider alteringthe land use plan for the adjacent site to open uppossibilities for luxury residential use.

Pequonnock Site. This site currently contains 800at-grade parking spaces, which are used for thearena and the ballpark. These parking spaces willhave to be replaced if the site is developed. Thepanel has looked at various possibilities for the site,and only a high-density office building—whichcould share its garage parking with the arena andballpark—is likely to be feasible because of thisparking requirement. Residential and commercialuses would have to include a dedicated 800-spacegarage for the arena and ballpark, in addition tothe spaces needed for the residential units and re-tail uses. Many downtown office sites exist thatwill be easier to develop than this one, and thepanel expects that the city will not be successful inmarketing this site as long as the 800-car parkingrequirement is in place. Therefore, the panel rec-


ommends that the Pequonnock site be given a lowpriority for city investment in redevelopment.

Bridgeport Landing/Steel Point. Approximately 4million square feet of development currently isproposed for this 50-acre site. The difficulty is thatthe United Illuminating (UI) parcel and other wa-terfront properties needed for this ambitious planare not under city control or otherwise readilyavailable. The city’s right of first refusal for theUI property has expired. The panel sees strongindications that UI does not intend to make thissite available to others or participate in the cur-rent planned development.

Consequently, the panel believes the city and itsdesignated developer need to look seriously at adevelopment program that can be carried out inthe foreseeable future on land the city currentlycontrols. Any development that is built can be in-tegrated with development on the remaining wa-terfront sites if those properties become availablein the future. The panel has examined severalalternatives and recommends that the city anddeveloper look carefully at the potential for a

high-intensity combination of large-format retail,garage parking, and destination—or “lifestyle”—retail space. The development industry is build-ing this combination of uses in other U.S. loca-tions with comparable highway access. The panelis not recommending conventional, suburban-style, individual big-box stores on separate sites,but rather an integrated, multilevel, high-amenityretail environment.

The panel has developed a conceptual sketch ofthis alternative and believes that the developmentindustry should be able to build something of thiskind in this location without additional subsidy be-yond the investment that already has gone intosite preparation and acquisition. The recommen-dation is only a concept, based on the panel’s ex-pertise. Any development proposal for Steel Pointwill need to be studied with care, but the panelistsare optimistic that this or some similar design willhelp the city realize a more immediate payoff fromits years of work on this site.

Father Panik Village. A portion of the remainingland on the site of the former Father Panik Village

The panel’s concept forSteel Point includes large-format retail along withshops and restaurants ona waterfront boardwalk.

Bridgeport Landing/SteelPoint cross section.

95

95

Key:Large-Format RetailShopsRestaurantsSurface ParkingPlaza/BoardwalkNew RampLocal Streets

N

Large-FormatRetail

Large-FormatRetail

PedestrianStreet Shops ShopsFairfield Avenue

Plaza/Boardwalk Restaurants Boardwalk

Parking

Parking

95


has been designated for a double prekindergartento eighth-grade school for 1,250 children. Approxi-mately ten acres remain at Father Panik Villagethat could be used to create more than 100 afford-able, for-sale townhouses on the riverfront in aneighborhood that needs additional housing andis close to downtown. Unfortunately, the remain-ing unclaimed land is the site closest to the rail-road. The panel feels the city should consider ex-changing the two sites so that the school, if it islocated here, could be set on the land closest tothe railroad and the residential buildings couldbe set to the south of the school. This land swapwould enhance the chances of a successful resi-dential development.

Intermodal Center. The bus station portion of thisproject already is in the construction documentphase, and the new ferry terminal has been com-pleted. When complete, the Intermodal Centerwill be a valuable component for the city. Sincefederal mass transit funds are being used for thisproject, the center is not a drain on scarce cityfunds. The Intermodal Center will not directly

create jobs, nor will it produce any immediate taxrevenue. The panel supports the city’s forward-thinking efforts to develop the area around theIntermodal Center.

The city has purchased the former Farmer’s andMechanic’s Bank building with the aim of makingit a gateway to the Intermodal Center. Beforeconstruction on this project begins, the city shouldestablish that a substantial number of railway pas-sengers will wish to enter the facility from MainStreet. Further, the city should examine whetherthe pedestrian bridge is actually needed. With theattractive new station and enhanced mobility op-tions, commercial and residential developmentaround the station likely will succeed without thepedestrian bridge or much government subsidy.

University Parcels for Luxury Housing. The Univer-sity of Bridgeport has excess land that could beused for luxury housing facing Seaside Park andLong Island Sound. The university has not yetcompleted a master plan to determine which par-cels it can spare, but creating high-value housing

Bridgeport’s train station—which is the center-piece of a planned Inter-modal Center—providesexcellent rail transporta-tion to locations through-out the northeast corridorand offers commuters a60-minute ride into NewYork City.


in this desirable location would be of great benefitto both the university and the city. Excess univer-sity property would have outstanding views ofLong Island Sound, access to parks and highereducation, and good connectivity with downtown.The panel believes that luxury housing on uni-versity land would be a great benefit to the cityand that it deserves the highest priorities forcity resources.

Possibilities for the FutureIn addition to the development projects that al-ready have been discussed, other possibilities forBridgeport remain that are limited only by thecity’s collective imagination. The three followingopportunities are broader and have a longer timehorizon than those discussed above.

Sikorsky Airport. The panel understands that theprospects for restoring commercial air service arepoor, but believes that the airport remains usefulfor general aviation that supports local corpora-tions. The panel suggests that the city undertakean immediate study of the reuse of this airport asan office park, and then compare the benefits ofthis course of action to the benefits of keeping theairport in operation. Any plans to redevelop theairport would require consultation with the townof Stratford and the Federal Aviation Administra-tion (FAA). Tax revenues from the new develop-ment would go to Stratford, unless negotiations

produced a different result, but the land value orlease proceeds would go to the city of Bridgeport,and this money could be used for other capitalprojects.

Another option is selling the airport outright,perhaps even to the town of Stratford, where alarge portion of the businesspeople who usethe airport are based. The sale of the airportalso would produce income for the city, albeit asmaller amount. This would divest Bridgeport ofthe needed subsidy for airport operations. It alsowould free the city from undergoing the lengthyprocess of gaining FAA approval to convert theairport to other uses.

Lake Success Business Park. Ultimately, access toLake Success Business Park will be accomplishedthrough the construction of the new Seaview Av-enue corridor. Allocation of scarce city resourcesto Lake Success and access by Seaview Avenueneeds to be balanced against other priorities, sinceremediation of most of the Bridgeport portion ofthe property is some six to eight years from com-pletion. There is a backlog of basic infrastructureprojects, expenditure on planning efforts and, ofcourse, subsidies of smaller projects that warranthigher priorities than Lake Success. Projects thatcan be accomplished in a short time frame shouldtake funding and staff priority.

Railroad tracks separateBridgeport’s ballpark fromthe city’s South Side,home to the University ofBridgeport. The universityis considering selling sur-plus land with outstand-ing water views to thecity.


Lake Success Business Park’s highest and bestuse is for light industrial, back office, and flexspace. However, the city has substantial amountsof vacant or underutilized property across Bridge-port that could be available for these uses. Devel-oping Lake Success should be the long-term goalof the Seaview Avenue corridor project, not thesole reason for the corridor’s construction.

The panel feels that although Lake Success is avaluable project in the long term, infill or reuseprojects should take precedence before develop-ment begins at Lake Success. Once economic in-terest in Bridgeport begins to gain momentum—and infill sites become occupied—Lake Successwill begin to experience development pressure. Inthe meantime, Lake Success does have road ac-cess via Asylum Avenue, although that route isnot suitable for substantial truck traffic. If devel-opment interest comes forward before SeaviewAvenue is complete, the property still could be de-veloped for back office and flex space using Asy-lum Avenue as the access road. The panel feelsthat the first phases of Seaview Avenue shouldproceed as quickly as possible. Constructing theroadway all the way to Lake Success, however, isnot warranted in the short term because Bridge-port has such a large portfolio of developableproperty within the center city.

In short, the panel believes that investment in ac-cess roads and development subsidy for a projecton the edge of town, with a long developmenthorizon and a lengthy environmental cleanupprocess, should not be among the city’s top priori-

ties. While Lake Success should be a long-termgoal for the city, substantial numbers of propertiesin the center of Bridgeport have greater potentialfor office, high-tech, and research uses. Bridgeportshould instead focus on issues related to close-inproperties, in an effort to truly redevelop the cen-ter city. Bridgeport’s development potential ishighest along the coast, followed by infill parcelsin the center city and, finally, in the interior atLake Success.

Pleasure Beach. This magnificent site has an ex-ceptional location at the mouth of the harbor. Un-fortunately, the city lost access to the beach whenthe only bridge connection to the mainland wasdestroyed in a fire several years ago. In this case,an RFP process may be appropriate to identifycreative uses for the site that will foster public ac-cess for recreation and leisure. Seasonal uses thathave demonstrated viability in other locations—such as upscale campgrounds, alfresco dining, andentertainment venues—could help attract visitorsto Bridgeport. The city also could offer specialevents and festivals there. Portions of the islandcould be placed in conservation holding, protectingthe habitat of endangered species. In lieu of build-ing a new bridge, seasonal or full-time water taxiservice could be provided from Captain’s Cove,Steel Point, or the existing ferry terminal, creat-ing an adventurous, elite destination for residentsand visitors alike. The panel feels that water taxiservice to Pleasure Beach from a newly developedshopping destination at Steel Point could be a pow-erful regional attractor of visitors to Bridgeport.


The panel believes that Bridgeport is in con-trol of its own destiny. The city’s future canbe a bright one! During the past few decades,Bridgeport has been maligned by corruption,

fiscal crisis, disinvestment, and a poor public image.The panel, along with most community leaders,believes that these problems are behind the city.Bridgeport is ready to move forward and begin anew era of economic importance. By shedding oldreputations, old practices, and old priorities, thecity can realize its great potential. It has numer-ous strengths upon which to build. Today, the cityhas an opportunity to reinvent itself, and Bridge-port’s future is limited only by the ambition of itsleaders, business owners, and residents. The panellooks forward to seeing the transformation ofBridgeport.

This report has discussed a diverse set of topics.It also has presented numerous recommendationsto the city of Bridgeport and, to a lesser extent,the state of Connecticut. Adopting come of theserecommendations will require making difficultchanges, while others will be fairly easy to imple-ment. The panel’s recommendations fall into threebroad categories:

Master Planning and CommunityVisioningA new master plan must be crafted to guide eco-nomic development, growth, services, and socialprograms in the city. The plan should not be just ablueprint; it must be a contract between Bridge-port’s government and its citizens. By adhering tothe plan, the city can create a new era of trust ingovernment and lay the foundation for future de-velopment. The comprehensive planning processis the only effective way to mesh the future zoningmap, economic development priorities, and otherinfrastructure needs. The process of creating andadopting the master plan will be almost as impor-tant as the plan itself. This process should involve

all stakeholders and lay out a consensus commu-nity vision.

New ProcessesOld methods of city government are not necessar-ily the best ones. In fact, the old way of conductingcity business in Bridgeport led to many of the ob-stacles to development that exist today. By alter-ing its RFP/RFQ, development review, and per-mitting processes, the city can build confidence inthe impartiality and reliability of the system. Thecity also can target several quality-of-life issues,which limit Bridgeport’s ability to be a great cityand make investors wary.

Real Progress in the Near FutureThe panel feels Bridgeport must shift its focusfrom large, expensive projects to small, easilycompleted ones. After analyzing the existing proj-ects under consideration, it became clear to thepanel that many city development goals are toolofty, intense, or otherwise unattainable. Smallbusiness, residential development, and retail storesare more likely to be built in the near term, andwould add considerably to the city. Lack of mo-mentum is a serious problem in Bridgeport, andstarting small undoubtedly will have a snowballeffect. It is important that the city set and priori-tize goals, or Bridgeport risks becoming reaction-ary. By setting attainable goals and priorities, thecity can determine its own fate.

Bridgeport must keep in mind that the city’s cur-rent condition did not come about overnight. Abetter economic future will not happen overnighteither. It will take time, effort, resources, perse-verance, leverage, cooperation, and patience onthe part of everyone in the community. The panelbelieves in Bridgeport. The city must learn to be-lieve in itself once again.

Conclusion


William H. (Bill) HudnutPanel ChairWashington, D.C.

Former four-term mayor of Indianapolis and con-gressman, author, public speaker, television com-mentator, think tank fellow, elected official, andclergyman, Hudnut currently occupies the UrbanLand Institute/Joseph C. Canizaro Chair for Pub-lic Policy at ULI.

Hudnut is probably best known for his 16-year ten-ure as mayor of Indianapolis from 1976 through1991, where his goal was to build a “cooperative,compassionate, and competitive” city. Accordingto the Washington Post, he established “a nationalreputation for revitalizing his Midwestern city”and, according to the Toledo Blade, came to beregarded as “an entrepreneurial leader willing totake prudent risks.” Hudnut spearheaded the for-mation of a public/private partnership that led toIndianapolis’s emergence during the 1980s as amajor American city. A past president of the Na-tional League of Cities and the Indiana Associa-tion of Cities and Towns, he helped Indianapolisrecord spectacular growth during his time in office.

As a congressman, Hudnut sponsored 17 bills thatbecame public law. He currently serves as mayorof Chevy Chase, Maryland, and is a member of theboard of the National League of Cities. He was amember of the Millennial Housing Commission ap-pointed by Congress during 2001 and 2002. Priorto his entry into public life, as a clergyman heserved churches in Buffalo, New York; Annapolis,Maryland; and Indianapolis. After stepping downas mayor of Indianapolis, Hudnut held posts at theKennedy School of Government at Harvard Uni-versity, the Hudson Institute in Indianapolis, andthe Civic Federation in Chicago, before assuminghis current position with ULI in 1996.

A much sought-after speaker, Hudnut also is theauthor of Minister Mayor (1987), a book reflect-ing on his experience in politics and religion; TheHudnut Years in Indianapolis, 1976–1991 (1995),a case study in urban management and leadership;Cities on the Rebound (1998), an analysis of cluesto the successful city of the future; and Halfwayto Everywhere (2003), a portrait of America’s first-tier suburbs.

Hudnut is the recipient of many awards, includingPrinceton University’s highest alumni honor, theWoodrow Wilson Award for public service (1986);City and State magazine’s “Nation’s OutstandingMayor of 1988;” the Rosa Parks Award from theAmerican Association for Affirmative Action (1992);and the Distinguished Public Service Award fromthe Indiana Association of Cities and Towns (1985).He graduated from Princeton University withhigh honors and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa.Hudnut also graduated summa cum laude fromUnion Theological Seminary in New York Cityand has received honorary degrees from 13 col-leges and universities.

Jonathan BarnettPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Barnett, a professor of city and regional planningat the University of Pennsylvania, is an architect,planner, educator, and author of numerous booksand articles on the theory and practice of urbandesign. He has been an urban design adviser tomany U.S. cities, including Charleston, SouthCarolina; Cleveland, Ohio; Kansas City, Missouri;Miami, Florida; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, andalso has advised several U.S. government agen-cies, including the General Services Administra-tion, the National Park Service, the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development, the NationalEndowment for the Arts, and the National CapitalPlanning Commission.

About the Panel


Barnett’s work on large-scale urban developmentand redevelopment projects includes the reuseplans for the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard; theTreasure Island Naval Station in San Francisco;the former U.S. Air Force base in Myrtle Beach,South Carolina; and former railway yards in Phila-delphia and Sacramento. He also has been theurban designer for studies of the Ocean View Av-enue corridor in Norfolk, Virginia; the Highway111 corridor plan for Indian Wells, California; andthe Euclid corridor in Cleveland. Barnett’s subur-ban development work includes studies of devel-opment guidelines for four townships in westernPennsylvania; the urban design for Daniel Island,a 4,500-acre planned community near Charleston,South Carolina; and the master plans for the Vil-lage of Irvington, New York, and Brookfield, Wis-consin, a suburb of Milwaukee.

Formerly a professor of architecture and founderof the graduate program in urban design at theCity College of New York, Barnett also has beenthe William Henry Bishop visiting professor atYale; the Eschweiler Professor at the Universityof Wisconsin; the Kea Distinguished Visiting Pro-fessor at the University of Maryland; and the SamGibbons Eminent Scholar at the University ofSouth Florida. His books about urban design in-clude Urban Design as Public Policy, Introduc-tion to Urban Design, and The Fractured Metrop-olis: Improving the New City, Restoring the OldCity, and Reshaping the Region.

A magna cum laude graduate of Yale University,Barnett holds a master’s of arts degree from theUniversity of Cambridge and a master’s of archi-tecture from Yale. He is a fellow of the AmericanInstitute of Architects and the American Instituteof Certified Planners, and a member of the UrbanLand Institute.

Jeffrey T. BondBerkeley, California

Bond has more than 15 years of experience in landuse economics and public policy, and has been in-volved in all aspects of public/private ventures.He currently serves as senior planner for real es-tate and housing at the University of California atBerkeley (UC Berkeley), where he is managingthe redevelopment of 26 acres of university prop-erty for student and faculty housing, a retail cen-ter, and community facilities and open space.

Before joining the staff at UC Berkeley, Bondserved as a development manager for the city ofAlameda, California, where he successfully nego-tiated agreements with the U.S. Navy for the con-veyance of more than 1,000 acres of property fromthe Navy to the city, including a 140-acre “earlytransfer” of contaminated property. In addition,he was the city’s project manager for the firstphase of implementation of base reuse through a215-acre mixed-use development of former Navyproperty by Catellus Development Company.Bond also participated in the process to select amaster developer for the remaining 770 acres ofNavy property expected to be available for rede-velopment soon. Other projects he completed inAlameda include a single-family housing develop-ment, a corporate office campus for a major soft-ware company, and a “main street” retail project.He also has been involved in efforts to restore ahistoric movie palace.

Bond also has served an economist with severaleconomic consulting firms and has prepared wa-terfront enhancement strategies, public improve-ment financing plans, and urban redevelopmentprograms. His economic development experienceincludes service as staff to an advisory commis-sion to the California State legislature, and asstaff to a nonprofit economic development corpo-ration. Bond has degrees in economics from the

University of California at San Diego and theUniversity of California at Davis.

Ernest FreemanPlainsboro, New Jersey

Freeman recently assumed the post of communitydevelopment director for the township of Plains-boro, New Jersey. Immediately prior to acceptinghis current position, he was executive director ofthe Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Author-ity (NRHA), a recognized leader in housing andurban development that manages more than 6,800affordable housing units. NRHA’s resident ser-vices programs are national models, and it was thefirst housing authority to receive an allocation ofNew Market Tax Credits. Under Freeman’s lead-ership, NRHA embarked on some of the largestredevelopment projects in the city’s history. Theagency’s lead role in the 240,000-square-foot de-velopment of the downtown campus of TidewaterCommunity College won the top economic devel-opment award for 2002 from the InternationalDowntown Association. Broad Creek Renais-sance, located on Norfolk’s East Side, is a mixed-use, mixed-income traditional neighborhood devel-opment featuring about 800 residential units. EastBeach is an upscale community on the ChesapeakeBay with about 700 residential units and 150,000square feet of commercial space. Both projectsrepresent public/private investment of almost$500 million.

Freeman served as director of planning for the cityof Norfolk from 1996 through 2001. He was respon-sible for urban design, zoning and code enforce-ment, construction services, transportation plan-ning, neighborhood and downtown planning, andcommunity outreach, as well as for administeringthe community development block grant (CDBG)program. Previously, Freeman served as directorof planning for the cities of San Diego from 1992 to1996, Baltimore (1989 to1992), Cincinnati (1987 to1989), and Portsmouth (1984 to 1987). He was aNorfolk senior planner from 1978 to 1984. In 1984,the Norfolk Lions Club of Ocean View honoredhim as Citizen of the Year.

Freeman holds a BA in sociology from SouthernIllinois University and a master of city and re-

gional planning from the University of Illinois. Heholds professional certification from the AmericanInstitute of Certified Planners and is a full mem-ber of the Urban Land Institute, American Plan-ning Association, International City ManagementAssociation, and National Forum of Black PublicAdministrators. He has served on ULI’s Inner-City Housing Council since 2002.

Jack IllesSan Diego, California

Illes is cofounder of Urban Labs, a boutique realestate strategy and design firm focused on bothmarket and community interests. Urban Labsemphasizes the creation of community gatheringplaces or “civic squares” that combine good designand a sense of place with commercial and civic uses.Through its urban infill, mixed-use projects, UrbanLabs strives to demonstrate that new develop-ment can benefit all community stakeholders byproviding newly energized urban environments.

As managing partner of Urban Labs, Illes’s re-sponsibilities include corporate strategy, designdirection, public relations, and research. His cur-rent efforts include master planning an 18-acreurban site in Waikiki in Honolulu and its center-piece, the International Market Place. For thatproject, considered the cornerstone of the renais-sance of Waikiki’s aging visitor plant, Urban Labsis serving as design architect. Illes’s past urbanmixed-use experience in California with the for-mer Hahn Company includes Horton Plaza in SanDiego, Paseo Colorado in Pasadena, and Holly-wood & Highland in Los Angeles. Other NorthAmerican projects include the Prudential Centerredevelopment in Boston’s Back Bay and mixed-use projects in cities as diverse as Denver, Balti-more, Las Vegas, and Toronto. Freeman also hasbeen involved with major urban projects in Mex-ico City, Budapest, Frankfurt, and Tokyo.

Jeffrey D. JeepWheaton, Illinois

Jeep is an attorney who returned to private prac-tice in 1995. His law firm, Diver, Jeep and Blazer,L.L.C., represents the city of Waukegan and other



municipalities engaged in the redevelopment ofpolluted industrial properties. He worked closelywith the ULI Advisory Services panel that visitedWaukegan in 2001 and, since then, has continuedto work with the mayor and city council to imple-ment ULI’s vision for redevelopment of the down-town and lakefront.

Jeep was successful in negotiating the acquisitionof 93 acres of lakefront property from the bank-rupt Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC). Overthe objection of General Motors and North ShoreGas Company, the city of Waukegan acquired, byeminent domain, a 40-acre Superfund site on theshore of Lake Michigan for $100,000. Before thecity took title, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) approved a plan mandating thatthe property be cleaned to industrial standards.After the city took title, the EPA threatened tosue if the city did not go along with its cleanupplan. The city responded by rezoning the propertyresidential, enacting the state’s first environmen-tal nuisance ordinance, and rejecting the EPA’s in-dustrial cleanup plan. Ultimately, Jeep negotiateda settlement with the firms and the EPA that man-dates a level of cleanup that will accommodate amixed-used residential and marina development.In 2005, the city plans to issue requests for pro-posals to build condominiums and a marina on thesite. The development is expected to generate mil-lions of dollars annually in new real estate taxes.

Jeep recently completed negotiations with theEPA and the Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency for the city to acquire the remaining 53acres of the OMC lakefront property for only $130.The tax increment generated by the redevelopedformer Coke Plant site will support the issuanceof bonds to finance the redevelopment of the 53-acre parcel. ULI and the city’s master planner,Skidmore Owings & Merrill, anticipated that en-vironmental contamination at the former OMCproperty would delay redevelopment of the NorthHarbor area by ten to 15 years. The North Harborarea now is scheduled to be the first mixed-useresidential, recreational, and marina developmenton the Waukegan lakefront.

Before returning to private practice, Jeep workedin the law department of Waste Management, Inc.He moved to Boston in 1989 to serve as regional

environmental counsel for the firm’s northeast re-gion, which included New England, Connecticut,New York state, and eastern Canada. While atWaste Management, Inc., Jeep was responsible forsiting landfills, cleaning up leaking landfills, envi-ronmental compliance, and environmental litiga-tion, including both civil and criminal lawsuits. Hewas a prosecutor in Lake County, Illinois, from1982 through 1985 and received his law degreefrom Loyola University of Chicago.

Cecilia A. MowattChicago, Illinois

Mowatt is an attorney with extensive experiencein corporate strategy, asset management, and realestate transactions. Formerly the first interna-tional president of GVA Worldwide, a real estateservices firm, she launched her own real estateconsulting firm, Strategies In Site, Inc., at theend of 2002.

Prior to joining GVA, Mowatt was an executivewith Chicago-based McDonald’s and Ameritech.During almost eight years at McDonald’s, Mowattacquired experience in real estate transactionsfrom conception to completion. Throughout herreal estate career, which includes six years atAmeritech, Mowatt was instrumental in develop-ing process improvements and performance mea-surements, as well as handling outsourcing ofreal estate transactions to align real estate withoverall company strategies. She started her ca-reer with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

Mowatt currently serves on the boards of FamilyFocus, Inc., a Chicago-based family resource andsupport organization, and the Episcopal ChurchCouncil. Prior directorships include the Chicagochapter of the American Institute of Wine andFood, the Latin School Alumni Association andboard of trustees, the Latin American Bar Asso-ciation, the Black Women Lawyers Association,the Stanford Club of Illinois, and Chicago WorkEthic. Her volunteer activities, many of whichfocus on supporting and mentoring children, haveincluded work with the Junior League of Chicago,St. James Episcopal Cathedral, the ConstitutionalRights Foundation, Chicago Legal Assistance for


Incarcerated Mothers, and the Cook County BarAssociation Community Law Project. Mowattcontinues to be active in a number of professionaland industry organizations related to law and realestate. She received a BA from Stanford Univer-sity as well as a JD and an MBA from the Uni-versity of California at Berkeley.

Kerri D. RogersNew York, New York

Rogers currently has a consulting practice thatcapitalizes on her 20 years of commercial real es-tate experience. As president and founder of Pub-lic Private Partners, Inc., she represents and as-sists landlords, investors, government agencies,and nonprofits in urban and economic develop-ment projects.

Most recently, Rogers served as president and CEOof one of Harlem’s oldest community developmentcorporations, which owns a real estate portfoliovalued at approximately $20 million. She beganher real estate career in New York as an owner’srepresentative for Silverstein Properties in themid 1980s, where she was responsible for market-ing, leasing, and renovating office buildings onFifth Avenue and Wall Street. During the real es-tate market downturn of the early 1990s, Rogerscreated the asset management department forthe New York City Economic Development Cor-poration, where she served as vice president andrecovered more than $5 million in unreported rev-enue. Later, as vice president for the Retail Ini-tiative, she marketed and managed a $24 millioninstitutional equity fund that leveraged $100 mil-lion in additional investment and facilitated thedevelopment of neighborhood anchored shoppingcenters nationwide.

Rogers received her BS from Northwestern Uni-versity and an MBA from the Zicklin School ofManagement at the City University of New York.She is a licensed real estate broker.

David S. WatsonAdviser to the PanelNew York, New York

Watson has more than 23 years of experience inreal estate finance and currently is responsiblefor JPMorgan Chase Bank’s Community Develop-ment Group real estate lending and finance activi-ties in New England, the Mid-Atlantic region, andthe Westchester/Mid-Hudson region of New York.Prior to joining JPMorgan Chase in 1991, he spentten years in senior corporate and real estate lend-ing positions with regional banks in New England.Watson currently is based in the firm’s regionalheadquarters in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Watson serves on the board of trustees of theNational Housing Conference in Washington, D.C.,and in various leadership capacities with the LocalInitiatives Support Corporation and the Connecti-cut Children’s Investment Partnership. He alsoserves as a director on the boards of several localcommunity and civic organizations.

During his professional career, Watson has beeninvolved in the financing of more than 15,000 unitsof rental and for-sale housing and more than 2 mil-lion square feet of retail/office/commercial space.These projects have included complex HUDHOPE VI and Section 236 decoupling transactionsas well as various economic redevelopment and re-vitalization projects. Watson has contributed hisreal estate finance expertise in panel discussionsand presentations before the National HousingConference, the National Association of Afford-able Housing Lenders, and the American BankersAssociation.

Watson holds a BA degree in economics fromDrew University and an MBA degree in financefrom Syracuse University.