The lease holders didn't want more help from Bridgeport, they had solutions for fire, police, and medical emergencies.

The issue was more I think that they made Bridgeport's services look bad.  They paid their taxes and took almost nothing from the City.

None of the people there were really rich, which was part of the problem, no pull in the system.

Just a bunch of middle class people enjoying their version of Nantucket the way it was before being truly discovered, a stone's throw from a place that has been described as 'Bilgeport', and 'the armpit of Connecticut'.


On 8/9/2018 11:34 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
On 8/8/2018 14:37, Rick Womer wrote:
Odd. Got to them using my iPhone. Well done gallery; it makes me
wonder what the Bridgeport government was thinking.

Rick


My guess is they didn't have the $20 plus million a replacement bridge was going to cost and couldn't justify spending taxpayer's money to benefit so few people.

And while the question of how to restore public access was in limbo, the squatters, ravers, vandals & hooligans burned down too many of the island structures.

Neither Bridgeport nor Stratford, CT had the additional police & fire resources needed to protect the area. Every time another structure was destroyed the "costs" went up and the "benefits" went down.

Eventually it reached the point where there was no point in trying to save the houses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure_Beach

Plus, Stratford wanted to demolish the cottages they owned on their end of the peninsula so they could sell the land to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for inclusion in the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge.


--
America wasn't founded so that we could all be better.
America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please.
    - P.J. O'Rourke


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Reply via email to