How is zoning like condemnation?  When the answer is "higher density=$$"
Is New London following Stamford?  Please note that hard by "Curley's" in Stamford is to be the site of a new RITZ-CARLTON...
Eminent Domain story in pictures below: 
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice O'Connor understood the significance for homeowners and Nurse Kelo.
The beginning and the end of this Eminent Domain saga in New London is Nurse Kelo's home invasion by the Redevelopment Agency.  SAD PUNCHLINE.


TRANSPORTATION latest key in public-private partnerships in Connecticut cities and towns...
A DIFFERENT SIDE OF REDEVELOPMENT...OR IS IT, IN THE END?  "UTOPIA THE MOVIE STUDIO, ETC."  PROPOSAL NOW HAS ITS OWN PAGE, ALONG WITH CURRENT NEWS

CONTENTS:




City begins fresh look at Fort Trumbull
BY Stephen Chupaska, New London Day Staff Writer
Article published Jul 30, 2010

New London - Given the recent history of the Fort Trumbull, urban designer Alan Plattus of the Yale Urban Design Workshop told the roughly 50 people who gathered at the New London Public Library Thursday that he felt "pressure" now that the group has begun a study of the land that became famous during the Kelo eminent-domain saga.

"But it's a good pressure," Plattus said, before he launched into an enthusiastic hour-long presentation on the various directions the city could go as it develops the peninsula for both residential and commercial uses.

An hour-long question and answer session followed the presentation.  Plattus, whose group the City Council tapped earlier this year to do a six-month study of Fort Trumbull, mainly focused on how any future development there could connect to other parts of New London, especially downtown and the waterfront.

Noting the proximity of the southern end of Waterfront Park to Fort Trumbull, Plattus said, "You can throw a rock there, but you can't walk there."

Among the suggestions Plattus offered was a pedestrian bridge spanning the "short hop" over Shaw's Cove.

Plattus showed examples of architecturally unique bridges in London and Newcastle, England.

"It could be a signature element," Plattus said. "It could be something that people identify with New London."

Other ideas included a commuter-rail stop near Fort Trumbull similar to the State Street station in New Haven, which has spurred both residential and commercial development.  During the comment session, New London Main Street Executive Director Penny Parsekian cautioned that any new commercial businesses should not compete with those in downtown.

"They should bolster and complement the downtown businesses," Parsekian said.

Some of the residents who attended stressed the importance of reestablishing a sense of neighborhood to Fort Trumbull.

"It was a working-class, immigrant neighborhood," former city councilor George Sprecace said.

Plattus said an essential part of the Yale group's study would be to see how Fort Trumbull could move "from project to neighborhood."

The group, a nonprofit associated with Yale plans to hold another public session later this year.





2 N.Y. men buy Capitol Theater for $20,000, then pay it a first visit; 

They say price at tax sale was too good to resist

DAY
By Kathleen Edgecomb Day Staff Writer
Article published Jun 18, 2010

New London - Two men from New York City bought the Capitol Theater sight unseen Thursday at an auction at City Hall.  Jonathan Eddie Chau and Allen Kwan bid $20,000 on the former vaudeville theater on Bank Street, which was sold at a tax sale with six other properties.  The two men also successfully bid $190,000 for the building at 143 State St., where the Yankee Peddler and Pawn shop is located.

"We are big-city boys, but we love the small-city feel,'' Kwan said after the auction.

They said they do not know what they will do with the cavernous theater, which has been empty since 1974.  Kwan, who said he is an importer-exporter, and Chau, a developer and designer who said he designed a nightclub owned by Justin Timberlake, arrived in New London Thursday to bid on the pawn shop property. They said their friend, Michael Chin, who was losing the building in the tax foreclosure, urged them to bid on the property. Chin owes the city $22,132 in taxes and fees.

The opening bid for the Capitol Theater was $12,370, which is the unpaid taxes plus fees and interest. Kwan and Chau outbid Frank McLaughlin, a downtown landlord and developer, who offered $18,000 for the 90-year-old structure.

"Let me know if you want parking,'' McLaughlin kidded when Chau upped the bid to $20,000. Chau then offered to step outside with McLaughlin "to talk about going half way on the property."

He received a round of applause from the other bidders in the room when the auctioneer said "sold.''

Despite not seeing the building before bidding, Chau said the price was too good to resist.  After filling out paperwork, the two walked from City Hall to their new acquisition at 35 Bank St. They inspected the rear of the building, which is the only access to backstage, and the front of the building, peering through a broken glass door.

"We came up to the city. We liked it,'' said Kwan. "We see a lot of potential, great potential."

They said they do not want to change the facade of any buildings and want to enhance the "curb appeal" of the downtown buildings.

"We are hoping to grow with the city,'' Kwan said.

Maxim Development of New Jersey purchased the theater from the city in 2006 for $1, a break in taxes, and a promise to invest $2.5 million to restore the building and turn it into a live music venue. Maxim paid no taxes for the first two years of ownership and agreed to pay taxes for the following eight years based on a 2006 assessment.

But in January, with taxes unpaid and work at a standstill, the city foreclosed on the property.  Salvatore Carfaro, a principal in Maxim, could not be reached to comment Thursday.  The city has owned the theater for about 35 years. It is assessed at $240,590.  Owners of the properties that were sold Thursday have six months to redeem their properties, which means paying the back taxes. By the end of business Dec. 16, if no one has redeemed the properties, the new owners can take possession.

Other sales, all residential, were: 25 Grove St., $65,000; 27 W. Coit St., $40,000; 38 Briggs St., $75,000; 88 Williams St., 66,000; 62 Hawthorne Drive, $41,000.
k.edgecomb@theday.com




SURPRISE!!!
New London's Briarcliff project gets $4.6 million for renovations:
State, federal funds to be used on 106 housing units
By Kathleen Edgecomb Day Staff Writer
Article published Aug 28, 2010

New London - Families that live in the Briarcliff housing project off Colman Street came one step closer Friday to updated apartments.

The Carabetta Organization, which is renovating moderate-income housing at Bates Woods, has been awarded more than $4.6 million in state and federal funds to renovate Briarcliff. It is the second phase of the company's $22 million project.

The money is from the state's Housing Trust Fund and the federal HOME program, according to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who made the announcement Friday.

"We're walking on air. We're sitting around with big smiles on our faces,'' William Stetson, vice president of the Meriden-based Carabetta, said Friday. "But we also have a lot of hard work ahead of us to get the residents the homes they deserve."

The money will go toward renovating 106 two- and three-bedroom rental units at Briarcliff. In March, the company received about $6 million from the state for renovations to the Bates Woods complex.
Housing officials and the developer were concerned at the time, when Rell announced that she'd recommend that the state bond only $6 million of $10.6 million sought to complete the project.

The $10.6 million bond was to be a key step to a $48 million renovation of the aging Briarcliff and Bates Woods moderate-income housing complexes to be undertaken jointly by the housing authority and Carabetta.
Only the Bates Woods renovation went before the state Bonding Commission, and a Carabetta spokesman said the company was worried that the overall project would seem less attractive to private investment.
The New London Housing Authority, which has owned and managed the two complexes since the late 1940s, will retain ownership of the land. Carabetta has signed a 99-year ground lease with the authority and will own the houses and manage the properties when the project is complete.

"It's a great day for the housing authority,'' said Sue Shontell, acting director. "The moderate rental units will be remodeled and refurnished and all the tenants will be taken care of."
Money from the ground lease will be used to help the authority pay off long-standing debt, she said.

"It's another step in taking the agency out of trouble status,'' Shontell said. The authority has been on a federal list of "troubled agencies" since 1998.

The project, one of five in the state to receive funding on Friday, will offer units to families with incomes at or below 60 percent of the local median income. The project includes site and street improvements, recreational amenities and a new community-room building. The funding will be administered by the state Department of Economic and Community Development.

"These funds will help create a 'walkable community' near local bus lines and provide more housing choices for low-income families and residents," Rell said. "The state's affordable housing program continues to be a strong partner with cities and towns that strive to meet the housing needs of their citizens."

Other projects that received funding Friday are the Metro Green Apartments in Stamford; Alfred E. Plant Elderly Apartments in West Hartford; Cedarwoods Apartments in Windham; and Downtown Bridgeport, Phase II.


Bond funds cut for NL housing facelifts; Bates Woods complex is likely to be funded, Briarcliff may have to wait
By Stephen Chupaska, Day Staff Writer
Article published Mar 6, 2010

New London - Plans to renovate two public housing developments in the city are in doubt after an announcement Friday that Gov. M. Jodi Rell will recommend that the state bond only $6 million of the $10.6 million sought by developers to complete the project.

The $10.6 million bond was to be a key step to a $48 million renovation of the aging Briarcliff and Bates Woods moderate-income housing complexes to be undertaken jointly by the New London Housing Authority and the Carabetta Organization of Meriden.

According to a news release from the governor's office, only the Bates Woods renovation will go before the state Bonding Commission at its next meeting March 16. The $6 million bond will likely be approved, given that Rell controls a majority of the seats on the 10-member commission.

Now that renovation plans have essentially been divided, a Carabetta spokesman said the company is concerned the project will seem less attractive to private investment.

"We're very concerned investors might lose interest in the project," William Stetson, Carabetta vice president, said Friday. "Given the status of the market, it was very important that (both renovations) were linked together."

Stetson said given the state of the economy, firms and banks are eager to invest in larger-scale projects. He declined to reveal the investor Carabetta has been talking to, but said it was "one of the major banks."

State Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, who lives on Colman Street a few blocks east of Briarcliff and is an ardent supporter of the bond, was "pleased and not pleased."

"It is such a vital project for New London," he said.

Hewett said the city's Hartford delegation, which includes State Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, and Rep. Edward Moukawsher, D-Groton, will send Rell a letter advocating for a $10.6 million bond.

Stillman was "caught off guard" by Rell's announcement, which a came a day after city and state officials toured a model renovated apartment at Briarcliff, but was thankful for the amount in the bond.

"I appreciate the governor's support," Stillman said.

New London Mayor Rob Pero, a Republican, said the $6 million bond was "still good news" for the city, considering Connecticut's dire financial condition.
"This is a good-faith effort by the state," Pero said. "You've got to give (Rell) a lot of credit."

When asked if the city's mayoralty in resting in Republican hands was a factor in New London securing the bond, Pero said "it was helpful."

"It made it easier to call them up and make a pitch," Pero said. "But I don't think it was the only reason. I know Sen. Stillman sent letters."

Sue Shontell, acting executive director of the housing authority, could not be reached to comment.

Carabetta has renovated four units at the 60-year-old Briarcliff using its own money to serve as models for the rest of the project.

The revamped units feature energy-efficient modern appliances, improved insulation, new bathrooms, increased closet space and new floors.



New London development goals need to be clearly defined, planner suggests; Transit forum elicits ideas, advice on how city's future might take shape
By Kathleen Edgecomb, Day Staff Writer
Article published Jan 30, 2010

New London - When John Renne, a professor at the University of New Orleans and an expert on transportation and urban planning, gets invited to talk to a municipality, he likes to walk around and get a feel for whether or not he would want to live there.

Before speaking Friday to about 80 people at a forum at the Radisson Hotel on "transit-oriented development," Renne wandered around downtown. He told those gathered at the "Transit New London" forum that he would definitely want to live in New London.

"It's beautiful here,'' he said. "You have the water and restaurants, great architecture and an arts scene ....''  What he did not find, after talking to several people, he said, is a clear idea of where the city is heading in terms of development.

"It's not clear to me what your goals and objectives are,'' he said. "What is the 'there' you're trying to get to?"

With train and bus stations already in place and two ferry terminals nearby, downtown New London could be in a position for federal funding of projects that promote mass public transportation.
The forum, sponsored by New London Landmarks, brought together experts, business owners, conservationists and other "stakeholders" to discuss the city's future as a transportation center for the region.

Renne, managing director of The TOD Group, which specializes in transit-oriented development, suggested to those gathered that they figure out what they want and then find a leader.
"You need someone to stick their neck out,'' he said.  H.H. Smallridge, founding principal and director of urban design at Crosby/Schlessinger/Smallridge LLC of Boston, presented some long-range ideas that center on transportation.

"The idea is to go back to the future,'' he said, pulling out a tinted photograph of New London from around the 1920s that showed multistory buildings with stores on the sidewalk level and offices and living space on the upper floors.

Smallridge, who worked on the soon-to-be-released "New London Regional Intermodal Transportation Study," suggested that, long-range, the city could open itself up to the waterfront to be inviting to more than 2 million people who each year catch trains and ferries from New London. Buildings should have doors that open to the waterfront, parking garages and lots should be pushed away from the shore and hotels and businesses moved closer to the water.

The forum also included a panel discussion with representatives from the city, Landmarks, SEAT bus transportation, Shore Line East One More Stop Coalition, Bike New London, Union Station, New London Harbour Towers and Cross Sound Ferry Services.

Panelists agreed that bringing Shore Line East service to the city would help further the revitalization of downtown. But they also noted that the city and the region have little clout in Hartford, where the decisions are made on who gets attention and money from the state.

"I think the most important thing we can do to generate activity in this town is to improve our focus and our leadership,'' said Todd O'Donnell, co-owner of Union Station, the 1885 depot designed by the acclaimed American architect Henry Hobson Richardson. "We have to get people to say, 'Yes, New London is important.' "

O'Donnell urged everyone in the room to call their state legislators and the governor's office to demand Shore Line East make regular stops in the city and more funding for the regional SEAT buses.

"We have to come together and have a master plan,'' said Larry Caruso, owner of Caruso Music and chairman of the Shore Line East One More Stop Coalition. "We're so close. We have all the components, but we have to get together."

Sandra Chalk, executive director of Landmarks, said that in this election year politicians should be pressed for their views about making public transportation available and affordable. "It's an exciting moment to be here in New London,'' she said. "It's up to the city, city councilors and stakeholders in this room what the next step will be. We have a lot of work ahead of us."

Friday's forum came one day after The Day hosted a roundtable discussion on future development at Fort Trumbull. The city and the Yale Urban Design Workshop team are looking at possibly working together on a new plan for the 90-acre Fort Trumbull development site.

k.edgecomb@theday.com



Now that the neighborhood is totally barren...
Yale prof says all parties must have common goal
Planning expert: Collaboration is key for success at Fort Trumbull
By Kathleen Edgecomb, Day Staff Writer
Article published Jan 29, 2010

New London - If it's going to take an outsider to help heal the rifts over the Fort Trumbull eminent domain battle, a professor from Yale may be the person to do it...YALE INVOLVEMENT HERE.


FROM KELO DISSENT:
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a compelling dissent. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."
Pfizer to Leave City That Won Major Land-Use Case
NYTIMRS
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
November 13, 2009

From the edge of the Thames River in New London, Conn., Michael Cristofaro surveyed the empty acres where his parents’ neighborhood had stood, before it became the crux of an epic battle over eminent domain.

“Look what they did,” Mr. Cristofaro said on Thursday. “They stole our home for economic development. It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away.”

That sentiment has been echoing around New London since Monday, when Pfizer, the giant drug company, announced it would leave the city just eight years after its arrival led to a debate about urban redevelopment that rumbled through the United States Supreme Court, and reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use.

Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city’s biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built.

The announcement stirred up resentment and bitterness among some local residents. They see Pfizer as a corporate carpetbagger that took public money, in the form of big tax breaks, and now wants to run.

“I’m not surprised that they’re gone,” said Susette Kelo, who moved to Groton from New London after the city took her home near Pfizer’s property. “They didn’t get what they wanted: their development, their big plan.”

Ms. Kelo lived in a small pink house in the Fort Trumbull section that was square in the sights of city and state officials who wanted to revitalize the area. The city had created the New London Development Corporation to buy up the nine-acre neighborhood and find a developer to replace it with an “urban village” that would draw shoppers and tourists to the area.

Economic development officials in Connecticut used that plan — and a package of financial incentives — to lure Pfizer to build a headquarters for its research division on 26 acres nearby. With an agreement that it would pay just one-fifth of its property taxes for the first 10 years, Pfizer spent $294 million on a 750,000-square-foot complex that opened in 2001.

By then, Ms. Kelo, the Cristofaros and several neighbors had sued the city to stop it from using its power of eminent domain to take their property. The lawsuit, Kelo v. New London, wound up at the Supreme Court in 2005 as one of the most scrutinized property-rights cases in years.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court ruled that it was permissible to take private property and turn it over to developers as part of a plan to bolster the local economy. Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, dissented. Justice Thomas called New London’s plan “a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation.”

The decision was widely criticized, and spurred lawmakers across the country to adopt statutes to prevent similar uses of eminent domain. Scott G. Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group in Arlington, Va., said that 43 states had moved to protect private-property rights since the Kelo decision. New York and New Jersey are among the seven that have not, he said.

Mr. Bullock, who represented the landowners in New London, said Pfizer’s announcement “really shows the folly of these plans that use massive corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain for private development.”

“They oftentimes fail to live up to expectations,” he added.

For its part, Pfizer said it had no stake in the outcome of the Kelo case nor any interest in the development of the land that was acquired by eminent domain, according to a statement provided by a spokeswoman, Liz Power.

After Pfizer completed its $67 billion acquisition of Wyeth, another drug giant, in October, Ms. Power said, “We had a lot of real estate that we had to make strategic decisions about.” She said Pfizer would try to sell or lease its buildings in New London and would “continue to pay our taxes to the city as scheduled.”

The complex is currently assessed at $220 million, said Robert M. Pero, a city councilman who is scheduled to become mayor next month. The company pays tax on 20 percent of that value and the state pays an additional 40 percent, Mr. Pero said. That arrangement is scheduled to end in 2011, around the time Pfizer, which is currently the city’s biggest taxpayer, expects to complete its withdrawal.

“Basically, our economy lost a thousand jobs, but we still have a building,” Mr. Pero said. Then again, he added, “I don’t know who’s going to be looking for a building like that in this economy.”

Some residents said they expected Pfizer to seek a revaluation of its buildings if they wind up vacant in two years; Ms. Power declined to comment.

Mr. Pero said that he was offended that Pfizer did not notify city officials about the decision before Monday or give them a chance to argue against it or even fully understand it. But he said he did not regret the decisions he and other elected officials had made to bring Pfizer to New London for what they had hoped would be a long and fruitful stay.

“I’m sure that there are people that are waiting out there to say, ‘I told you so,’ ” Mr. Pero said. “I don’t know that even today you can say, ‘I told you so.’ ”

But Mr. Cristofaro and Ms. Kelo both said just that.

Ms. Kelo, a nurse who works in New London and Norwich, Conn., said she was still bitter about the loss of her house, which she sold for $1 to Avner Gregory, a preservationist. Mr. Gregory dismantled the house and moved it across town. It now stands as a bright-pink symbol of the divisive dispute that drew so much attention to New London.

“In all honesty, I’m not happy about what happened to me,” Ms. Kelo said. But, she added, “With 43 states changing their laws, in that sense I feel we did some good for people across the country.”


NL council will meet Monday on ramifications of Pfizer departure;  Pero: Both rumors, facts to be addressed at forum
DAY
Article published Nov 12, 2009

New London - Following the news Monday that Pfizer Inc. is relocating its city work force to Groton and shutting down its Pequot Avenue site, city officials are scrambling to compile information on the financial implications of the move.

The City Council has scheduled a forum for 6 p.m. Monday at City Hall.

"There's been a lot of rumors about what will happen with the building, what's happening with the day care,'' said City Councilor Rob Pero, who called the meeting. "There's a lot of rumors. We want to educate people on the facts."

The meeting will take place one hour before the regular City Council meeting. If time permits, residents will have a chance to speak, Pero said.

"I want to share with the community where we are, what our finances are and what we know to date,'' he said.

When Pfizer opened its New London campus in 2001, it immediately became the city's highest taxpayer, even with an 80 percent abatement that is scheduled to last through 2011. On the 2008 grand list, Pfizer was paying taxes on nearly $52 million of assessed property. The next highest taxpayer is the New London Mall, which pays taxes on nearly $26.6 million.

Pfizer paid $1,199,390 in taxes this year, which included about $450,000 in personal property taxes.

The financial implications may not be felt for a few years. Pfizer has said the plan to move its 1,400 employees to Groton could take up to two years. PfizerKids, a day care facility it owns across Pequot Avenue from the New London office space, will continue in business, operated by Bright Horizons with a capacity of 150 children.

Until recently, some of the councilors were discussing how the city would use an anticipated $2 million in added revenue when the Pfizer tax abatements expire in 2011. It appears that number will probably drop to $1.5 million when the personal property taxes are deducted, according to Councilor Adam Sprecace. But that probably won't happen until after the abatements run out, he added.

"Clearly we would want someone who is taxpaying in there," Sprecace said of the 27-acre waterfront site, which includes the day care building. "We'd love to work with Pfizer to find someone who is a taxpayer. That's the top priority.''

Councilor Michael Buscetto III also does not want to see a college, a hospital or other nonprofit take over the space.

"I would like to see jobs," he said Monday. "I'd like to see another Fortune 500 company come in." He suggested that perhaps the property could be divided and several smaller companies accommodated.

"That might be a more reasonable approach," he said.

Buscetto also suggested the news could bring the city together.

"I believe this is a time, a situation, that affects all groups, and the entire community should come up with a plan to market New London,'' he said. "We have to show we are a great community and we have a lot to offer prospective employers."



A 'wrong turn': From giddy optimism to stunning disappointment
DAY
Ted Mann
Article published Nov 11, 2009

New London - A little more than a decade ago, the mention of Pfizer Inc. in this hard-luck city spurred dreams of renewal, prosperity and almost boundless growth.

Pfizer's decision to build a $300 million research headquarters in New London, lured with a package of multimillion-dollar tax abatements and the promise of a state-funded overhaul of the surrounding neighborhood, would yield compounding benefits for the city at large, officials declared.

Small start-up firms would flock to the outskirts of the new corporate research campus, state and corporate executives declared.

The drug manufacturer itself considered expanding farther into New London, across acres cleared for redevelopment through buyouts and eminent domain takings.  And the city would hitch its fate to the fortunes of a steadily expanding, and perpetually dominant, corporate giant.

"Whatever adjective is better than 'exciting,' it was 10 times that," said Murray Renshaw, a plumber and a regular at City Council meetings and on his local cable TV show.

The early hopes make the bitterness of this week's announcement more acute: Pfizer will close its glittering waterfront complex and abandon New London in 2011 - right around the time its tax abatements from the state and city expire.  As Pfizer prepares to leave New London, some of the early dissenters feel a sense of sad vindication, some of its defenders feel sandbagged, and the controversial overhaul of the rundown Fort Trumbull neighborhood that Pfizer triggered remains unfinished.

"I've always been concerned about what they would do once that corporate welfare deal went down," said Lloyd Beachy, a former mayor and city councilor who was often a lone voice of opposition on the council to aiding the corporation. Beachy also helped lead prayer vigils to try to halt the demolition of houses in Fort Trumbull that followed.

"It sounds like Pfizer to me," Beachy said. "... To be honest, I'm not really surprised."

To Beachy and others who raised questions about the extent of public efforts to accommodate Pfizer, losing the company is nonetheless "heartbreaking."

"We did a lot of hard work to bring them to this city," he said. "And the citizens of New London have been paying for them, paying 40 percent of their taxes ever since they moved in there.

"Now we're at the point where Pfizer would be paying their full taxes," he added, "and they're deciding to just pull up and leave."

One of Beachy's chief opponents in his occasionally lonely stand against financial breaks for Pfizer, former Mayor Ernest Hewett, was more surprised than Beachy at the news of Pfizer's plans, but no less disappointed.

"You got to be (kidding) me," murmured Hewett, now a state representative. "I had heard that a while ago, but I said, 'There's no way in the hell Pfizer is going to do that.' "

Big plans

In the meeting notes from Sept. 1, 1998, no one is talking about leaving New London. Instead, officials from Pfizer and its engineering firm, CUH2A, were bullish on the future of the "New London Biotech Park," a proposed suite of low-slung office buildings that would be included in the city's 2000 Municipal Development Plan, which was then already being developed by officials at the New London Development Corp.
The land on which those buildings would stand, a parcel bounded by Howard, Shaw and Hamilton Streets, across the train tracks from the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and the peninsula on which Pfizer's headquarters would soon rise, would be taken from existing property owners and residents, including some land seized via eminent domain.

Pfizer has long sought to differentiate between the package of direct aid offered by the city and the state to bring it to New London - including a combined 80 percent abatement of taxes for 10 years and a $5 million cash grant for engineering work on its buildings - and the $75 million Municipal Development Plan, through which houses and land were seized from property owners throughout the neighborhood to make way for a hotel and conference center aimed at catering to Pfizer employees, as well as offices, high-end housing and a marina.

And directors of the project, including NLDC leaders, have always insisted that Pfizer never intended to take ownership or "any interest" in land taken by the agency via eminent domain.

But Pfizer's wishes guided the formation of the MDP - a 1997 letter from Commissioner James F. Abromaitis of the Department of Economic and Community Development to Pfizer executive George M. Milne pledging to increase the value of the company's expansion in New London "through a comprehensive, state-funded waterfront improvement and development project." In a later missive, Abromaitis directs that $8 million in initial funding for the NLDC be used in keeping with the "Pfizer concept plan" for the neighborhood surrounding the company, a reference to a sketch produced by CUH2A that largely matches what would eventually become the MDP.

And the meeting notes show that Pfizer executives did consider expanding into the land cleared along Howard Street as part of the NLDC project, into the buildings that city and state officials believed could play host to start-ups and small-scale firms seeking to be near a Fortune 100 giant.

The company considered installing a recently purchased subsidiary, Anaderm, a developer of cosmetic pharmaceuticals. And the land also offered potential "Overflow Pfizer Central Research space," space for Pfizer contractors, and "Potential for role as prime tenant, developer, landlord and owner."

Approached when the documents were first obtained by The Day several years ago, a Pfizer spokeswoman declined to arrange interviews with principal executives, but confirmed that the company had made an "inventory of properties" in 2002 in the event of a potential expansion, including the Howard Street property.

But at that late date, after years of legal battles and the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, which upheld the property takings, the last thing on Pfizer's mind was further expansion.

In the years since the company's arrival in New London heralded a civic future of science and associated industry, Pfizer had merged with one corporate rival, Warner Lambert, and acquired another, Pharmacia.
"The landscape inside (and outside) the company is different than it was in 1998," spokeswoman Liz Power said in 2006. "The need to expand further in New London has not presented itself."
On Tuesday, less than a month after Pfizer completed another merger with a giant drugmaker, this time Wyeth, Power used almost the same words, describing the corporation's need to shed some of its now-redundant properties.

"It's safe to say that each time we've embarked on one of these acquisitions we had similar decisions to make about our site footprint," Power said. "And each time you're looking at a different economic landscape, global economic landscape and different portfolio as a company.

"It's a different time. We're a different company."

'We took the wrong road'

The land bounded by Howard, Shaw and Hamilton streets is still vacant, more than eight years after most of the buildings there were razed.

On Tuesday, a backhoe was parked near a pile of road work warning signs. A deep gully in the center of the lot chattered with late-season insect calls, and wind rustled tall reeds, cattails and young trees. In the ditch behind the parking lot that once served Hughie's Restaurant, an oil tank lay on its side, rusting.

Murray Renshaw once owned four parcels on that vacant lot. A supporter of Pfizer and the redevelopment project, Renshaw nonetheless fought the NLDC in court over the compensation he received for his land, winning a court case in 2001.

His enthusiasm has waned with Pfizer's decision to pull out.

"We've been told for years that we were just around the corner, and every time we got to a fork in the road, we took the wrong road," Renshaw said. "It's just another bad turn. We're not rounding the corner, we're going the wrong way."

In the Shaw's Cove Deli, tucked away on Hamilton Street, at the edge of what would have been the New London Biotech Park, proprietor Paty Daignault was serving lunch. She will lose $3,000 in annual income from Pfizer's catering business alone, she said, to say nothing of the disappearance of foot traffic as its workers depart.

"They took all those people's livelihoods," she said, with a gesture toward the vacant land behind her deli, and over in Fort Trumbull proper. "For what? To leave it all empty again? They ought to give those people back their houses instead of just screwing us again."


Pfizer to close facility, move workers in Conn.
Norwich Bulletin
The Associated Press
Posted Nov 09, 2009 @ 02:17 PM

New London, Conn. —

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. says it plans to close its research and development site in New London and move about 1,500 jobs to its Groton campus.

The changes are part of a consolidation due to Pfizer's merger last month with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Pfizer officials say no positions are being cut right now in Connecticut, where the drug maker employs about 5,000 workers.

The announcement Monday comes as Pfizer closes several research and development sites worldwide.

New London officials say they were surprised by the news, though they knew it was a possibility. Pfizer says it is in what an official called "active discussions" to sell or lease its massive New London complex.




Fort Trumbull lawsuit dismissed
DAY
By Kathleen Edgecomb
Published on 10/14/2009

New London - One of the final lawsuits filed by the Fort Trumbull Conservancy concerning the redevelopment of the fort was dismissed Tuesday in Superior Court in Hartford.

Following four days of testimony by witnesses called by the conservancy, Superior Court Judge Grant Miller dismissed the case, which alleged the development was contributing pollutants into the Thames River, Shaw's Cove and Bentley Creek.

”They had not proven the basic elements of their case,'' Edward B. O'Connell, who represents the New London Development Corp., said Tuesday.

After attorney Scott W. Sawyer of New London, who represents the conservancy, rested his case Tuesday morning, O'Connell immediately made a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support the allegations. The judge agreed and ruled from the bench, dismissing the case.

Sawyer said he will ask the judge for a written explanation.

”The ruling was not consistent with the remedial nature of environmental law,'' Sawyer said Tuesday. “Environmental statutes were set up so citizens could work to protect the environment from unreasonable pollution.”

The conservancy, a privately funded, nonprofit organization, sued several parties involved in the proposed development of 90 acres on the Fort Trumbull peninsula. The plans became the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court's hot-button ruling on eminent domain.

The conservancy alleged the Municipal Development Plan, which provided the footprint for how the land was to be redeveloped, was “reasonably likely to cause unreasonable harm” to local waterways. It sued the city of New London and its Planning and Zoning Commission, the NLDC, the state Department of Economic and Community Development and the state Office of Policy and Management.

The conservancy contended the continued development of the peninsula would flush heavy metals and toxins, including copper, mercury and zinc, into already polluted waters and that the planners failed to follow state law on environmental assessments of the development's likely effects.

Testimony for the conservancy included two environmental experts, former “little pink house” owner Susette Kelo, NLDC executive director John Brooks, city and state officials and Sarah Steffian, a principal member and supporter of the conservancy. Steffian testified she has spent about $1 million on lawyers and expert witnesses concerning the development.

The 2005 lawsuit made its way up to the state Supreme Court and back to Superior Court.

In 2006, New London Judge D. Michael Hurley, who is now deceased, dismissed the case after finding that the conservancy's claims of environmental damage were too “speculative and hypothetical.” The state Supreme Court reversed the ruling, saying the suit was specific enough that it could not be dismissed.

The suit is one of 10 filed by the conservancy in connection with the development of the Fort Trumbull peninsula. All but one have been dismissed.

The remaining lawsuit, which is pending, addresses the demolition process that was used when the existing buildings on the site were torn down.


City Can't Wait For Fort Trumbull Success 
By The Day 
Published on 6/14/2009

There have been many watermarks in the recent history of New London's Fort Trumbull peninsula, some more important than others, like the U.S. Supreme Court ruling four years ago this month upholding the use of eminent domain to force out property owners who didn't want to go.

Now, a potential new measuring point in the decade-long battle to redevelop Fort Trumbull is looming. This time it is not clearing the peninsula that is critical, but initiation of construction of the National Coast Guard Museum there that could be pivotal. The proposed $65 million waterfront building will display the Coast Guard's history and mission, and ignite new interest in development possibilities, overseers of the Fort Trumbull project, the New London Development Corp., believes.

Eleven years ago when Pfizer Inc. broke ground for its global headquarters many city officials saw the pharmaceutical giant as New London's savior. Not only would it bring jobs and tax dollars, but many expected Pfizer would be the impetus for development of adjacent Fort Trumbull. But for a number of reasons, including Pfizer itself and the eminent domain challenge by the holdout property owners that dragged on for years, it never happened. So now, the NLDC is pinning its hopes for a catalyst on the Coast Guard museum.

Expected to attract 300,000 annual visitors, the museum is a welcome addition to Fort Trumbull, but not the tax-generating development that the city sought to attract to the prime waterfront parcel. And at best, a museum opening is four to five years away.

So the NLDC cannot wait on the Coast Guard museum to do the heavy-lifting. It must highlight the Fort Trumbull properties, advertising their possibilities, so when lending markets loosen, developers will be ready to move in. And it should be flexible in its consideration of proposals, not limiting itself to the prescribed development plan calling for a hotel/conference center, luxury apartments/townhouses, office/research space, and mixed-use development. The NLDC rightfully already abandoned its plan for a single developer for the entire 90-acre tract, and is offering parcels separately to any suitor who comes calling.

But the agency and city should make marketing Fort Trumbull a top priority. The site's proximity to the water, to the adjacent Pfizer headquarters and magnificent Fort Trumbull State Park, and the massive infusion of state aid used to upgrade roads, sidewalks and utilities on the peninsula are just a few of the pluses. New London is centrally located between New York and Boston and is blessed with a transportation network linking bus, train, ferry, and interstate travel.

The city has turned a corner in its Fort Trumbull story. Much of the rage over eminent domain has subsided, and friends and families divided by the redevelopment project have respectfully agreed to disagree. Most New Londoners just want to see the property developed now.

That's not going to be easy in this economy, and it is certainly going to require more than pinning other Fort Trumbull development to the tail of the Coast Guard museum project. The NLDC has to be assertive. It needs a working Web site and a proactive sales team pitching the virtues of the Fort Trumbull peninsula. Waiting on a savior is just not acceptable.  


NL officials regret relinquishing power of eminent domain; Forum revisits Fort Trumbull case that went to Supreme Court 
DAY
By Kathleen Edgecomb     
Published on 3/5/2009 
 
New London - The city's law director and a former mayor agreed Wednesday that if they could have a “do-over” for the past 10 years, they would not relinquish the powers of eminent domain to an unelected body that is not accountable to the voters.

”Never, ever delegate the powers of eminent domain,'' said Beth Sabilia, who was mayor more than three years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the city's powers of eminent domain to take private property in the city's Fort Trumbull neighborhood for economic development.

”We should have retained local control,'' Attorney Thomas Londregan added.

The two were part of a four-member panel that met in a lecture hall at New London High School Wednesday night to discuss the Kelo v. New London court case and its aftermath.  Hosted by The Day, the forum also featured author Jeff Benedict, who five weeks ago published a book - “Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage'' - on the subject.  In 2000, the City Council gave the New London Development Corp. the power to use eminent domain to implement a $70 million state-funded overhaul of Fort Trumbull.

More than three years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city was justified in taking the Fort Trumbull property for economic development, there is no new construction on the 90-acre site, and the wounds from the battle still run deep.

”What bothers me, is that on a local level, it was neighbor against neighbor. There is a breach there that still has not been healed,'' said Kathleen Mitchell, a vocal advocate for the people who lived in Fort Trumbull and lost their homes.

“There are so many decent people in New London,” she said. “Even those that supported taking the homes thought it was the right thing to do.”

Mitchell was among about 170 people who crammed into the lecture hall for the forum.  Sabilia, who said she received 4,000 e-mail death threats the summer following the Supreme Court decision, also said the state was in charge of the project and she often fielded calls from state officials telling her what do and threatening to cut off funding if the city did not comply.

”My lesson is, if the state offers you $70 million, say 'no thank you','' she said. “Yes, the city won, but no one in the City of New London really won. In New London we are all connected. I don't care if you live in a lean-to or a 4,000-square-foot house. It's where we all take our babies home.”

Benedict, one of the four panel members, said there are plenty of colorful characters in the 10-year saga that pitted seven resolute families in Fort Trumbull who refused to give up their homes against a distressed city looking to boost its tax base.

”But there are no villains in this fight,'' he said. “There weren't any bad guys in the story.'' City officials had the best interest of its citizens in mind when it approved a municipal development plan in 2000 that called for redevelopment of Fort Trumbull, he said.

The city won the case and had the full backing of the law, but it could have made room in the project for those who did not want to leave, Benedict said. The city chose not to and forced everyone out. Now, three years later ,with the old neighborhood removed and nothing new in its place, it's time to admit mistakes were made, he said.

"This was a political fight more than anything else,'' he said. “Saying I'm sorry can go a long way.''


The panel on stage also included Dana Berliner, a lawyer for the Institute For Justice, which represented the property owners. Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit and the main character in Benedict's book, had been invited to participate in the panel but did not. After the two-hour forum, she appeared in the hallway and signed books with Benedict.

Among the interesting tidbits that emerged during the two-hour discussion was that Claire Gaudiani, former president of the NLDC, referred to Reid MacCluggage, the former publisher of The Day, as Darth Vader, according to Benedict. He also said in 2005, Gaudiani was walking with a limp and with the aid of a cane after a meeting in a New York City restaurant. He did not recognize her when he first saw her.

”I thought, three years ago she was on top of the world,'' Benedict said. “Now, here was someone who had come a long way from that.''

He added that the human toll from the saga was immense.

”A lot of people's lives were turned upside down,'' he said.

Berliner, who argued the property owners' side, said that while the court decision upheld the city's legal right to take the property, she said she knew there would be a backlash.  An online poll the day after the Supreme Court's decision showed that 99 percent of the 100,000 people who voted disagreed with the high court's ruling.

”Everyone was appalled,'' she said.  Since that time, Berliner said, 43 states have changed their eminent domain laws. She praised the property owners for staying in the fight.

”They lost their homes,'' she said. “But ultimately they were a catalyst for change.”



Rep. Hyslop (from our files);  in 2010, a new face - Mayor Rob Pero.

Hyslop Dons NL Mayor's Hat With A Sense Of Pride 
DAY
By Kathleen Edgecomb 
Published on 12/2/2008

New London - Wade A. Hyslop Jr.'s first order of business after being elected the 121st mayor of the city Monday night was to replace the blue-and-white novelty license plate the mayor gets to put on his car.

”Blue and white is Waterford,'' said Hyslop as he held up the new plate that read “City of New London Mayor” - this one sporting New London High School green and gold.

”Whaler pride!'' Hyslop shouted.

Hyslop replaces Kevin J. Cavanagh, who served one year as mayor, which is largely a ceremonial position. Councilor John J. Maynard was selected as deputy mayor.  Hyslop, a 14-year veteran of the state legislature, retired from state politics in 2004 and then decided he had more to give. So he ran for City Council in 2007, and won.

Although he is not the first black mayor of the city - Leo Jackson achieved that honor in 1979 - Hyslop says it is important to him to be recognized by his peers and to be mayor of his hometown while Barack Obama is president.

In 1968, Robert Kennedy said that in 40 years the United States could have a Negro president, Hyslop reminded the audience.

”We have arrived,'' he said to a cheering gallery that filled the council benches and rows of folding chairs brought out for the occasion. “It's important for people out there to know that there are people here who can represent everybody.''  When people see others who look like themselves in positions of power, it gives them hope, he added.

”We've seen many people who have gotten involved in the past presidential election,” Hyslop said. “We want to keep them involved.''

After introducing family and friends, Hyslop ordered the meeting to reconvene on Wednesday instead of tonight so that people can attend New London's state playoff football game against Montville.

”There are a lot of people who would like to support our team,'' said Hyslop, who is a 1963 NLHS graduate.

”New London has arrived,'' he told the crowd. “We're not turning a corner, we're on a straightaway.”

Those attending Monday's ceremony included Hyslop's six sisters, assorted nieces and nephews, members of Trinity Missionary Baptist Church, where he is pastor, and political friends from near and far who have stayed in touch, including Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, and Democratic state Reps. Linda Orange of Colchester and Ernest Hewett of New London, as well as Sen. Andrea Stillman of Waterford. Seven former New London mayors were also in attendance.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who served in the legislature with Hyslop, administered the oath of office.

”There's no one better to be a spiritual leader and a government leader,'' she said. “I know you will bring integrity and humility to the office.''

Hyslop counts former mayors Jackson, Jane Glover and Eunice Waller among those who have mentored him through his political career.  Glover, who ran all seven of Hyslop's state campaigns, first came to know Hyslop when he was appointed to fill a vacancy on the city's Board of Education. Glover had wanted the appointment.

”I said, 'Who is this Rev. Hyslop?' '' Glover recalled. “I wanted to go to his house and tell him off.”

But Glover didn't do that and, in time, the two became friends. Together they founded the Kente Cultural Center in New London, where Glover is executive director.

”We laughed about it later,'' she said. “He's always been friendly. He never even knew I was mad until I told him.''

And that, said Glover, is what has made Hyslop an effective politician.

”He's not bullheaded or anything like that. It's not 'my way or the highway,' '' she said.

When Hyslop left the 39th District seat, he was deputy speaker of the House. But his rise to the leadership position took a rather untraditional route.

His political career began as a city selectman - a position that had no power and no duties. He was then appointed to the Board of Education and elected to a full-term. He was tapped almost immediately in 1990 to run for state representative.

His campaign was a grassroots one that took on the Democratic Town Committee and relied on people who had little or no political experience. He challenged Margaret Mary Curtin, now a fellow councilor, who was the Town Committee's candidate, to a primary. There were door-to-door bilingual voter registration drives and a focus on low-income housing complexes that had traditionally been ignored by politicians.  Hyslop won overwhelmingly in the primary, and the election. Voters sent him back to Hartford six more times.

”I've always tried to be a role model,'' he said. “I always tell people you don't know who's watching you at any given time. You should always do the best you can do.”

He said he enjoyed working in Hartford and hopes he can use his experience at the local level.

”I hope I'll be able to provide some insight in how we can best focus on the needs of New London,'' he said. “I'd like to lend my experience to the city, and I hope to be somewhat useful in my quest to help.''



Consultant for NL transportation study favors keeping hub downtown: Fort Trumbull plan is seen as too costly, too far away 
DAY
By Karin Crompton    
Published on 10/18/2008 

HERE'S WHY: The five reasons TranSystems lists for keeping the transportation center downtown instead of moving it to the Fort Trumbull peninsula...

1 Support among stakeholders, which include the “transportation operators” almost all of whom said they prefer to stay downtown.

2 Only the cruise ships would benefit from a move to Fort Trumbull, but the move is unnecessary “and it appears to be costly and infeasible.”

3 Many transportation operators would face constraints at the Fort Trumbull site: limited access under the railroad for buses and trucks; limited space for parking without affecting other development; it would be “difficult if not impossible” to move the ferry facilities to Fort Trumbull.

4 The existing site offers capacity and opportunities for improvement.

5 There is support for opportunities for enhanced development around the existing site.  FULL STORY AND REPORT HERE.


Kelo Foundation Removed 
DAY 
Published on 9/10/2008 

Joe Balavender of Salem, Conn., co-owner of Salecon, LLC., based in Salem, operates an excavator Wednesday to remove the foundation of the former home of Susette Kelo, located at the corner of East Street and Trumbull Street in New London. Kelo's home, the subject of a Supreme Court case on the use of eminent domain, was moved to Franklin Street. 



Fort Trumbull draws interest of dozens 
DAY
By Karin Crompton 
Published on 11/22/2008

New London - Despite an economic slump that has forced many developers into hibernation, the prospect of developing portions of the Fort Trumbull peninsula has garnered a good amount of interest, according to the New London Development Corp.

At a meeting of the corporation's executive committee Friday morning, Executive Director John Brooks said the office has sent out about 40 applications to developers who inquired about a Request for Proposals issued in October.

”We are cautiously optimistic about getting some positive, solid response,” Brooks said.

The NLDC restarted its search to find one or more developers for key parts of the peninsula in late October when it issued the Request for Qualifications for the first time in nine years.

At this point, developers only express interest and send in their qualifications, then would submit formal proposals - including preliminary site plans - after the NLDC sifts through the responses and chooses companies to take the next step.

Because the deadline to respond is Jan. 5, Brooks said he doesn't expect to receive any formal responses before Christmas. Brooks said the interest expressed might have included some duplication because consultants as well as developers called the NLDC offices.

The RFQ includes plans for a hotel and conference center, office and/or research facilities, and residential and mixed use.

The application also includes a 1-acre site downtown on Eugene O'Neill Drive that is currently a parking lot. That space is available for 60 residential units in one or more buildings, with parking.

The NLDC was previously working on those elements of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment plan with developer Corcoran Jennison, which lost its preferred developer status in May after failing to meet a deadline to secure financing for the residential component. Corcoran Jennison blamed the faltering economy for its difficulties.

While Corcoran Jennison was named a master developer, this time the request is split into six separate projects and developers can submit proposals for all of them or any portion. Brooks has said previously that the approach, potentially dividing the project into smaller pieces among different developers, might work better in the current economic climate.

Corcoran Jennison is currently working on an $18 million renovation of a building once used by the former Naval Undersea Warfare Center, turning it into a 90,000-square-foot office building.

Also at Friday morning's meeting, Brooks told the committee that demolition on two sites, parcels 4A and 5C, have been completed. Parcel 4A, located across from Fort Trumbull State Park, is slated for mixed-use development while 5C is located on nearby Howard Street and is marked for office/research space.

Brooks said the city is interested in property at 216 Howard St., previously owned by William Von Winkle, for a potential police department substation. The city's interest is currently in the “examination stage,” Brooks said.

The building would cost about $125,000 to renovate, said mayor Kevin Cavanagh.

The Howard Street parcel, which had a commercial building on it, was not one of the properties taken by eminent domain.

Von Winkle, one of the plaintiffs in the Kelo v. City of New London court case over the use of eminent domain, turned over four residential properties to the NLDC by eminent domain. He also sold the Howard Street parcel for $300,000.  


NOTE:  Here's #3...
A fresh start for Fort Trumbull 
DAY editorial
Published on 7/24/2008 

It was encouraging news to hear this week that more than a half dozen potential developers have expressed an interest in building housing on the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

And just as welcome news was the invitation from New London Development Corp. President Michael Joplin to the City Council that some of its members be part of a panel that ultimately screens serious developers for the site.

That Mr. Joplin gave his update on the Fort Trumbull project in public at Monday night's City Council meeting, rather than behind closed doors, was also heartening. It appears that past animosities and bickering between the council and NLDC have given way to a new civility and mutual agreement on bringing development to Fort Trumbull.

Hallelujah.

A decade has passed since the drafting of a Municipal Development Plan (MDP) for the neighborhood and three years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLDC's decision to take some properties there by eminent domain. Still, except for sidewalk, road and utility upgrades, little is visible to show for the emotional and financial toll invested.

Taxpayers are anxious to see development on the 90-acre peninsula. And word that, without solicitation, six to eight parties have approached the NLDC to express an interest in building housing there shows that the waterfront parcel has potential.

The inability of former prime developer Corcoran Jennison of Boston to meet a May 29 deadline to secure funding to start long-delayed construction of 66 apartments and 14 townhouses prompted the flurry of interest from other bidders. The NLDC maintains that Corcoran Jennison's inability to commence work on the housing nullified its prime developer status for the housing, as well as a hotel and additional office space.

Mr. Joplin told the City Council this week that he is still unsure whether Corcoran Jennison will litigate its termination as prime developer. We believe any such legal threat would be a mistake. The city gave Corcoran Jennison every reasonable opportunity to perform. And the NLDC has made it clear Corcoran Jennison is welcome to resubmit its housing plan for consideration with other suitors.

While the city has little appetite for any more legal battles or delays at Fort Trumbull, it must be ready to vigorously defend itself if necessary.

Whatever the future holds, New Londoners should not expect instant gratification; the city will be lucky if one of the more than half-dozen bidders so far has the wherewithal to pull off the housing project in this anemic economy. To a large degree, the city is starting over with Fort Trumbull, and starting over takes time.

Yet taxpayers should be encouraged that the NLDC and City Council are working in unison. This is an opportunity to re-examine the development plan and determine whether shifting priorities and changing markets require adjustments.

With no single prime developer, there is now the chance to divvy up development opportunities.

A decade ago, city officials began a plan to remake New London's Fort Trumbull. It has been a long, oftentimes agonizing process.

It still hasn't happened, but we remain convinced it can and will.  


NOTE:  #2 below; how many lives does the NLRC have?  #1 here.
Wrecking Ball Strikes NL Agency 
DAY
By Kathleen Edgecomb    
Published on 6/30/2008 


Last week, the New London City Council, with apparently little discussion, voted to dismantle the agency that helped dismantle the city.

Hear that rattling?

That's the New London Redevelopment Agency gasping for breath.

What better time then, to look back at the last 50 years of work done by this well-meaning, well-intentioned, civic-minded, all-volunteer agency that, while not exactly paving over paradise, did put up parking lots.

In 1958 the agency was authorized to manage and distribute federal urban renewal money. Over the years it received more than $50 million in federal funds and cleared 170 acres in this six-square-mile city. More than 200 businesses and 3,000 people were displaced as bulldozers and heavy equipment brought down wooden structures and covered over city streets. Grocery stores, Chinese restaurants and bars were gone forever.

Thirty years later, when the head of the agency retired, he was presented with a gold wrecking ball. Everyone at the testimonial thought it was funny. Those who lost their houses or businesses weren't laughing.

East New London, home to a large portion of the city's minority neighborhoods, was gone. Sts. Peter and Paul Polish National Church and Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church were spared, but eventually Our Lady of Perpetual Help relocated to Waterford when its neighborhood disappeared.

Crystal Avenue high-rise apartments went up in the early 1960s. In 2001, the agency that built the three low-income behemoths, recommended they come down.

Another low-income complex on Shaw Street - that yes, was sinking into the mire that was once Shaw's Cove - was demolished. Replacement office buildings seem to be on solid ground.

The late Emma Lincoln was one of the first to build on redevelopment property. When she opened Lincoln Auto Service in 1964 at the corner of State Pier Road and Crystal Avenue, she was the only woman in the country operating an auto body shop. She was also a member of the Redevelopment Agency.

In its sweep through downtown, the agency administered a grant program that resulted in the renovation or replacement of more than 50 storefronts and façade improvements. But is also eliminated New London's Main Street.

In the early 1970s, the agency wanted to tear down Union Station. Only a grassroots movement by preservationists saved the massive train depot that was one of the last designs by American architect Henry Hobson Richardson. It opened in 1888 and today, is privately owned and still is a train station.

There was also a lot of political infighting over the years but not all that the agency did was destructive. The Shaw's Cove office complex was developed into medical and office space. John Schnip, another member of the agency, erected the Schnip Building on Eugene O'Neill Drive. Several years ago, Shaw's Landing opened 35 luxury condominiums on the waterside of Bank Street.

Back in the 1960s and '70s, municipal leaders said the city had no choice but to tear down its slums. But there are always options. And the city chose to accept federal funds with stipulations that demanded razing the old and starting fresh.

The cost has been high. East New London was eliminated. The neighborhood near State Pier was lost. Waterfront property was saved for parking. Old buildings are gone forever.

May the New London Redevelopment Agency rest in peace.  


Kelo House: A Fitting Monument, But No Ad 
DAY
By David Collins    
Published on 6/8/2008          

The first time I saw Susette Kelo's little pink house reassembled on New London's Franklin Street I wasn't expecting it, and the surprise of it made me smile.

The idea to preserve the house as a monument to eminent domain abuse, a permanent reminder of the eminent domain wars as they were waged here, was brilliant.

Some of the credit goes to the Institute for Justice, the nonprofit civil liberties law firm that represented the homeowners' fight and took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The institute paid the cost of moving the house. But much more credit for the new memorial goes to city landlord Avner Gregory, who has cleverly tucked the little pink house into the Franklin Street landscape and made it his home.

The first time I saw new Institute for Justice promotions for what it is calling Kelo Day, the surprise of it made me wince.

The new campaign is a fundraiser for the institute, and they've made Kelo the cover girl for it, complete with a logo with a picture of her standing resolutely in front of the pink house in its original location.

Kelo Day, the institute has declared, is June 23, the anniversary of the day three years ago that the Fort Trumbull residents finally lost their case before the Supreme Court. It seems strange to commemorate a day on which you lost a case, but it was certainly the most momentous day of the long fight.

As part of the Kelo Day campaign there's also a well-produced You Tube video, narrated by Kelo, as she gives a brief synopsis of the story. The video unfolds with a sort of picture scrapbook, Kelo in front of her house, Kelo on the steps of the Supreme Court, Kelo testifying before Congress. It ends with Kelo asking for money for the institute.

A Kelo Day link on the institute's Web site takes you to a form where you can submit pledges from $5 to $100. You can donate and become part of the Susette Kelo Liberty Club.

The institute's site also has cut and paste Web page “buttons” available so that people can easily add to their own Web sites a Kelo Day logo and link to the donor forms.

Kelo, in a letter posted on the institute's Web site, says her own case was just one of 10,000 instances of eminent domain abuse over a five-year period.

”On this, the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's dreadful decision, I'm asking for 10,000 people to join me in donating to the nonprofit legal foundation that stood by me all the way to the Supreme Court,” she wrote, in a letter signed, “Yours in Freedom.”

In his own burst of hyperbole, institute attorney Scott Bullock calls Susette Kelo an “American hero.”

I don't mind seeing the nonprofit institute trying to raise money. I like the idea of remembering a noble, if losing, fight to save a New London neighborhood. It's heartening to know that it's inspired so many new laws around the country to control eminent domain.

But I don't think of Kelo so much a hero as a victim, one of many right here in New London who also lost their houses. I'm sorry to see her refashioned into the centerpiece of an opportunistic ad campaign.

I'm not planning to celebrate Kelo Day.



'It's Over' For Corcoran Jennison, NLDC; Would-be Fort Trumbull developer now out of the picture, Joplin says 
DAY
By Kevin Dale    
Published on 5/31/2008 

New London - The Corcoran Jennison company has lost its exclusive right to develop nearly the entire northern half of the Fort Trumbull peninsula, officials from the New London Development Corp. said in an interview Friday with the editorial board of The Day.

”We signed a development agreement with CJ, and now we're without one,” said an unequivocal NLDC President Michael Joplin. “There is no preferred developer at the fort.”

”It's over,” corporation Vice President Karl-Erik Sternlof said of the company's agreement with the NLDC to be the sole developer of a hotel, a 7-acre office parcel and more than 100 housing units.

That agreement, which has been extended four times since 2001, expired at 5 p.m. Thursday when Corcoran Jennison failed to meet a critical deadline to secure financing for its $18.7 million rental complex of 66 apartments and 14 townhouses.  The extension agreement, which was signed in December, envisioned that the company would begin the waterfront housing by this summer. The project would have been the first ground-up construction since eminent domain cleared portions of the peninsula for redevelopment.  Joplin said the nullified agreement will not affect Corcoran Jennison's ongoing, $18 million renovation of the former Naval Undersea Warfare Center into a roughly 90,000-square-foot office building.

Corcoran Jennison officials have said a slowed housing market and stingy lending climate had widened the housing plan's “financing gap” to more than $3 million. That gap assumed a nearly $12 million loan and a 20 percent - or $4 million - investment from the Boston company.  Corcoran Jennison President Marty Jones didn't return messages left for her late Friday afternoon, and the company's New London attorney, Glenn Carberry, referred questions to Jones.  In an interview earlier this week, Jones acknowledged the company wouldn't meet Thursday's deadline but said it remained “interested in working with the NLDC and the city to move forward.”

In fact, Joplin said Corcoran Jennison recently submitted a modified, two-phase housing plan to the NLDC that could bring the financing gap below $2 million. The plan would include some extended-stay apartments and income-restricted housing in order to make it eligible for state and federal money.  But Joplin and Sternlof said the NLDC will not even consider any proposal until the company signs a quit-claim release: confirmation that it won't contest the loss of its preferred developer status in court. Joplin said the NLDC sent the quit-claim paperwork to Corcoran Jennison Friday afternoon, and he didn't know whether the company intended to sign it.

Corcoran Jennison has about $1 million invested in the housing project, but its violation of the agreement makes the plans and permits the property of the NLDC, Joplin said.  Joplin said he has told Corcoran Jennison officials that their revised housing plan may have merit, but it was premature to discuss continuing the NLDC's relationship with the company.

”They've attempted to have conversations,” Joplin said, “but we closed that down and said, 'We're getting out of order here.' ... What I need from CJ is a clear statement that they will not litigate.”

Joplin said despite how Corcoran Jennison proceeds, he plans to contact other developers now that there is no claim to the peninsula's housing parcels.

”We'll go to them and say, 'What is the appetite here? If I give you a five-year option on the parcel, when could this go into the ground?' “ Joplin said.

But Sternlof said the NLDC's own consultant believes that it may be two to three years before any developer could realize a profit by bringing housing to Fort Trumbull.

”There is a funding problem with this project for whoever does it,” Sternlof said. “Their internal rate of return is so low that no reasonable person would do it.”

Any future development proposals for the peninsula may need the blessing of the City Council and the city's Planning and Zoning Commission, and Joplin and Sternlof said the city and the state will be included in the conversation as to what happens next.  New London Mayor Kevin Cavanagh, who sat in on the editorial meeting Friday, said opinion ranges among his fellow councilors - from openness to hearing from all developers to parting ways with Corcoran Jennison.

”There's probably a multitude of feeling on the council right now,” Cavanagh said. 


Developer Misses Fort Trumbull Deadline; Corcoran Jennison is unable to meet financial criteria for $18.7M proposal 
DAY
By Kevin Dale    
Published on 5/29/2008 

New London - The Corcoran Jennison company will not meet today's critical deadline to secure financing for its $18.7 million proposal to build housing on the Fort Trumbull peninsula, company President Marty Jones said Wednesday.  But Jones said the Boston company still wants to bring residential development and future projects to the Fort Trumbull area, even though it may have lost its right to do so by missing the deadline to sign a ground lease with the New London Development Corp.

In December, the two sides signed a six-month extension agreement that called for Corcoran Jennison to start the roughly three-acre housing project by this summer or lose its exclusive rights to build the housing and develop two commercial buildings and a hotel north of Walbach Street.  Jones said she hopes that the NLDC isn't preparing to part with the company, an option that NLDC President Michael Joplin didn't rule out at the organization's annual meeting on April 29.

”I certainly hope that's not the case,” Jones said in an interview late Wednesday afternoon. “We're very interested in continuing this in spite of all the challenges we've faced, and that's what we're hoping to reach an agreement to do.”

The company has already invested more than $1 million to prepare for the housing project, and Joplin has said he doubts other developers would rush to adopt the project in the slowed housing market.  Joplin declined to discuss the NLDC's response to the missed deadline. But he did say that, as of Wednesday evening, the NLDC had no plans to meet with Corcoran Jennison officials before today's 5 p.m. deadline.

Jones said Corcoran Jennison will look to revise its long-delayed plan to build a rental complex of 66 apartments and 14 townhouses, but she said the company needs to “finish our discussion internally” before it is ready to submit a detailed proposal to the NLDC.

”The project will need to take a new direction,” said Jones, who declined to comment on the significance of violating the December agreement. “We're interested in working with the NLDC and the city to move forward. … We are a taxpayer in the City of New London, and we'd like to be doing more of it.”

Corcoran Jennison is continuing its $18 million redevelopment of the former Naval Undersea Warfare Center into a roughly 90,000-square-foot office building that will be the home of the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center when it opens early next year. That project is not affected by the delayed housing project.  That Corcoran Jennison missed the deadline isn't a surprise, said New London City Councilor Rob Pero, who wants the City Council to have a say in future development agreements instead of allowing the NLDC to act independently of the city.

”The big thing for me, as a city councilor, any future agreements have to have the City of New London as a signatory to the agreement,” Pero said.

City Councilor Mike Buscetto III said if Corcoran Jennison does in fact miss the deadline, he would be open to hearing new proposals from both Corcoran Jennison and other developers.

”All options should be looked at,” Buscetto said, adding that if Corcoran Jennison has revised options, “that's great.”

”If somebody else has other options, that's great, too,” Buscetto said. “I think it's time to explore the possibilities.”


Fort Trumbull Housing Plan In Jeopardy  - NLDC chief doubts developer will meet deadline for financing 
DAY
By Kevin Dale    
Published on 4/30/2008 
 
New London - Citing“turmoil” in the national lending market, New London Development Corp. President Michael Joplin said he has“grave doubts” that the Corcoran Jennison company will meet a crucial May 29 deadline to secure financing for its long-delayed Fort Trumbull housing development.

”It's almost impossible, so we have to start dealing with reality,” said Joplin, who broached the“most difficult topic” at Tuesday night's annual meeting of NLDC's full membership in the Crocker House Ballroom.

If Corcoran Jennison doesn't meet the deadline, the Boston-based developer would violate a December extension document in which it agreed to secure a loan and enter a construction contract for an $18.7 million, 80-unit development of rental apartments and townhouses.  The project, whose uncertain groundbreaking could now be delayed months if not years, would represent the first new, ground-up construction since eminent domain cleared portions of the peninsula for redevelopment.

Joplin's announcement of yet another blown deadline by Corcoran Jennison could renew calls for the NLDC to sever ties with the company, which is currently redeveloping the former Naval Undersea Warfare Center into an office complex - an $18 million project unaffected by the delay of the housing proposal.  Joplin said the NLDC“is very close” to parting with the company on the roughly 3-acre housing project. In fact, by failing to secure the financing alone, the developer forfeits its right to develop the parcel, and Joplin didn't rule out letting the development agreement simply expire next month.

”The question is on the table,” said Joplin, who, at the time of the December extension agreement, told The Day:“It is time for them to perform. At the end of six months, there is no tomorrow.”

But Joplin said his overriding goal is to see housing come to the peninsula in 18 months - a task that, in the current economy, no other developer would be willing to take on, he said.

”If you simply dispose of Corcoran Jennison out of frustration or the history, you could really be shooting yourself in the foot,” Joplin said.

Despite the history of delays, Joplin said he believes Corcoran Jennison remains truly interested in building the rental housing.“That's why she's here,” Joplin said of Corcoran Jennison President Marty Jones.“Otherwise, she would have stayed in Boston and gone to dinner.”

Jones told the NLDC members,“We're not ready to fold our tent and cut our losses and walk away.”

Between the office complex and preconstruction work on the housing project, the company has roughly $5 million of its own money invested in Fort Trumbull, according to Joplin and Jones.

”We have been in New London for close to eight years now,” Jones said in an interview after the meeting.“Our intention here was always in a comprehensive development,” not only a commercial building, she said.

”We are not walking away,” Jones said.“We want to complete all parts of the deal.”

But barring a sudden economic upswing, any deal on the housing project will rely on what both Joplin and Jones referred to as“creative” options - possibly government-backed loans - to close the widening“financing gap.”

Based on a recent assessment, Joplin said the company is looking to receive a $11.5 million loan and is willing to put up as much as 20 percent of the $18.7 million project cost, or nearly $4 million. Those sources combined leave a roughly $3 million to $3.5 million gap.

”We are trying to fill that gap through creative thinking and creative financing. I'm not sure that we'll succeed. I'm just putting it out there,” Joplin said to NLDC members.

He said securing the additional money will be a“tremendous task” that will take months of application paperwork for lenders and any state programs that could help close the gap.

When asked if the company would be willing to boost its share above 20 percent, Jones said,“We have to negotiate what make sense for everybody.” She said the project's financing will have to incorporate“other sources that are not on the table right now.”

Jones said she understand that“people are very frustrated that it's taken a long time to get something done. I hope that New London is willing to continue to work with us to make the deal work.”

New London Mayor Kevin Cavanagh said he was assured by his conversation with Jones Tuesday night that Corcoran Jennison wants to bring the housing to Fort Trumbull.

When asked if it may be time for the city to part with the company, Cavanagh said:“I'm sort of like, 'Take it one step at a time.' The onus is on Corcoran Jennison to come up with a solution - no doubt about it.”  


Justices Unanimous: Conservancy Has A Legitimate Concern 
DAY
By Ted Mann     
Published on 3/22/2008 

New London — The State Supreme Court has reversed a lower court's decision dismissing a lawsuit against the city's Fort Trumbull redevelopment plan, the second such result in two different cases in less than a year.

In a decision released this week, the high court voted unanimously to reverse the dismissal of the lawsuit by the Fort Trumbull Conservancy LLC against the city and the New London Development Corp., which contended that the demolitions of properties seized for redevelopment would pollute the Thames River and land on the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

Judge D. Michael Hurley threw out the suit in 2006, saying the conservancy did not have standing to sue. The conservancy had submitted an amended version of its complaint, which was the version Hurley dismissed.

But the justices unanimously ruled this week that that move was an “error,” since the details Hurley found lacking in the suit were missing because the court had ordered them removed.

What the decision means for the Fort Trumbull project was unclear, but the conservancy's attorney, Scott W. Sawyer, was buoyed by the news, and said the conservancy suit would be revised again before its introduction in court in New London.

The suit is intended to get the city and the NLDC to “actually think about what structures are still standing” on the peninsula, where a decade-long effort to redevelop the neighborhood into a complex featuring a hotel, conference center and high-end residential buildings has repeatedly stalled amid legal challenges.

Most of the buildings in the former neighborhood, however, have been bulldozed, a fact Sawyer conceded. But he argued that a favorable result this time could compel the city to consider reusing some remaining structures, though he conceded that was a long shot.

“There are still some remaining,” Sawyer said, referring to the buildings left in the neighborhood. “The idea is that there are requests to put things back the way they were. I don't know how plausible that remedy is, but it's the type of thing that would certainly set a precedent across the state in terms of whether or not properties can just be demolished without some consideration of the effect on the environment.”

“If the conservancy prevails, it would be one more hurdle in front of whoever wants to demolish more properties at Fort Trumbull,” Sawyer added. “That's the ultimate goal.”

The group has another suit still pending. That legal action, also dismissed by Hurley but resurrected by the Supreme Court, is another environmental challenge, and is now pending before a trial court in Hartford.

Attorneys for the city and the NLDC did not respond to messages left seeking comment.

The suit has followed a tortured path to get to this point.

The legal action was filed in 2001, one of 10 the group has brought to court, as Fort Trumbull Conservancy LLC v. Antonio H. Alves et al — the defendant being the city's building official.

The Supreme Court ruled against one of the conservancy's underlying complaints in 2003, decreeing that the city could issue demolition permits without weighing the impact of demolition on the environment. But the court also upheld the conservancy's right to sue to stop demolition.

Unable to gain an injunction to stop buildings from being torn down at Fort Trumbull, the conservancy filed an amended version of the suit in March 2006, but Hurley dismissed the new version for lack of standing.

“In granting the development corporation's requested deletions, the trial court effectively stripped the plaintiff's complaint — which we had previously held to be sufficient in (the earlier decision) — of the exact type of allegation that it then declared was fatally missing from the second amended complaint,” wrote Justice Peter T. Zarella, in a unanimous opinion. “This error was further compounded, not only by the trial court's refusal to articulate its reasoning, but ultimately by its granting of the defendants' renewed motions to dismiss for lack of standing.”



Development Could Take Big Step In '08  - Potential projects across the region attracting attention at the state level 
DAY
By Karin Crompton    
Published on 1/1/2008 

Pay attention: 2008 is the year when a slice of the Las Vegas Strip comes to southeastern Connecticut, Fort Trumbull sees something new for the first time in close to a decade, and tiny Pawcatuck gets its first two big-box stores.

But the list of what might happen is longer.

In 2008, a number of major projects could gain approvals that would set them in motion. They include resorts at the former Norwich Hospital site, which encompasses land in Preston and Norwich; Gateway Commons, a retail/residential proposal just off Interstate 95 in East Lyme; and Milltown Commons, a 187-acre development that could transform North Stonington.

Ronald Angelo, deputy commissioner of the state Department of Economic and Community Development, said the state is showing a lot of interest in southeastern Connecticut's development. He said the region has “a good base of businesses in several different targeted industry sectors that we have here in the state.”

Angelo said that while the state has always focused on the corridor stretching roughly from New Haven to Manhattan, there is an effort now to expand the focus beyond New Haven to New London and up to Boston. “That corridor there, I think we're seeing as equally important to the state,” Angelo said. “We want to make sure we're doing everything we can to support various industries that are down there: aerospace and defense, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, film industry, the maritime industry.

“You've got just an amazing amount of capacity down there. And we want to start to leverage that and pay attention to the developments that are down there.”

The following are several projects that will be under construction in 2008:

Fort Trumbull, New London

Corcoran Jennison has started renovations on “Building 2,” a four-story, 90,000-square-foot building on Chelsea Street. The building will be leased to the U.S. Coast Guard Research & Development Center, the International Ice Patrol and other tenants.

Tenants are expected to move in sometime after Dec. 1, 2008. They will be the first new tenants since the city approved a municipal development plan for the peninsula in 2000. It is also the first significant private investment within the Fort Trumbull redevelopment area since then.

Later this year, a groundbreaking could take place on four acres where luxury rental apartments and rental townhouses are planned — $19 million in new construction. The city gave Corcoran Jennison a May 29, 2008, deadline to secure financing and sign a ground lease with the New London Development Corp. Groundbreaking would be due 30 days later.

If Corcoran Jennison doesn't meet the deadline, it is supposed to give up all property rights to develop that property as well as a new hotel and two office buildings.

Finally, the Coast Guard is looking for a firm that can help guide development of a National Coast Guard Museum at Fort Trumbull.

Casino Expansion

The $700 million MGM Grand is expected to open in May at Foxwoods Resort Casino, while Mohegan Sun Casino's $925 million Project Horizon is scheduled to open in the fall.

MGM Grand will include a 50,000-square-foot MGM Grand gaming floor — about a third of the size of the Las Vegas' MGM Grand, the strip's largest casino.

The project also includes an atrium, a two-story pedestrian space with plasma screens broadcasting events and activities occurring throughout the property, a luxury retail corridor, and 6,600-square-foot “ultra hip lounge.”

Project Horizon at Mohegan Sun is a 1.4 million-square-foot expansion that features a 39-story hotel tower, a 1,500-seat House of Blues music hall, a new casino, and several new shops and restaurants, including the tropical-themed chain Margaritaville. The hotel and music hall will open in 2010.

About 95 percent of the square footage in the expansions is not for gaming, according to the Center for Policy Analysis in Massachusetts, which said the casinos are trying to lure convention and conference business and solidify their draw as national destinations.

Lowe's and Target, Pawcatuck

In November, crews began demolishing homes on Route 2 in the Pawcatuck section of Stonington to make way for construction of a Target and a Lowe's, the first two big-box stores in this village of about 5,500 people.

Across the street, on a 29-acre site that houses the Regal Cinema, another developer is building a new Stop & Shop supermarket, Newport Savings Bank and a Chili's restaurant.

READCO LLC of Old Lyme expects to open the supermarket and other two stores in summer 2008.

Target and Lowe's are part of a larger project called Liberty Crossing that would include shops, restaurants and housing. The developer is Breslin Realty of Garden City, N.Y.

READCO and Breslin will split the costs of improvements to Route 2.

•••••Most large projects take years from concept through application to construction. A number of developments in the region are close to securing the approvals needed to move on to construction, or close to submitting applications that will put a long-discussed plan into action.

Here are some that could take significant steps in 2008:

•Byron Brook Country Club, Occum

The proposed $200 million project calls for an 18-hole golf course, luxury clubhouse and resort, and 658 luxury condominiums on 349 acres abutting Interstate 395 in Occum. The developers have purchased all the land needed for the project, including the former Tarryk and Doolittle farms.

The project received local approval in spring 2007, but the DEP recently denied the project an environmental permit. Days after learning of the DEP rejection, Byron Brook filed final site development plans with the city planning office and a performance bond of $341,950 to cover the first phase of the project.

The project is expected to move through more steps of the permitting process in 2008.

•Former Norwich Hospital, Preston and Norwich

Preston and Norwich have each received proposals for destination resorts of varying styles for the former hospital property, which is located on Route 12 across the Thames River from the Mohegan Sun casino.

In February, Preston officials are expected to choose a preferred developer from two finalists for its 419-acre portion of the site, a choice that would need to be endorsed by residents at a referendum.

The Norwich City Council will review the two proposals it has received for its 61 acres in January, but it is unclear whether the council will choose either one. Originally, the city hoped to choose a developer by the end of January and negotiate a development agreement by Feb. 29.

Preston needs to select a developer and transfer title by January 2009 or the state will take over the process; for Norwich, the deadline is January 2010.

•Milltown Commons, North Stonington

The proposed 187-acre development, which would be located within a mile of the rotary in town, includes two villages, each centered around a village green. The proposed uses include apartments, single-family homes and multifamily units, a medical center, retail shops, grocery stores, and hotels.

In November, the town's Planning and Zoning Commission approved the creation of a floating zone called The New England Village Special Design District. The developers next need a zone change that would apply the design district designation to the 187 acres they hope to build upon; the developers also need to develop a master plan and site plan for the project.

•Great Wolf Water Park, Ledyard

On Dec. 19, the town granted the Mashantucket Pequot tribe a zone change for five tribally owned parcels along Route 214. The change allows the tribe to proceed with plans to develop an indoor water park with Wisconsin-based Great Wolf Resorts Inc.

The regulations for the resort district, specified for 398 acres of the tribe's land north of the reservation, were amended last year to allow for uses that include water and amusement parks. The resort district is the only district in town that would allow for the development of a Great Wolf Lodge resort.

The town created the resort district in 1992, with tribal input, to encourage tax-generating commercial development. None has taken place.

•Gateway Commons, East Lyme

Two developers are seeking to build a major retail and residential development on 200 acres adjacent to I-95. The project would include a revamped Exit 74, which is near a section of the highway many consider dangerous.

The town's Zoning Commission denied the developers, Konover Properties Corp. of West Hartford and KGI Properties LLC of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, a regulation change last June.

Since then, the developers have met with neighbors and town staff to modify the plan. They are expected to submit a new application shortly.

The original conceptual plan called for anchor stores, a retail village and hundreds of residential units.


GOP In NL Understands City's Need For Elected Mayor 
Editorial
By Morgan McGinley    
Published on 10/21/2007 

There will be plenty of tough issues facing New London after the November election. How to get the city's large group of poor kids — and indeed all students — educated for college and for good-paying jobs. How to stop the gangs, drug dealing and senseless murders that afflict the city. How to build a stronger tax base to support much-needed city services.

In all these problems, and more, the common theme is a dire need for leadership. Without more effective leadership, New London will continue to muddle along.

Yes, we hear that the city is improving — certainly downtown New London, with its wonderful waterfront and old buildings is getting better in some ways because of vibrant private investment — but the core problems in the city grow more troublesome all the time.

That is because New London's government does not provide for a person to lead the city. The dissolution of political power in New London over the years has caused many able councilors to be ineffective and frustrated because they had good ideas they couldn't advance.

The Democrats, who have controlled the city for decades, should have corrected that problem by providing for a strong mayor. They did not. And although some individual Democratic councilors and some party members see the need for a mayor, the party as a whole will not embrace the concept. Town Chairman Anthony J. Basilica opposes a strong mayor government vehemently.

Democrats stuck on tired, failing system

The cynical may say that Basilica and others don't want to lose their power to a strong mayor. Hence, they cling to the tired and failing system of government that can't deliver the city to its potential.

But take Basilica at his word. He doesn't think New London needs a mayor directly elected by the people.

If that's the case, Basilica has missed the point badly. As the longtime leader of the Democratic Party, the party that has been in control as New London deteriorated, along with many other cities, Basilica should have played a lead role in trying to produce a capable leader able to make much-needed changes.

The most recent Charter Revision Commission recommended a strong mayor and the City Council, in a split vote, supported that decision. So did voters, but a small turnout, insufficient to meet statutory requirements, resulted because the city held a special election — solely on the referendum question — rather than link the referendum to a regular city election.

Outsiders see the potential clearly. The downtown waterfront, the large state pier that could be providing more and diverse cargo, the charm of the old buildings located around a regional transportation center that embraces New York City, Long Island and Boston as well as eastern Connecticut and southern Rhode Island.

Democratic Mayor Dan Malloy of Stamford, a top-flight leader, raves about the opportunities here when he comes for board of trustees meetings at Mitchell College. So did the late Adm. Harold E. Shear, a former federal Maritime Administration head who led the charge to get New London operating as a vigorous port.

Ironically, within New London, it is the Republican Party, largely absent of effective practitioners in recent years, that gets the issue right.

New London Republicans have supported both a new charter commission and a strong mayor. Councilor Rob Pero says the party believes: “One strong voice would be better than seven voices going off in different directions. It would be beneficial to New London to have a stronger voice in Hartford, in getting grants and, in the long range, providing a plan for the city.”

Exactly. So how is it that the Democratic Party, which has grown stronger and larger and more dominant over the past 15 years, doesn't get it?




"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a compelling dissent. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."

NLDC considering proposal for townhouse project at Fort Trumbull;
Plan calls for 80 units; agency now studying developer's credentials
By Kathleen Edgecomb Day Staff Writer
Article published Feb 10, 2010

New London - The New London Development Corp. is considering the first serious building proposal for Fort Trumbull since Corcoran Jennison lost its preferred developer status in 2008.

The NLDC held a special meeting Monday night to discuss a developer's qualifications for a proposed 80-unit townhouse project. It would be located on the water in Fort Trumbull in the same area where Corcoran Jennison had originally planned to put housing.

"We're still reviewing the background of the developer,'' NLDC President Michael Joplin said Tuesday.  Discussions on the proposal at Monday's meeting were held in closed session because they're related to real estate transactions and contracts, which are not required by law to be held in public.

"At this point we're reviewing the development qualifications,'' Joplin said. "The real estate committee is looking into the company and its background and is expected to give it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.''
Karl-Erik Sternlof, head of the real estate committee, said his group will make a recommendation to the NLDC at its board meeting Feb. 19.  Frank McLaughlin, chairman of the NLDC's House New London program and downtown New London investment development coordinator for the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut, said the proposal looks encouraging as long as the NLDC "dots the i's and crosses the t's."
"At least it's progress in the right direction,'' he said.

The NLDC issued an RFQ, or request for qualifications, in December, seeking development proposals for the area east of the railroad tracks. Only one developer responded.  Last year, when the NLDC issued a similar RFQ, it sent out 40 applications to interested developers but none were returned.

There has yet to be any new construction at the 10-year-old Fort Trumbull project, which has been delayed by eminent domain lawsuits that put the project in the national limelight, environmental challenges and, more recently, the sagging economy.  Boston-based Corcoran Jennison was named the preferred developer at the start of the project and was supposed to break ground in 2001 to build a hotel and conference center, a restaurant, the New London Athletic Center, 80 units of housing and a bioscience park. The company completed $18 million in renovations on an existing building once used by the former Naval Undersea Warfare Center, turning it into a 90,000-square-foot office building.

But in early 2008, Corcoran Jennison lost its preferred-developer status after failing to meet a deadline to secure financing for the residential component of the plan. The developer blamed the faltering economy for its difficulties.

The latest proposal comes a few weeks after a grass-roots effort to bring in representatives from a Yale University urban architectural program to discuss the future of Fort Trumbull with the community.

Deputy Mayor Adam Sprecace, at the request of a New London resident who read about the Yale Urban Design Workshop, organized a meeting, along with The Day, to discuss the Yale group taking up the Fort Trumbull issue as its next project. The intent is to bring parties from all sides of the controversial development plan together and find common ground to move forward.

"I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive,'' Sprecace said Tuesday. "Both paths, at least for the time being, can be taken in parallel and then joined, if all parties agree to do so."

He added that he is not interested in throwing out the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan, which was adopted 10 years ago and lays out the types of development allowed in the area. He said he wants to know how flexible the MDP is and if there is room for alternative development.

Mayor Rob Pero said preliminary plans from the developer include townhouses with New England-style architecture. The units would be a mix of owner-occupied and rentals, depending on the market, he said.
"The only obstacle I see is if these individuals have the ability to get funding for the project,'' he said. "If everything were to go right, who knows, we could get something in the ground in six or nine months."



'IT'S DONE': NLDC SEALS FORT TRUMBULL PROJECT 
Agreement With Corcoran Jennison Calls For Work To Begin In December 
DAY
By Elaine Stoll,   
Published on 9/28/2007 


New London — Corcoran Jennison President Marty Jones and New London Development Corp. President Michael Joplin signed a document Thursday that both say will bring new construction to the Fort Trumbull peninsula by year's end.

The ground lease, executed with Jones in Boston and Joplin in New London, transfers control of four acres of land from the city to the developer, which plans 80 units of rental apartments and townhouses on property formerly occupied by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center.  Construction will begin in December on the $18 million project and should take approximately a year and a half, said Jones, who called the ground-lease signing “a very big milestone.”

The lease gives the developer control of the land for a 98-year term for a nominal annual fee. More significantly, the document legally obligates Corcoran Jennison to proceed with the housing project, which will be the first new construction on the peninsula since the city formally approved a Municipal Development Plan for redevelopment of the peninsula in 2000.

“It's done,” Joplin announced to applause at a City Council re-election campaign fund-raiser for Mayor Margaret M. Curtin, who hugged him after receiving a copy of the lease's signature page.

The residential construction — and the rest of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment — will add to the city's tax base and make the city “a better place to live,” Curtin said.

“I've been waiting for a good long time,” the mayor said. “This is the beginning.”

Curtin had warned the NLDC earlier this month to “get it done” after the agency and Corcoran Jennison missed the original Aug. 28 deadline for a signed ground lease, which is called for in a development agreement between the NLDC and Corcoran Jennison.  Thursday's announcement seemed to dissipate tensions between the agency and council that had been palpable since the missed signing a month ago. A City Council motion for a vote of no confidence in the NLDC failed Sept. 17 by just one vote.

“NLDC appreciates the support the City Council has shown us in the last few months,” Joplin said. “The NLDC and the city have had our differences. In the past month ... we've been working as a team. We got it done.

“If a motion of no confidence had passed, we would not be sitting here with a signed contract.”

“Up until this afternoon, I wondered if this was going to happen,” said City Councilor and Economic Development Committee Chairwoman Beth A. Sabilia. “I'm relieved the hard work paid off, not just on the city side and the NLDC side, but Corcoran Jennison put in a lot of hard work.”

She called the lease announcement “a really big deal.”

“This is the first new development, the first time they're putting a shovel in the ground at Fort Trumbull since the MDP was established,” Sabilia said.

The ground-lease signing, which was official just after 6 p.m. Thursday, followed an afternoon approval by the city's Office of Development and Planning of Corcoran Jennison's finalized site plan, which was required for the lease.  Though the ground lease marked the culmination of a flurry of negotiations and documents, Jones said much more work is ahead before the groundbreaking. Corcoran Jennison must now secure building permits and financing for the project.

The company also plans to start construction in October on an office building at Fort Trumbull known as Building 2, which must be prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard Research & Development Center, scheduled to move in by late 2008 or early 2009, Jones said.


Sound Zoning Decision 
DAY editorial
Published on 8/4/2007 

The New London Planning and Zoning Commission made the right decision in rejecting an application that would have opened the downtown's Central Business District to rehabilitation services.

Businessman and City Councilor William M. Cornish had filed an application that would have allowed, by special permit, drug and alcohol counseling, treatment and rehabilitation clinics and halfway houses for former prison inmates.

Mr. Cornish said he planned to relocate Sound Community Services, a non-profit social services organization, into one of his buildings in the central district.

Following city plan

New London has done more than its fair share of providing space for organization's catering to the less fortunate and to people with special needs. And zoning within the city already allows for such services by special permit. But opening the business district to expanded human services programs — including halfway houses — would have been a bad fit.

The city's Plan of Conservation and Development states that zoning regulations should discourage “the influx of special needs programs wishing to locate in the city.”

This is not some callous position intended to ignore those in need, but a simple recognition that, in an effort to revitalize the downtown, New London needs to make wise use of its limited retail and office space. Creating foot traffic and generating loyal patronage for downtown merchants is vital to supporting a vibrant business district. Only if space is prudently utilized can that happen.

Consider all uses

Commission Chairman Mark Christiansen rightly noted that the commission, in reviewing the application, could not consider what specific agency might utilize it — such as Sound Community Services — but had to consider the effects of any permitted use on the Central Business District.

Those effects did not fit the vision the city has developed for its emerging business district. 



THE SHIP HAS COME IN...A NEW LONDON NEW DAY?  Montego Bay SMALLER--convenience for ship maneuvering better in New London harbor!

Ahoy - R.I.P. 80 units of market-rate, luxury rental housing, proposed to includie 14 townhouses and 66 apartments, in Fort Trumbull, New London.  The ship comes in, again!
-------------------------------

SHIP AHOY!
Sign that "Great Recession" is loosening its grip in 2010?


Cruise ship will dock in New London this fall.
Crown Princess will make first stop here
By Patricia Daddona, Day Staff Writer
Article published Mar 20, 2010

After a season with no cruise ships coming to the Port of New London last year, the Crown Princess will visit on Sept. 18.

The cruise ship is the only one slated so far to visit the area, said George Cassidy, executive director of the Connecticut Cruise Ship Task Force, but he is actively recruiting others. Last month, Cassidy visited MSC Cruises in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and presented the port and area to them.

"The response from the executives we visited was very positive," Cassidy said.

Cruising as part of the Canada/New England itinerary, m/s Crown Princess will make her first-ever port call in the state around 7 a.m. on Sept. 18 and berth at the Admiral Harold E. Shear State Pier.

The ship weighs in at 113,000 gross tons. It is 952 feet in length, 118 feet wide, and 195 feet high with a draft of 26 feet. As many as 3,070 passengers and 1,200 crew members will travel on it at a top speed of up to 23 knots.

Cruise ships have been visiting the city since 2002. In 2008, nine ships brought in 17,000 passengers, and in 2007 more than 22,000 people aboard seven ships visited New London. The recession and a lack of marketing funds put a dent in the cruise visits last year, Cassidy said.

During the fall visit, passengers will explore downtown New London, Mystic Seaport, Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration, the Essex Steam Train, the USS Nautilus Submarine Museum, Fort Trumbull, Fort Griswold and more.

The historic Union Railroad Station in New London will serve as a welcome center.



New London 'discovered' as a nice place to visit 
DAY
Published on 7/11/2008

Pssst. They're talking about us.

This week, The Boston Globe and The New York Times highlighted New London as a place to visit.

Wednesday, the Globe's Travel section said New London has a “gritty, industrial vibe” while also boasting an “impressive number of art galleries and good restaurants.”

”The story of modern-day New London can be seen in Bank Street,” it said, “not far from the mouth of the Thames River, where abandoned industrial buildings, a fancy wine bar, an adult video store, and contemporary art stand side-by-side.”

The Times recently featured 25 Northeast Getaways; New London was the only Connecticut listing. The snippet, which stressed the city's ties to playwright Eugene O'Neill, says: “A seafarers' town from the 1600s to the era of nuclear submarines, New London weathered 20th-century decline and is now a stop for cruise ships.”

- KARIN CROMPTON


Smooth sailing for the Explorer of the Seas 
DAY
By Amy Renczkowski    
Published on 7/4/2008 

New London - It was smooth sailing for the Explorer of the Seas this morning.

The 138,000-ton Royal Caribbean cruise ship arrived in New London harbor just a few minutes before its scheduled time, 7 a.m. The ship needed to perform a three-point turn and then back into the harbor to dock at State Pier until its departure at 7 tonight.

Although it was raining in some nearby cities and towns, passengers weren't welcomed by rain when they got off the ship.

Instead, the tugboat Patricia was in the Thames River to issue a water-cannon salute at the pier, and the Nutmeg Fife & Drum Corps of Groton played patriotic tunes as passengers disembarked.

By 8:30 a.m., there was already a line formed of people exiting the ship to take buses and go into New London and to other excursions in Mystic and Groton.

There is a full load of 3,114 passengers and 1,800 crew aboard the cruise ship. Penny Parsekian, executive officer of the New London Main Street said she expects the visit to bring about 2,000 people into New London today.

Despite the holiday, Parsekian said about 70 percent of the businesses in New London are open.


Cruise Ships Bill New London As Gateway To Nautical History 
DAY
By Amy Renczkowski , 
Published on 10/14/2007

New London — Cruise-ship travelers on the Explorer of the Seas said they were promised maritime history at their first port of call, which was New London on Saturday.
Passengers said they got what they were promised and more.

Friends and fellow passengers Nelma Hammond of Jacksonville, Ark., and Marie Toothacre of Hemmet, Calif., were walking on State Street Saturday, window shopping while on a mission to find clam chowder.

They said Royal Caribbean advertised the New London port as a historic seafaring city. Neither had heard of the city before coming to visit. “It's beautiful here,” Hammond said.

Royal Caribbean International and three other cruise lines are scheduled to visit the Whaling City next year, currently involving nine separate visits. They're advertising New London as formerly the second-largest whaling port in the world, a seafaring town that is a mecca for maritime history buffs and a gateway to historic Mystic Seaport and the Mystic Aquarium.

Excursions offered at the port include the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Mystic Seaport, Mystic Aquarium, the Submarine Force Museum and USS Nautilus, Fort Trumbull and historic New London, the Essex Steam Train and Olde Mistick Village.

Ed and Connie Knoll of St. Louis, Mo., said they were fascinated by the maritime aspect of New London but decided to include the Essex Steam Train in their visit. “It was fun,” Ed Knoll said.

After their Essex visit, the couple walked down State Street Saturday afternoon, looking into store windows while holding a map of downtown New London. They said they'd spend the rest of the day strolling the area.

They said they couldn't help notice how friendly the people in New London were. “I just love the atmosphere here. It's nice to have the stores open,” Connie Knoll said.

“The people are welcoming of the cruise ship. Some cruise ship ports just aren't welcoming, but this one is.”

Explorer of the Seas departed New London about 6 p.m. Saturday. Holland America Line's ms Maasdam is scheduled to arrive here at 9 a.m. Monday.

Erik Elvejord, spokesman for Holland America Line, said there is a lot to do in the New London area, which “helps to create a good experience.”

New London is one of their highest-rated ports on the itineraries, Elvejord said. Holland America Line was the first cruise company to visit New London in May of 2004. The cruise line has visited every year since.

“We get a fantastic reception from the people there,” Elvejord said. “It makes for a very enjoyable port of call.”

Holland America's Maasdam next year is scheduled to visit May 8. New London will be the third stop for passengers on the 13-day Canada, New England and Atlantic Coast cruise.

Saturday marked the last planned trip this year to New London for Royal Caribbean's Explorer of the Seas, the largest ship ever to dock here and a first-time visitor this year. Royal Caribbean signed on for two more visits next year and is currently scheduled to be back July 4 and Aug. 1, according to its Web site.

Lyan Sierra-Caro, account executive of corporate communications at Royal Caribbean and Celebrity Cruises, said previously that guests have been “very happy” with calls in New London.

Hapag-Lloyd and Princess Cruises will be the two newcomers in the 2008 lineup, which are scheduled to visit on six different dates next year.

Suzanne Ferrull, media information specialist from Princess Cruises, said the cruise line advertises New London as a “gateway for historic Mystic Seaport and the Mystic Aquarium.”

The 11-day cruise will take passengers from New England to Canada on Sept. 25 and 27, Oct. 17 and 19 and Nov. 6.

Hapag-Lloyd's Bremen is scheduled to visit around May 28. New London is the third stop on its 16-day East Coast cruise from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to Halifax, N.S.

“The lighthouse New London Ledge can be seen onboard. The 58-meter high tower has a certain resemblance to a townhouse and harmonizes wonderfully with the French-inspired architecture of the villas on the shore,” the Hapag-Lloyd's trip itinerary states



'Hip Little Transportation City'  - Veendam Cruisers Open Weekend Of Back-To-Back Cruise-Ship Visits 
DAY
By Lee Howard     
Published on 9/29/2007 
        
 
New London — About 10:30 a.m. Friday, the Veendam cruise ship pulled into Adm. Harold E. Shear State Pier, greeted by the tugboat Patricia Ann spraying water high into the air, just as the Block Island ferry left its dock, a Providence & Worcester freight train screeched to a halt and Amtrak's Acela train rushed through downtown.

“It was a transportation center,” enthused Barbara Neff, proprietor of Parade News and a constant presence Friday at the cruise-ship welcome center in Union Station.  When someone corrected her, saying the correct term was “hub” and another wondered if New London was still a “hip little city,” development director Bruce Hyde came to the rescue.

“It's a hip little transportation city,” he said.

Whatever you call New London, it's become a regular on the cruise-ship circuit this year, and at least three other visits are planned in the city in the next few weeks, including the arrival at 7 a.m. today of the 3,100-passenger Explorer of the Seas. The ship is expected to depart at 2 p.m.

Veendam captain Albert J. Schoonderbeek, greeted warmly in a private welcoming ceremony aboard the ship just after it docked, said studies have shown that passengers aboard Holland America Line ships spend an average of $250 to $300 per person at each port of call. Since the ship arriving in New London carried 1,227 — every cabin was occupied — that could amount to an economic shot in the arm of as much as $368,000 for this visit.

The captain's per-passenger spending figures were about twice as much as estimated in a 2004 study by the state Department of Economic and Community Development, which indicated each passenger could contribute up to $139 to the state economy. Even taking this lower figure, however, the spending would amount to more than $600,000 for the two cruise-ship visits this weekend.

Don't tell local business people, though. Most of the restaurant and shop owners contacted Friday said business had been OK, but not great.

“In comparison to the other ships that arrived on Saturday, it's been kind of slow,” said Genine Zavala, co-owner of Zavala restaurant. She said only one elderly couple from the ship had stopped by for lunch.

Others said lunch had been steady but not overwhelming. Lucky Colaluca, owner of Lucca Wine Bar & Grill, said he had served four tables of cruise-ship travelers.

Shops selling keepsakes — such as postcards — seemed to be doing somewhat better.

“Business is good; the people are very happy,” said Dona Casey, manager of the New London Antiques Center.

One person from New Zealand went home empty-handed, however, after figuring in the cost of shipping.

“A lot of people wish they could get more in their luggage,” Casey said.

But Merle and Bill MacEachern of Ontario, Canada, left with their arms full, she returning to the ship with a pocketbook and purse and he with socks, a T-shirt and a package of old coins.

“This is the friendliest town I've ever seen,” Merle said, citing someone in a van who had given them directions without even being asked.

Bill said, however, that it's almost impossible to find a store that sells souvenir T-shirts, and other travelers complained about the lack of downtown pharmacies.

Most folks seemed pleased, though, by the stunning weather and warm greeting.

The only downside to the warm weather, said Bob and Jo Ann Schallhorn of Denver, has been the lack of fall color on their journey, which started in Montreal.

“Even in Canada, the trees hadn't turned,” Jo Ann said.

Still, the couple enjoyed the brief history tour given on the bus from the ship to downtown and especially liked the small-town feel.

“This is by far the best one of all the stops we've had,” said Bob, shopping along Bank Street.

Words like these are music to the ears of local and state officials who gathered in the glassed-in dining room of the Veendam, enjoying a bird's-eye view of the city.

There, Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele and State Comptroller Nancy Wyman were among the guests who heaped praise on Holland America, which took a chance on New London by sending the Maasdam to the city in 2003. Passengers enjoyed the city so much that New London has become a regular stop, and George A. Cassidy, executive director of the Connecticut Cruise Ship Task Force, said a new ship might be added to the list next year.

Noting New London's long history as a whaling capital, Chuck Beck, a former Coast Guard captain and now head of the maritime section of the Department of Transportation, said he hopes the state will eventually create a permanent cruise-ship facility in the city.

“These are the modern-day whales we bring into the port for economic benefit,” he said.



Cruise Ship Passengers Brave Weather For NL Visit;  Despite rain, hundreds disembark Explorer to see some local sights 
DAY
By Amy Renczkowski     
Published on 9/16/2007 

New London — It was a slow start for many passengers who exited the Explorer of the Seas cruise ship Saturday morning at State Pier.

Some remembered to pack their rain gear — umbrellas, see-through ponchos, rain boots — and others decided to brave the rain with a simple zipped-up jacket or windbreaker.  For Explorer of the Seas passengers Isabel and James Anderson of Scotland, the rain made them feel at home.

“It's similar weather at home,” James Anderson laughed as he walked with his wife up State Street

The Andersons said they were looking forward to the rest of the nine-day cruise around New England and Canada. It was their first time visiting the area, and after just a few hours, New London made a good impression on them.

“The people here are great. Everyone is so nice and friendly,” Isabel Anderson said.

The 1,020-foot-long cruise ship, operated by Royal Caribbean International, is the largest ever to enter the Whaling City's harbor. There are two more visits planned for Sept. 29 and Oct. 13.  The ship's first visit, on Sept. 1, drew hundreds of spectators to both shores of the Thames River to catch a glimpse of the giant vessel. Though the rain kept many residents home this morning, some still came out to see the Explorer from Fort Trumbull and Fort Griswold.

As it did two weeks ago, the ship again performed a three-point turn when it arrived, backing into the harbor to dock at State Pier. The maneuver was necessary to have the liner pointing seaward for its 5:30 p.m. departure.

In preparation for the visit, the Coast Guard moved the barque Eagle from Fort Trumbull to City Pier on Friday. Coast Guard officials hoped the move would allow more people to visit the training vessel.  By 4 p.m. Saturday there had been 1,550 visitors aboard the Eagle, hundreds more than normally visit the ship, according to Boatswain's Mate 2nd Class Jay Pioch. Most of them were from the Explorer of the Seas, he said.

“It's been nice and steady. The decks have been full,” Pioch said. “It was a successful opening day for the Eagle.”

A new feature for cruise ship passengers this time around was a double-decker bus that visited the city's historical sites. The New London Historical Society offered the one-hour tour that departed from Union Station and traveled on a north-to-south route from Lyman Allyn Art Museum to Neptune Park.  As in the ship's first visit, charter buses were available to bring passengers to other nearby attractions like Mystic Seaport, Olde Mistick Village and the Submarine Force Museum.

According to Penny Parsekian, chief executive officer of New London Main Street, 1,923 passengers disembarked from the cruise ship Saturday. That number did not include any of the ship's crew. The first time the Explorer of the Seas was in town, 2,100 passengers and crew members got off the ship in New London.

“It was very slow getting started” because of the morning's inclement weather, Parsekian said, “but then it picked up.”

In addition to the double-decker bus, Parsekian said, more taxis were available to the ship's passengers than there were during the first visit.



Meet The New Deadline; It would be in everyone's best interest if construction commenced at Fort Trumbull. 
By The Day    
Published on 9/9/2007 

Spin it any way you want, but patience on making progress at Fort Trumbull is wearing thin and news Sept. 1 that developer Corcoran Jennison will not break ground this month on 80 units of rental housing as promised is a setback for the New London Development Corp.

The new deadline for Corcoran Jennison to sign a ground lease for the residential housing project that requires a groundbreaking within 30 days is Sept. 27, and if that deadline passes, too, there could be political hell to pay.

The City Council is fuming mad with the NLDC, which it said neglected to inform councilors of the delay before a news story about it appeared in The Day.

Of course, councilors should have had some inkling when the Aug. 28 deadline approached and no one had received a “save the date” card for the groundbreaking.

The start of construction on the 66 apartments and 14 townhouses has been a long time coming, and some of it is no fault at all of the developer or the NLDC. Progress stalled for years because of the lawsuit over the use of eminent domain at Fort Trumbull and due to environmental litigation, later thrown out.

But the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLDC on the eminent domain issue in June 2006, and while it took another year to settle with the holdout homeowners there, the bulk of the property has been waiting for development for more than a year.

And the NLDC and Corcoran Jennison assured everyone that they would sign the ground lease by the end of August and commence work in September.

At the NLDC's annual meeting on April 30, Corcoran Jennison project director Marc J. Garofalo said, “This is the year everyone has been waiting for,” as he outlined plans for the new housing.

Corcoran Jennison President Marty Jones was equally optimistic then, saying 2007 was the year Corcoran Jennison “will get our office and housing in the ground” at Fort Trumbull.

Then last Thursday, following news of the failed deadline, Mr. Garofalo declined to comment on the project and referred questions to attorney Glenn T. Carberry.

Attorney Carberry was upbeat and said the complicated land deal involving multiple parties was moving forward, and the delay was just that, a delay, and no cause for alarm.

NLDC President Michael Joplin, who had to offer a mea culpa to the mayor and a city councilor peeved about the postponement and how it was announced, said he is certain the Sept. 27 deadline will be met. Mr. Joplin said an executed contract was possible by Aug. 28, but only if a long list of contingencies stipulating the outstanding issues was included. It made more sense to hold off a month, he said.

The NLDC needs to complete a contract with Connecticut Light & Power to install switchgear and pull utility lines through conduit at the site and Corcoran Jennison needs to finalize the construction contract, project financing, bonding, and other particulars. These issues can be resolved shortly, said Mr. Joplin. If a few remain, the ground lease can list them as outstanding, he added.

He is just as anxious as everyone else to start construction of the housing at Fort Trumbull.

“We have to do this, but we have to do it right,” he said.

It better be soon.

If the project drags on, or worse, falls through, it will be ugly on the political front. Already, at least one councilor, Jane Glover, has used the word divorce when talking about the relationship of the City Council and NLDC.

The November elections are not far off and it would be too bad if Fort Trumbull were the focus of attention, rather than other pressing issues, like schools, housing and public safety, in the city. The city has invested enough emotion on Fort Trumbull. Now it's time to start building.
 
Cruise Ship's Warm Welcome; Onlookers Awed As Huge Vessel Docks In New London
By JIM FARRELL | Courant Staff Writer
September 2, 2007

NEW LONDON - Knowing that one of the largest cruise ships in the world would be moored for the day at the nearby state pier, Lou Mase ordered about 100 pounds of lobster meat to serve Saturday at his Bulkeley House restaurant.

"But I think I'm running out," Mase said early in the afternoon as he stood at the entrance of his outdoor pavilion downtown, which was packed with diners - both passengers from the ship and curious locals. "This is probably triple my ordinary business."

The Explorer of the Seas, a 138,000-ton vessel that is part of the Royal Caribbean fleet, brought more than 3,000 passengers and 1,200 crew members to Connecticut's deepest port for a 12-hour visit.  The stop was the first on a nine-day cruise that left Bayonne, N.J., Friday and is headed next to Halifax, Nova Scotia.

The ship is believed to be the biggest ever to enter New London Harbor and thousands of people were gathered on both sides of the Thames River to watch it arrive at about 7 a.m.  Largely through the efforts of the Connecticut Cruise Ship Task Force, New London is becoming a regular port of call among cruise lines.  The Explorer of the Seas is scheduled to return Sept. 15, Sept. 29 and Oct. 13. In all, cruise ships will make seven stops in New London this year and eight more are scheduled for 2008.

Karl Jensen of Ledyard was among those who awoke early to see the massive vessel maneuver into the Thames, execute a slow spin, and then back into the pier.

"It was breathtaking," Jensen said, adding that a large ferry nearby looked like a mere dinghy.

Added his daughter, Haley, 15: "When I saw it, I was like, `Whoa.'"

Passengers who wanted to leave the ship could either take a free shuttle bus downtown or pay for excursions. A 2½-hour visit to Fort Trumbull cost $50 for adults while trips to Mystic were slightly longer and a bit more expensive.  At 11 a.m., about a dozen VIPs, including Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and George Cassidy, executive director of the cruise ship task force, were brought aboard to exchange plaques and other gifts with Captain Sverre Ryan and members of his crew.

"The world is discovering New London," Blumenthal said, standing on a small stage in the ship's plush Maharaja Lounge, which had a buffet table in the middle complete with a spinning ice sculpture, elaborately carved watermelons and goodies such as smoked salmon, crudités and a three-tiered dessert tray topped with chocolate-covered strawberries.

New London Mayor Margaret Curtin said she had been downtown for much of the morning and welcomed people from Colorado, Michigan, California, Florida and beyond. Connecticut tourism officials estimated about 1,800 passengers would head ashore.

"I told them to come back and spend lots of money," she said, eliciting laughs from the crowd.

Terry Lunder, who serves as the ship's hotel director, said he was amazed by the crowds gathered to see the Explorer of the Seas arrive.

"Usually, we are one of many," he said, alluding to stops in ports that serve many cruise lines. "This was a really warm welcome."

Ryan noted that his pilot had little room for error because of the relatively small size of the harbor. "But Montego Bay in Jamaica is even tighter," he said.

For those who chose to stay on board, there were activities such as a late-morning adult Crayola art workshop in Dizzy's Jazz Lounge and a lunchtime James Bond trivia contest in the Schooner Bar.  The ship's many pools and hot tubs were fairly busy, although the Casino Royale was closed until 7:30 p.m.

Leticia Nacorra of San Francisco took the shuttle downtown and said she was impressed by the city's charm.

"It's very cozy," she said, citing St. Mary Star of the Sea church as one of the places she enjoyed.

Rustom Sherdiwala, who works on the ship as a photographer, said it was nice to explore a new port.

"It's beautiful and historic," he said as he walked along State Street.

On nearby Bank Street, Alejandro Martinez stood outside Michael's Dairy, which had a line of customers spilling onto the sidewalk as they waited to buy ice cream.

"I like this a lot," said Martinez, who is from Monterrey, Mexico. "It seems to be a very small city, but we found a nice restaurant and had very good wine. It was nice. Very nice."



Cruise Ship Pulls Into New London 
DAY
Published on 9/1/2007 
 
New London - She came. They watched. It all worked out.

Explorer of the Seas, the largest vessel ever to berth in the port of New London, steamed elegantly up the Thames River in the rising sun today as hundreds of spectators watched from vantage points in the cities of Groton and New London.

The 1,020-foot cruise ship stopped for a minute between Electric Boat and Fort Trumbull, as if surveying how much room there was to pivot, and then rotated a slow 180 degrees to reverse engines the rest of the way to State Pier.

Some of the watchers at the fort held their breath as the blow seemed barely to clear the berthed Coast Guard Barque Eagle, but that was an optical illusion. All went as planned. 


Plans Are On Schedule To Start New London Housing Development -  80 luxury units slated for Fort Trumbull peninsula 
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 5/1/2007
 
New London — Corcoran Jennison is on schedule to break ground in September for its housing development, the company's Fort Trumbull project director, Marc Garofalo, told the New London Development Corp. at its annual meeting Monday.

The project will bring 80 units of market-rate, luxury rental housing to the peninsula, including 14 townhouses and 66 apartments.

“We're here. We're committed. We're very enthusiastic that 2007 will be the year,” Garofalo said. “We've been in it for almost a decade. This is a year we've all been waiting for.”

The project's design, by Boston-based Spagnolo Gisness & Associates Inc., was on display at the meeting and was detailed by project architect Nathanial Finley.

“The whole purpose was to create something we felt would fit within the fabric of New London,” Finley said of the L-shaped apartment building and two townhouse buildings to be located, in view of the water, on Parcel 3 on the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

The design for the apartment building borrows a strong roofline from the buildings of Fort Trumbull State Park and features a corner tower that references lighthouse architecture, Finley said. But the 79,313-square-foot, three-story building is also contemporary.

Numerous windows take advantage of water views and natural light, and a mixture of materials on the façade is meant to minimize the scale of the building, Finley said.

A breezeway aligned with Chelsea Street opens up the first-level of the building, and private entrances with porches lining the East Street side of the building add to a pedestrian-friendly feel of the area.

The townhouse buildings, one with six units and one with eight, reference the historic elements of Starr Street homes without replicating them, Finley said.

The ability of Spagnolo Gisness & Associates Inc. to tailor housing developments to the communities in which they are planned and built is what drew Corcoran Jennison to the firm, Garofalo said. The architects began visiting New London for the project six years ago.

“We looked to the state park, some of the buildings there for inspiration,” Finley said. “We looked to Starr Street for inspiration, especially trying to get inspiration from some of the historic detailing and traditional forms.”

Construction on the apartments and townhouses, which will proceed simultaneously in one phase, will take about 18 months, Garofalo said.

When it is finished, he expects the housing to draw residents from a 20-mile radius, “people who want to live near the water, who want to live in a new community, who want to live where there's access to walking trails,” he said.

“There aren't a lot of rental opportunities on the water in New London,” Garofalo said. “This will be a welcome addition to the housing market.”



OUR FEELING...ALL THINGS MUST PASS...BUT MAYBE WE CAN LEARN FROM MISTAKES?
Putting It All Behind Him.  For New London man, 'all things must pass' — even life in 'The Fort' 

DAY
By David Collins
Published on 4/25/2007
 
New London — Life in an eminent-domain war has never been easy.

Byron Athenian, who fought long enough to watch all his neighbors disappear and most of their houses come down around him, knows that as well as anyone. Even Smith Street itself is gone in front of Athenian's home, which used to be number 78, replaced by a concrete berm and what may be the city's biggest empty lot, a big wide expanse of dirt and gravel.

On windy days during the demolitions and road-building, Athenian couldn't go outdoors because of all the dirt and dust in the air. On rainy days, the basement fills with water because the level of the land around him has changed so much.

People come and dump trash, old sofas and televisions in the cleared space next to his house, where for almost 25 years he leased a building for his auto body shop before it was torn down, too, five years ago. His decrepit little gray house, which he stopped repairing when the troubles began eight years ago, is the last thing standing in Fort Trumbull's Parcel 3c, surrounded by a few trees and an overgrown privet hedge.

Today, though, Athenian may be leaving it all behind. He's buying a double-wide trailer house on Old Colchester Road in Montville, and if the very last stretch of negotiations with the New London Development Corp. goes well, he will move out, the last of the residents/litigants in the landmark Kelo v. New London case, he said, to leave the neighborhood they all affectionately called “The Fort.”

But even so close to the end, things haven't been easy for Athenian.

View a Fort Trumbull slideshow

Tuesday, he was still trying to work out a timetable with the NLDC for a settlement meeting in which he would receive his final payment and use that money to close on the new house in Montville. The closing was scheduled for 4 p.m. Tuesday, and Athenian was asking to remain in the house until 4 p.m. today, so he would have time to move out.

He didn't want to move twice and said he turned down an NLDC offer to put his things in storage and pay for a hotel because he didn't know what to do with his 7-year-old, one-eyed pit bull, Charlie.

“What's a day or two after eight and a half years?” he asked.

But the NLDC said no, Athenian said in frustration Tuesday afternoon. That led to the U-Haul incident.

One of Athenian's lawyers told him he'd have to get a moving truck, load his things into it Tuesday night and this morning, then leave it parked next to the house while he goes to the closing, collects his check and buys the new house.

The only truck he could find was an enormous one, in Groton, so big he had trouble handling it going over the Gold Star Memorial Bridge. Then on the way into Fort Trumbull, going under the Walbach Street Amtrak overpass, he heard a scrape. When he got home and opened up the truck, he discovered he'd ripped off the aluminum roof.

“I just hope it doesn't rain,” he said, adding that he did, at least, buy the insurance for the rental. “Every hour today is an adventure.”

Athenian's house is in his mother's name, although he is the only one who has lived there in the 12 years they have owned it. They became the last to come to a resolution with the NLDC because, Athenian said, the NLDC unfairly settled for much higher amounts with other neighborhood residents last summer, after Athenian and his mother complied with what they say they were told was a final deadline to accept an offer.

They later filed a complaint with the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, claiming Athenian's mother, Thelma Brelesky, who is elderly, was discriminated against because of the wide discrepancies in settlements.

Athenian said Tuesday he was reluctant to disclose the final amount he expected from the NLDC today to complete the purchase of the $167,000 property in Montville. But he said it is small. He said another $174,652 in settlement and escrow for his house, after paying lawyers and a $22,000 mortgage, came to about $140,000.

“New London seized my house and all I got was this lousy sticker,” read big stickers pasted across the front and back doors of Athenian's house.

“If I were rich I would have told them to keep it all a long time ago,” he said.

NLDC officials did not return phone messages Tuesday inquiring about Athenian and his planned move today.  Athenian allowed himself a little nostalgia about The Fort Tuesday, remembering the summer barbecues neighbors used to share after fishing trips. Many people lived there their whole lives. The elderly man Athenian bought 78 Smith St. from had lived there for 60 years and raised a family in it.

“He would hate to see this,” Athenian said, predicting the plywood would go on the windows today, as soon as the closing is over.

One other deadline looms for the final abandonment of the neighborhood. Susette Kelo has a June 15 deadline to move or lose her pink house, and a relative or friend is still staying in it now, Athenian said.

“This was a good neighborhood,” he said. “I don't know what they meant when they said it wasn't a good neighborhood. There were good people here. But as they say, all things must pass.”

Athenian is also looking forward to his new home, which is on one acre, with plenty of room for Charlie to roam.  And life there, he said, might be easier.




NL Council Steps Back From Misstep 
DAY
By Morgan McGinley    
Published on 9/9/2007 
 
The New London City Council is about to hold the proposed developer of the Capitol Theater responsible for defaulting on its contract. The issue is likely to come up within the next couple of weeks.

It should be no surprise that the Maxim Development Group hasn't delivered on its promises.

In the spring of 2006, the city, desperate to get rid of the dilapidated theater that had been sitting on Bank Street unoccupied for decades, sold the property for $1 to the Plainfield, N.J. development company. The firm promised to spend about $2.5 million to make the theater attractive to live music concerts that it said could draw more than 1,500 people.

The city manager, Richard Brown at the time, and the council may or may not have believed this siren song from Maxim. Whatever the case, the decision to sell the Capitol indicated the city did not care what happened later, so long as New London unloaded the once-proud and beautiful theater. The desire of the city to be done with the Capitol is understandable. But the decision to sell the property to Maxim is not.

You can't accuse the city of not doing due diligence. Just gross misjudgment.

At the time of the deal, the city knew that Patrick Gawrysiak, one of the Maxim principals, had been convicted of armed robbery in 1977 and sentenced to six years in prison. The city also knew that he had been sentenced in 1997 to four years in prison for fraud involving a multi-million-dollar, flim-flam scheme.

Gawrysiak used the name Patrick Gray in the scheme. Ironically, Gawrysiak chose an alias similar to the name of L. Patrick Gray, a former FBI acting director under President Richard Nixon and a longtime partner in a New London law firm.

City should have known better

The city also should have known that Maxim's Web site claimed credit for big development projects that the company had not done. Reasonable people would have run screaming away from this developer, but the city's ardor for being rid of the Capitol grew far more important than what might happen after the building went to Maxim.

In fact, the sale of the property amounted to gross negligence by the council with regard to the taxpayers of New London who elected them to act prudently and not to make deals with people of questionable backgrounds.

Worse, when Day reporter David Collins expertly detailed the misstatements by Maxim and the background of Gawrysiak in an investigative piece, acting City Manager Martin Berliner was offended by the article. In his first meeting with The Day's editorial board, Berliner wanted to know why The Day had run the piece. Editors responded that the public had a right to know the record of the people with whom the city was doing business.

There are varying stories about what happened in council meetings closed to the public and the press, but several councilors said that former City Manager Brown signed the agreement with Maxim before the council voted on it. Some councilors felt trapped, but they should have sought to overturn the decision.

The contract with the Maxim company called for the development to replace windows on the theater right away, but the company did not. It argued, perhaps justifiably, that it was more important to complete repairs and renovations to the facade first. But now, the facade workers have not been around for many months and Maxim has done nothing to replace the windows.

Months and months and months have passed with no construction. Maxim blames the problem on the city. In a sense, the developer is right. New London never should have made the agreement in the first place.


NL Rebukes Capitol Theater Developer.  Delays in time frame for windows at issue 
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 4/18/2007
 
New London — City Law Director Thomas J. Londregan notified Capitol Theater owner Maxim Development Group by letter Friday that the company is in violation of a development agreement with the city.

The Plainfield, N.J.-based company failed to order and purchase windows for the theater by Feb. 9 as required by an April 19, 2006, development agreement with the city, according to the notice of default. Maxim will have three months to order windows and prove the purchase to the city, or else the city could reclaim title to the theater.

Economic Development Coordinator Ned Hammond doesn't believe it will come to that, he said Tuesday. Maxim has invested $80,000 to date in other improvements to the theater and negotiated a price for the custom windows with a supplier months ago.

Still, Hammond called the developer's failure to finalize the order “a puzzle.”

“From our standpoint we just want to see them get started — the sooner, the better,” Hammond said.

The Capitol Theater, which opened in 1921 as a vaudeville venue, has been vacant since the city shut it down in 1974 for building-code violations and nonpayment of taxes. The city purchased the building in 1978 but allowed it to deteriorate. Numerous proposals for the building over the years never led to a sale, so the city welcomed interest by Maxim last year.

The company proposed a $2.5 million renovation of the Capitol Theater into a live-music venue and bought the property from the city for $1 on June 30, 2006. The development agreement requires that the project be “substantially complete” within 30 months of the closing and outlines other project deadlines.

Maxim began the permitting process, the agreement's first requirement, but subsequently failed to purchase and order windows within 60 days of receiving city approvals and permits. The city building official approved Maxim's proposed window replacements on Dec. 11, 2006, so “the windows needed to be purchased on or before Feb. 9, 2007,” Londregan said in the letter.

At a meeting with city officials in January, Maxim principals showed city officials an agreement with Builders Wholesale Club to purchase the windows — which would exactly replicate the theater's existing windows but meet current codes — for just under $70,000, Hammond said. When the windows did not arrive as expected, Hammond called the supplier and was told that Maxim never finalized the order, he said.

The developer has, however, invested in other improvements the agreement did not require this soon, Hammond said. That includes approximately $70,000 in masonry work completed by Loring and Son Masonry and Restoration of New London to restore the theater's brick and limestone façade and about $7,000 in wiring and lighting work done by Beaver Electric LLC of Montville.

“Although something we were expecting didn't get done, other things that weren't in the agreement did get done,” Hammond said. “I'm cautiously optimistic. Why would you sink that kind of money into a place if you weren't planning on following through?”

Maxim Development Group managing member Salvatore Carfaro Jr., who had not received the letter of default when he spoke Tuesday, said the company would continue the renovation.

“We are going to continue to move forward on the project. We're going to do it at our pace. We're not going to let the administration or the media drive the development,” Carfaro said.

He denied that Maxim has violated the development agreement. “We are not in default as far as the spirit of the agreement,” Carfaro said, adding that the company has “far exceeded” the investment it was required to make by this time.
 

Curtains Still Drawn On Theater;  N.J. developers have done little to Capitol since buying it from city for $1
DAY
By David Collins
Published on 12/11/2006   
 
New London — When the city agreed last spring to give the Capitol Theater to a group of New Jersey developers, despite their lack of experience and the criminal history of one of the managing partners, it raised more than a few eyebrows.
Now, more than five months after the city closed on the deal, selling the landmark Bank Street building for $1, people have begun to wonder about the obvious lack of progress on the promised restoration project.

“People stop and ask me all the time what's going on,” said Ned Hammond, the city's economic development coordinator. “They need to understand that projects of this kind take time.”

In fact, though, the new owner of the theater, Maxim Development Group, has already missed a number of deadlines promised in negotiations and agreements with the city.

The group's Dec. 19, 2005, proposal for the Capitol, filed in land records with the deed and linked to a series of tax abatements granted to the developer, says Maxim will “begin demolition of the interior and remediation of the asbestos within 30 days of transfer of the property. Window measurements and order placement will be done immediately so that the building can be sealed as soon as possible.”

Further, in Maxim's signed purchase agreement with the city, also in land records, the developer is required to purchase new windows for the building façade within 60 days of the closing, or within 60 days of the approval and permitting of the windows, whichever is greater.

The agreement also requires that the developer “begin the permitting process and prep work necessary within 60 days of closing” and says extensions may be granted only at the discretion of the city.

Patrick Gawrysiak, Maxim's managing member, told Hammond in a phone conversation in July, according to notes in the city's file on the project, that work to remove asbestos and lead paint had been contracted. But Hammond said last week there are apparently still no contracts yet for the environmental remediation work.

Maxim has not yet purchased the windows, and only last month submitted manufacturer specifications for city building department approval, after being prompted about the delay by an e-mail from Hammond.

“Tell everyone to leave me alone,” Gawrysiak wrote back to Hammond, in a November e-mail that included specifications and drawings from a window manufacturer for a series of proposed replacement windows for the Capitol façade.

Gawrysiak had e-mailed an estimate for the windows — $89,694 from Builders Wholesale Club — to Hammond back in July, under the comment, “the pain has begun.”

It also took the city months to get Maxim to assume responsibility for the electric service for the Capitol. After a series of e-mails on the topic, Gawrysiak wrote on Sept 8: “Done.” But the billing did not finally change until Oct. 19, after more e-mail exchanges.

Under its deal with the city, Maxim will not owe taxes on the property for the first two years of ownership. The assessment is then frozen for another eight years, at $227,640.

Salvatore Carfaro Jr., Maxim's other managing member, returned a phone call to the company's offices seeking comment this week, but he declined to discuss the project, saying The Day treated them unfairly in earlier stories.

Hammond said he believes that the project is moving forward, albeit slowly, and that the developers have not yet specifically violated the agreement with the city. He pointed in particular to a passage referring to the deadline on the windows that appears to give the developer more than 60 days.

“City shall grant developer any additional needed time beyond the sixty days so long as the developer is in the process of acquiring the necessary approvals and permits for said windows and doors replacement,” the agreement says.

Hammond says he would like to see the city approve the window specifications that were submitted last month and have the developer buy them within the next two months or so.

“I have no grounds to get on their case at this particular time,” he said. “We have to make sure the project is dead before we take any action. We want to see this building rehabbed. It has become something we are nurturing along.”

Hammond noted that the developer has put some temporary construction lighting inside the building. He said he has also seen them lead an architect and engineer on a tour of it.

Maxim did contract for the repointing of the façade, which was done over the summer. However, Hammond says he has been told that final payment to the masonry contractor has not been made. The contractor, Loring and Son Masonry and Restoration of New London, did not return phone calls inquiring about the Capitol project.

Hammond said he does worry that if Maxim gets a reputation for not paying local contracts in a timely way that it could doom the project.

Maxim submitted a proposal for the abandoned theater, which the city has owned since 1978, after seeing it listed on a Web site for commercial property in Connecticut for sale.

The developers have promised a $2.5 million renovation with plans to turn the Capitol into a live music venue, with seating for 1,500 to 1,800 concertgoers and accommodation for live broadcasts. They said they would locate the corporate offices of a sister media company here and eventually employ 12 to 20 people full time and another 15 to 20 part time.

“Maxim's approach to the Capitol Theater rehabilitation is to advance the concept of sustainable development at the environmental, economic and social level within the City of New London,” the developers wrote in their December proposal.

Maxim, which describes itself on its Web site as a large developer of hotels, shopping centers and housing developments, actually appears to have no track record in development.

One specific project the company cited in talks with New London, the development of an historic hotel in Seneca Falls, N.Y., fell apart even before the Capitol deal closed. According to the Seneca County Industrial Development Agency, which was offering a series of incentives and tax abatements for the hotel project, Maxim dropped out when asked to submit financial information.

Still, a Maxim financial statement filed in New London land records in July, with the Capitol deed, lists the Seneca Falls hotel as an asset worth more than $1 million, even though the company never owned it.

The other specific Maxim project cited before the New London deal was consummated was the development of a 64-unit apartment complex being proposed in Plainfield, N.J. It was to be built on property where Carfaro's Collision Center is now located.

The developers were turned down for a major zoning variance for the project in September, after the chairwoman of the Plainfield Board of Adjustment called a presentation by Maxim's planner “woefully inadequate,” according to an account in the Courier News newspaper.

The New London City Council knew of Gawrysiak's criminal history when it agreed to give the developers the Capitol. In addition to a felony conviction in 1977 for armed robbery in North Carolina, for which he was sentenced to six years in prison, he was sentenced in 1997 to another four years in prison on fraud charges, after being indicted in an elaborate multi-million-dollar flim flam scheme.

In 1998 he sued a New York bank, from prison, representing himself, saying the bank had cheated him in the purchase of a bank-owned building. The lawsuit was dismissed.



AFTER DESTROYING A NEIGHBORHOOD...

This is the endgame of the whole New London redevelopment tragedy - like a old fairy tale, the three wishes.  They ended up with nothing.  BUT WAIT...

A Townhouse Plan and an Electric Boat Purchase Could Undo Some Ill Will In New London's Fort Trumbull area

By KENNETH R. GOSSELIN, kgosselin@courant.com
July 5, 2010

The empty expanse that was once the working-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood in New London is an ever-present reminder of the painful eminent domain battle that took dozens of homes — and the redevelopment that didn't follow.

But new plans for 80 townhouses in the area could offer some hope of a long-awaited jumpstart — an effort that could be helped by last week's announcement that Electric Boat will buy Pfizer Inc.'s nearby research and development headquarters.

The plans could put some lingering ill will behind the city.

"Everyone wants to move forward and make sure all that hard work and indeed pain is put to rest," said Tony Sheridan, president and chief executive of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut.

Although the townhouses wouldn't be built where the properties were taken and demolished, the new construction would be squarely in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The 6.5-acre tract targeted for the townhouses once was the site of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which also has been razed.

Developers Robert and Irwin Stillman, who have offices in New York and Westport, are now in negotiations with the New London Development Corp., a nonprofit community development agency, and could be announced within a couple of months, city officials said.

Irwin Stillman declined to comment for this story.

But some who believe the homes should never have been torn down in the first place — but integrated into redevelopment — say the urge to move ahead too quickly needs to be resisted.

"The idea that [EB parent] General Dynamics is going to be our savior can be realized if we take our time and do our homework," said Richard L. Humphreville, a high-end cabinetmaker in New London. "We have a break; let's not blow it."

Humprheville said the notion that Pfizer was going to spawn a bioscience renaissance in New London was ill-conceived. And, whle Electric Boat's prospects look good now, the submarine maker is vulnerable to the changing political winds of government defense spending, he said.

Those who defend past redevelopment efforts in Fort Trumbull acknowlege mistakes made in taking of the properties, but they also say progress was impeded by a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court eminent domain battle, and later, the economic downturn.

"We're trying to move forward in a positive way," Mayor Robert Pero said.

Although some had hoped the townhouses would be condominiums to be purchased, the weak housing market will likely dictate that they be rentals. When the market improves, they could be converted for purchase, said Martin T. Olsen Jr., a city council member who chairs its economic development committee.

Sheridan said the townhouses will have a ready-made market in the office workers employed by EB in New London, many of them engineers and other professionals.

As a condition of securing a $15 million state grant in moving 2,300 workers to New London from Groton, EB has agreed to add another 700 jobs.

"There's a trend among young people to live closer to work," Sheridan said. "Having those kind of professional high-end jobs in the former Pfizer building will encourage that trend. It will no doubt lead to further housing development."

Humphreville said the city should hold off until a study in conjunction with Yale University's urban architectural program is completed. Some say those ideas could be melded with the plan adopted a decade ago for redeveloping the area.

Once, the vision was for a hotel and conference center, 80 units of housing, a bioscience park and other amenities. Until 2008, there was a preferred developer for the project, Boston-based Corcoran Jennison. The firm lost the status when it couldn't get financing for the housing.

Corcoran Jennison did complete the renovation of an existing building into offices, but never broke ground on any new construction.

Pero said Fort Trumbull could now be on the cusp of the long-awaited redevelopment — and the hoped for commercial development, possibly the hotel, marina and office space could follow in the coming years.

Just one day after the EB announcement last week, one commercial real estate broker in New London said she was already getting calls from companies who want to lease space near the EB complex.

Susan Howard, a broker at U.S. Properties, said she had gotten requests from two firms in Stamford, one looking for 6,000 to 9,000 square feet and another, 2,500 square feet. Another company in Essex wanted to lease 6,000 to 7,000 square feet.

"One of them does work for Electric Boat, the others just want to be here," Howard said.

NLDC to explore developer's plan for village theme at Fort Trumbull; Westport firm envisions 'charming' townhouses
By Kathleen Edgecomb and Stephen Chupaska, Day Staff Writers
Article published Feb 20, 2010

New London - A proposed residential development at Fort Trumbull would take its inspiration and style cues from the Greek revival architecture on Starr Street.

Following a unanimous vote Friday by its executive board, the New London Development Corp. will start negotiating with a Westport developer that has proposed "a village of historic and charming character.''

Father and son developers Irwin and Robert Stillman want to build 80 rental townhouses in the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

The city took properties and demolished houses and other buildings to make way for a development of homes and a conference center/hotel. But no new construction has taken place at Fort Trumbull in the 10 years since.

Contributing to the delay were an eminent domain case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, other court cases, environmental challenges and the downturn in the economy.

The Stillmans' plans call for two-story townhouses with peaked roofs and small porches close to the sidewalk. Garages and parking spaces would be in the back of the housing units, which would be clustered along East and Chelsea streets.

The housing would sit on 6.5 acres that used to be part of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center and were not involved in the eminent domain takings. It is adjacent to Fort Trumbull State Park and the Coast Guard Station.

The Stillmans said they would develop most of the townhouses for a "relatively upscale rental market'' and would pursue marketing analysis to fine-tune the parameters of the development.
The Stillman Organization is a third-generation real estate development company that has built hotels, condominiums, single-family homes, offices, shopping centers and apartment buildings in metropolitan New York and southwestern Connecticut, according to its Web site, www.stillmanorg.com.

The Stillmans were the only developers to respond to a "request for qualifications" issued in December by the NLDC, but that was not a major issue for NLDC Executive Director John Brooks. "(The Stillmans) seem well qualified and seem responsive to the interests of the community," he said.

Brooks said the majority of the townhouses would be rental properties but some might be converted to owner-occupied in the future.

"I was impressed,'' said Karl-Erik Sternloff, head of the NLDC's real estate committee, which endorsed the proposal and recommended it to the full NLDC board for approval.

"It's a very different concept,'' Sternloff said. "It's closer to what the citizens of New London expect for the residential component of the project. I think it's a happy coincidence market conditions and this proposal meet up in the way that they did."

The Stillmans appeared smitten by the area after visiting the Fort Trumbull peninsula several times. In January, they wrote to the NLDC of their interest in developing housing there.

"The ponderous masonry walls of Fort Trumbull and its lawns sprawling toward the bank of the Thames, the graceful masts of the barque Eagle and the picturesque view to the historic and colorful buildings of downtown New London settled the matter for us, convincingly,'' Robert Stillman wrote in a cover letter to the NLDC.

"I haven't heard a negative thing about them,'' Brooks said of Stillmans, who are expected to meet with the City Council in the next couple of weeks and publicly reveal its idea for the property.

"I liked what I saw,'' said Mayor Rob Pero. "It basically would be a village. It would be something that people have said they preferred to see down there."

Pero said the City Council's Economic Development Committee and the council will meet on the proposal either next week or during the second week of March.  The project is the first new building proposal for the 90-acre Fort Trumbull Development site since 2008, when Corcoran Jennison lost its preferred-developer status to build a hotel/conference center and housing.  The proposal came to light a few weeks after a grassroots effort to bring representatives from a Yale University urban architectural program to the community to discuss the future of the fort neighborhood.




Yale prof says all parties must have common goal
Planning expert: Collaboration is key for success at Fort Trumbull
By Kathleen Edgecomb, Day Staff Writer
Article published Jan 29, 2010

New London - If it's going to take an outsider to help heal the rifts over the Fort Trumbull eminent domain battle, a professor from Yale may be the person to do it.

Alan Plattus, founder of the Yale Urban Design Workshop, told city officials Thursday that the potential for the 90-acre Fort Trumbull site is great, but all factions have to be involved in creating something together.

"I'm very, very impressed and intrigued,'' Plattus said following a 90-minute roundtable discussion about the future of Fort Trumbull that included a diverse cross-section of the community. The discussion was held at The Day.

Plattus said he could see the Fort Trumbull peninsula as a village, like Stonington or Mystic, that would attract businesses and middle-income residents.

Plattus was invited by The Day to discuss the possibility of the city working with his 18-year-old nonprofit program, which is affiliated with the Yale School of Architecture. The program brings together major stakeholders and community members to discuss development strategies that coincide with a municipality's vision of itself.

The program costs between $20,000 and $50,000, though grants to offset the cost are available.

The Day also invited Deputy Mayor Adam Sprecace; John Brooks of the New London Development Corp., which owns the property; Sandra Chalk of New London Landmarks; Kathleen Mitchell, an outspoken voice for residents who lost their properties to eminent domain; and several other interested parties.

"I'm most interested in moving all parties forward,'' said Sprecace, who learned about the program in an op-ed piece written for The Day by resident Tom Clark.

Nearly 10 years ago, the Pfizer project on Pequot Avenue was seen as a turning point for the city and sparked a redevelopment plan for the nearby Fort Trumbull neighborhood. But a protracted legal battle over eminent domain divided the city and a downturn in the economy has left the land mostly vacant.

Last fall, when Pfizer announced it would be moving its global research and development headquarters from New London to Groton, the news seemed to reopen old wounds.

"I've been looking for ways to try and get all of New London together,'' Sprecace said. "We're going to fix this issue. New London gets a black eye every time Fort Trumbull is mentioned. ... No more finger-pointing. We have to work together."

Sprecace agreed to meet again with Plattus for further discussion on a collaboration strategy.

Among those who spoke Thursday was Mitchell, who for years has criticized the way the NLDC has operated. Saying that "the NLDC has done us a favor when you think about it," she offered congratulations to the NLDC for restoring Fort Trumbull State Park, creating a river walk at Fort Trumbull and along the side of Pfizer Inc. on Pequot Avenue, and for the environmental cleanup of Bentley Creek. But she said no one wants office space and parking lots on the waterfront property.

"We've had a failure to invite local people into what would eventually happen in New London,'' she said. "We have so much here.''

Brooks said the Municipal Development Plan, which was approved in 2000, is valid for another 20 years and remains flexible. The hotel, residential units and office space are only guidelines; there are no requirements that say a hotel has to be built there or housing units have to be townhouses, he said.

Chalk, from New London Landmarks, added that it appears no one has a clear picture of what should happen at Fort Trumbull.

"As a community, we need Yale Urban Design to give us new concepts, to look at the whole piece, to see how reflective of New London it will be in the next 10 to 15 years," she said.

Plattus said all sides need to express their ideas clearly for the program to work. "You don't want a winner and a loser,'' he said. "You want something everyone will be proud of."

The only way the exercise will work is if everyone has the energy and commitment to talk to each other in a meaningful way, Plattus said. "I'm not interested in doing plans and pretty pictures that sit on somebody's shelf,'' he added. "You'd have to talk to each other and talk about how you feel and find a way to make a project come about.''

The Day is planning to run a series of stories on the topic in an upcoming Sunday Perspective section. It also intends to hold a public forum in the near future.
k.edgecomb@theday.com



There's a stink to the Pfizer pullout, really

DAY
This is the opinion of David Collins.
Article published Nov 10, 2009

Eighty-one-year-old Paul Egan, a co-owner of Fort Trumbull Marina, separated from Pfizer's New London world research headquarters building by only a narrow little creek, claims the pharmaceutical giant has been a good neighbor.

"We've had a good relationship," said Egan, enjoying some of the bright November sun Monday, in a chair planted strategically alongside one of his docks.

"I go over from time to time, to borrow a cup of Viagra."

I went to see Egan just after the word began to leak out Monday morning that Pfizer, just eight years into New London, is pulling out.  Sure enough, I was the first to break the news at the marina, Pfizer's closest neighbor here, where the new landscaping across the creek has hardly grown in enough to obscure much of the big glass-walled office complex.

"Maybe they are studying us, looking down at us like the Cro-Magnon Man," Egan told me on another visit, when they were still getting accustomed at the marina to watching office workers bustle across the glass bridges that connect the Pfizer buildings.

"I think they're about as curious about us as we are about them."

Which is to say, not very much.

Egan and others at the marina, where the most prominent landmark is a big houseboat that looks like it was sunk in the mud long before Pfizer ever moved to the neighborhood, were as surprised Monday to hear about company's departure as the people who run the city.

"That's a shame. It's just pulling out another rug," Egan said, pointing across the street, to the long-lost Fort Trumbull neighborhood of homes, all taken in the name of luring Pfizer to town.

I couldn't help but wonder, looking around at the charm of Egan's deteriorating marina, with its collapsed sheds, slanted pilings and docks askew, how long it will take before an empty Pfizer complex starts to look a little ramshackle, too.

I'm sure no one ever dreamed, for instance, that there would one day be large trees growing through the windows of the administration building at Norwich Hospital.

The city might take some consolation in the news that Pfizer just recently sold the campus in Ann Arbor, Mich., that it shuttered two years ago.  The trouble is they sold it for $108 million to the University of Michigan and it went promptly off the tax rolls.

The Ann Arbor story should also be a little unsettling for those in New London who on Monday were comforting themselves with the thought that Pfizer will still be responsible for the property taxes, whether they occupy the buildings or not.  In Ann Arbor, the company filed an appeal of its tax assessments for 2008 and 2009, saying the value of the unused property should be half the city's real estate valuation of $238 million.

How long after the Pfizer New London buildings are emptied, will the company move to lower their city real estate taxes? And whose lawyers will win that one?

While I was visiting with Egan Monday I couldn't help but notice another good reason it's going to be hard for Pfizer to sell or lease the New London buildings.  The neighborhood stinks of sewage again.  Whatever they did eight years ago to modify the sewage treatment plant, to make it more acceptable for a corporate neighbor, seems to have come undone.

When I asked Egan about the smell, he acknowledged that, yes, it's back.  Egan, it turns out, has outlasted almost everyone on the peninsula, from the homeowners pushed out to the north to the retreating Pfizer to the south.

"I'm the stable one," he said.

When I asked if he might consider selling, if anyone were buying the Pfizer property, he corrected me.

"Maybe I'm going to buy them," he said.

He is, for sure, a Fort Trumbull survivor.


Pfizer pulls up stakes in NL: 8-year-old, $300M campus to close; no job losses as operations will consolidate in Groton
DAY
Article published Nov 10, 2009

Eight years after opening its state-of-the-art global research-and-development headquarters in New London, Pfizer Inc. announced Monday it will close the nearly $300 million complex within the next two years and consolidate local operations into its Groton campus.

The announcement that Pfizer will maintain its local work force numbers came as the company said it will be closing six research-and-development sites worldwide. About 1,400 positions in New London will be transferred to Groton, where about 3,500 people work, Pfizer said. When Pfizer first opened the New London campus, officials had said the complex could house up to 2,000 associates.

"In Groton and New London, there will be a minimal headcount effect," said Martin Mackay, president of Pfizer's PharmaTherapeutics Research and Development division, in a conference call. "Our presence in Connecticut will be approximately the same ... it's about 5,000 now, and that number will continue, though the makeup will change around the edges."

Pfizer earlier this year said nearly 20,000 jobs would be cut as a result of its merger with the New Jersey-based Wyeth. The company said Monday that about 15 percent of its overall R&D work force would be cut as part of that downsizing.

The announced closing of the New London site came as a blow to a city that had counted on Pfizer to help revive its fortunes. Instead, Pfizer's name became attached to a dispute over eminent domain that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that New London won on legal grounds even as it lost in the court of public opinion.

The loss of Pfizer as a keystone business in New London could put in further jeopardy the Fort Trumbull development that started in conjunction with Pfizer's move into the city but has left little but flattened buildings and eminent-domain angst in its wake.

Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development Corp., said Pfizer's withdrawal from the city will likely be a setback for a proposed hotel at Fort Trumbull. While the hotel would have attracted the general public as well as those visiting the proposed U.S. Coast Guard Museum at Fort Trumbull, Joplin said Pfizer had planned to make use of it as well.

"What we've lost here is an occupied property," Joplin said. "But it would have been worse yet if Pfizer had picked up its whole operation."

"All in all, I think we're lucky," said Tony Sheridan, president of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut. "The facility in New London was built with the best of intentions. If the industry can't support facilities in (both) New London and Groton ... hard decisions have to be made."

Keeping local jobs

Dennis Popp, mayor of the city of Groton, welcomed Pfizer's announcement, but said "that is bad news for the City of New London and business there, and maybe some of them will find their way over here."
"But it's just good news that people are keeping their jobs," he said.

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said Pfizer's global restructuring plan "strengthens Pfizer's viability as an entity here in Connecticut."

"My top priorities are to work with the company to keep jobs in Groton as part of the consolidated facility and to help find innovative ways to fill the New London facility with meaningful new jobs," Courtney said in a statement.

Mackay said the consolidation process could take up to two years, and he promised that "very active discussions" are under way to arrange a sale or lease of the 26-acre site in part or in whole.

Pfizer's New London complex has about 780,000 square feet of prime office space with views of the Thames River.  But, unlike the company's Groton research facilities that house laboratories for drug research and discovery, the New London site has no laboratory space needed to conduct the sophisticated research that will help the pharmaceutical company develop new drugs to replace an aging pipeline of remedies.
Sheridan said he expects any company looking to acquire the New London site would have to be a Fortune 500-level corporation, unless the office complex could be broken up into business condominiums.

"It's an extraordinarily attractive building," he said.

Mackay said consolidation of Pfizer's two local sites will mean upgrading facilities and creating new office space in Groton, a job made easier with the elimination of Pfizer's manufacturing plant, which was located across Eastern Point Road from the research campus, at the end of 2007.

"It's not going to happen overnight," Mackay said. "But Groton is certainly going to be a state-of-the-art facility."

As news of Pfizer's eventual exit from New London broke, employees approached at a smoking area outside the company's Pequot Avenue campus said they couldn't talk about the consolidation, in some cases waving away reporters before a question was even asked.

But two Pfizer contractors who were willing to talk said the future is uncertain.

"I don't know how it affects me," said Toula Buonocore, a clinical trial associate at Execupharm, a Pfizer contractor. "Maybe we'll get moved over to Groton. Anything can happen, so I'll just remain optimistic."

But Matt Dembkowski of Preston, who works for Eurest Services of New London, was worried. His firm, which has subcontracted with Pfizer for landscaping, custodial cleaning, and shipping and receiving, is about to be replaced by another service, he said.

"It means I'll probably be getting a layoff slip if I'm not picked up by the other contractor," Dembkowski said. "Being a landscaper, it's not a good time to get laid off."

R&D footprint to shrink

Pfizer's downsizings and closures will reduce the company's global square footage devoted to R&D by 35 percent.  Pfizer's stock price reacted positively to the news, finishing the day at $17.43, up 47 cents a share - or about 2.8 percent.

While Pfizer's overall job picture locally will not change dramatically, other R&D sites have been eliminated entirely or cut significantly as part of a consolidation related to the company's merger last month with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

Groton's R&D site will be among the five central hubs of Pfizer's newly revamped research operations. The other sites are in Cambridge, Mass.; Pearl River, N.Y.; La Jolla, Calif., and Sandwich, England.  Nine other sites will be set aside for specialized research. Among these are San Francisco, where monoclonal antibody discovery will be centered; Cambridge, England, where regenerative medicine work will be focused; and Shanghai, China, where other R&D activities will be ongoing.

"By focusing our R&D operations in these centers, we are building the world's premier biopharmaceutical R&D enterprise," said Mikael Dolsten, a former Wyeth executive who is now president of Pfizer's BioTherapeutics Research and Development.

New York-based Pfizer will be discontinuing former Wyeth operations in Princeton, N.J., Chazy, Rouses Point and Plattsburgh, N.Y., and at its North Carolina facilities in Sanford and Research Triangle Park. Other closings of former Wyeth sites will occur in the United Kingdom at Gosport and Slough/Taplow.

Pfizer also will significantly reduce R&D activities in St. Louis, whose Chesterfield Village campus will be sold to the Monsanto Co. for $435 million, and at former Wyeth facilities in Collegeville, Pa., and Pearl River, N.Y. Pfizer was not giving out figures for labor reductions in any of its individual announcements, but the St. Louis Post-Dispatch said the St. Louis site, which is a legacy Pfizer operation, will see 600 jobs cut out of a total work force of 1,000.

Groton will continue its research focus in neuroscience, antibacterials and metabolic diseases, Mackay said.

"The key message in Connecticut is this maintains a really important site for us," he added. "In fact, Groton will be our biggest R&D facility. It's a very important part of the network for us."




On The Move
DAY  
Published on 7/17/2007 

Employees of General Home Improvement of New London remove the front-door overhang as they dismantle the former home of Susette Kelo on East Street in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London on Monday. The house, which was the catalyst for the Kelo v. New London eminent-domain battle that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, will be moved to Franklin Street by Sept. 1.



State Supreme Court Revives Effort To Halt Redevelopment 
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 6/23/2007
 
Hartford — The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Friday that an environmental lawsuit challenging the City of New London's redevelopment plan for the Fort Trumbull peninsula could continue, overturning a lower court's decision to dismiss the case.

A five-justice panel ruled unanimously that the lower court had improperly denied legal standing to the Fort Trumbull Conservancy LLC, a nonprofit organization that has repeatedly sued the city, New London Development Corp., and the state in an effort to halt the redevelopment, on the grounds that it will violate state environmental laws by permitting heavy metals and other toxins to pollute the Thames River and other adjacent bodies of water.

Contrary to the January 2006 ruling of Superior Court Judge D. Michael Hurley, the conservancy's complaint has enumerated enough reasonable concerns about potential water pollution generated by the development project that it should be allowed to proceed, the high court ruled.

The ruling overturns the dismissal of the lawsuit, permits the plaintiffs' to clarify their claims about the potential for pollution at Fort Trumbull, and moves the case to Superior Court in Hartford — the usual jurisdiction for suits in which the state of Connecticut is a defendant. The high court also rejected an argument by the defendants that the suit is moot because so much of the state-funded site-clearing and preparatory work has already been completed.

The importance of Friday's ruling — both for environmentalists' concerns about pollution from the 90-acre development, and for the timetable of the long-delayed effort to transform the city peninsula — was in the eye of the beholder.

The lead attorney for the conservancy, Scott W. Sawyer, called the ruling a significant step forward for opponents of the municipal development plan, and for those seeking stricter enforcement of state environmental laws.

“It's a very good day for the people who would like to see a more responsible plan in New London,” Sawyer said.

But representatives for the city note that the Supreme Court also concurred that the conservancy's suit was vaguely drafted. The complaint is “not a model of clarity,” Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille wrote, for a unanimous court – and expressed confidence they would be able to rebut the conservancy's claims for good.

“The city has been trying for five years to figure out what the environmental issues are that concern the conservancy,” said Thomas J. Londregan, the city's law director. “I suppose now that the Connecticut Supreme Court can't quite figure them out ... they will have to attempt to restate what the problem is.”

In his 2006 ruling, Hurley found for the city, NLDC and the state in ruling that the plaintiffs had only offered “speculative and hypothetical” instances of pollution the conservancy believed could befall the waters of the Thames River, Bentley Creek and Shaw's Cove if the development were allowed to proceed. They amounted to little more than “fuzzy effusions,” Hurley said, rather than specific claims the state must rebut.

But the Supreme Court reversed that finding, saying the conservancy suit was specific enough about its claims that it could not be dismissed outright.

“The complaint contains allegations of fact sufficient to support an inference that the implementation of the development plan would pose a risk of unreasonable harm to the Thames River and adjacent bodies of water through contaminated storm water runoff, to the wildlife (in the area) ... to the air around the Fort Trumbull area through emissions from increased traffic, and to undeveloped land within the development plan area,” the decision said.

The conservancy contends that the continued development of the peninsula will flush heavy metals and toxins, including copper, mercury and zinc, into already polluted waters, Sawyer said, thanks to what the suit contends was a flawed planning process that failed to follow state law on environmental assessments of the development's likely effects.

City attorneys and elected officials shrugged off the court's ruling, calling it a procedural development that did not advance the substantive complaints of the conservancy, and which would not impede the day-to-day operations of the NLDC or the completion of the Fort Trumbull project.

“It's a very narrow technical ruling,” said Edward O'Connell, an attorney at the New London firm of Waller, Smith & Palmer, which has represented the development agency. “It doesn't address the merits at all. It's more on an issue of whether the Fort Trumbull Conservancy would be entitled to bring the lawsuit at all.”

The ruling will likely mean more to those interested in questions of standing in environmental cases – who, in other words, is entitled to sue government entities on the grounds that their policies will violate anti-pollution laws – than it will on the fate of the Fort Trumbull project.

“I don't see real-world implications here,” said Beth Sabilia, an attorney and City Council member.

The latest court ruling will “absolutely not” affect progress at Fort Trumbull the way legal challenges to the project's seizures of private property did over the past eight years, particularly those that led to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London.

“Quite frankly, after what we've been through with the really more fundamental issues addressed by Kelo, and the settlements after that, none of this is really going to make much of a difference,” she said.

“I'm not worried about it at all,” said NLDC President Michael Joplin. “We've already won all the other cases, so we'll win another one.”

Sawyer said he and the conservancy are confident that they can still force major changes in the project, and are undeterred by the city's assertions that the group has challenged technicalities.

“They've been saying that since 2000, and they haven't built anything,” he said.



Fort Trumbull Conservancy Has Legal Standing to Sue;  State Supreme Court Overturns Trial Court Decision 
DAY
By Ted Mann    
Published on 6/22/2007


Hartford  -  The State Supreme Court has reversed a lower court’s decision blocking a lawsuit against New London’s municipal development plan for the Fort Trumbull peninsula, potentially reviving a dormant legal battle over the city’s attempt to redevelop the neighborhood.

A trial court had dismissed the challenge by the nonprofit Fort Trumbull Conservancy, which sued the city, the New London Development Corp., and state agencies to block the redevelopment project, ruling that the group lacked legal standing to bring the suit and had failed to specifically enumerate the environmental damages the development could cause.

But the Supreme Court, in a decision posted this morning to the court’s Web site, reversed the lower court’s ruling, saying the legal challenge was still relevant. The court rules that the case could not be dismissed, and should be transferred to the judicial district of Hartford for a new hearing.

Calls seeking comment from city and state officials, and from counsel representing the conservancy, had not been returned around midday .



Eminent Domain Symbol Spared; Former Kelo House In Fort Trumbull Will Be Saved And Relocated
DAY
By Elaine Stoll   
Published on 6/15/2007

New London — On the eve of today's deadline for Susette Kelo to vacate the Fort Trumbull cottage whose seizure by eminent domain she unsuccessfully fought all the way to the Supreme Court, the Institute for Justice announced that the house would be spared demolition.

The house will be preserved in its entirety and relocated to 36 Franklin St., Institute Senior Attorney Scott Bullock said Thursday. There, he said, it will stand testament to the struggle of Kelo and the neighbors who joined her in a lawsuit — Kelo v. City of New London — that sought to save their homes and prevent future seizures of private property for economic development.

Though the high court's June 23, 2005, decision upheld as a public purpose the distressed city's use of eminent domain to bolster its tax base by remaking the Fort Trumbull peninsula under a municipal development plan, 42 states have since enacted restrictions on the use of eminent domain powers for economic development purposes.

The Kelo house has become an important symbol in that battle for the property rights of homeowners and small-business owners, Bullock said.

“It really is a historic house,” he said. “It's a house that has changed America so much for the better. It's a house that sparked a grass-roots rebellion against eminent domain for private economic development.”

The house is too large to be moved intact to Franklin Street, about a mile away, and could not fit under the railroad trestles that separate the Fort Trumbull peninsula from the rest of the city, Bullock said. So in the next few months it will be disassembled “piece by piece,” down to single studs and floor joists, trucked away, and stored in pieces. It will be reassembled on the new site, said Victor Wyatt, general manager of New London-based General Home Improvements.

That site is a vacant, landscaped lot owned by Avner Gregory of New London, who offered it for the Kelo house, Bullock said. The lot contains an existing foundation that will be modified to fit the cottage. It will be the house's third location — the building was moved from its original Pequot Avenue location to its Fort Trumbull address, 8 East St., in the 1890s.

The Kelo house will fit in with the other Franklin Street homes, and its new location is not far from the courthouse where the eminent domain lawsuit was fought locally, Bullock said.

Details such as who will hold title to the house and what purpose it will be used for upon reconstruction have yet to be decided, Bullock said.

“Our focus right now is on getting the house out of Fort Trumbull and getting it there (Franklin Street) as quickly as possible.”

Kelo, who decorated the house Thursday in red, white and blue ribbon even as workers prepared the building for disassembly, said she was glad it will be saved.

“I'm really very happy about it, and I'm excited,” she said. “The city won't be able to forget what they did. I hope they never do it again.”

The fact that the house can be saved is one good development in what has otherwise been a difficult nine years, Kelo said.

Standing outside her house Thursday, which also happened to be her birthday, Kelo recalled buying the house in 1997. The woman who previously owned it had painted it beige inside and out and asked Kelo what color she intended to use.

The pink color Kelo chose — Odessa Rose by Benjamin Moore — would “liven up the neighborhood,” the woman told Kelo. “I said, 'Yeah, and so will I,' ” Kelo said. “Little did I know.”

A settlement signed with the city and the New London Development Corp. last June gave Kelo until today to remain at the house, though she did not wait until the deadline to move to Waterford. The NLDC has agreed to give the Institute for Justice more time to move the house, though the extension will not be an indefinite one, NLDC President Michael Joplin said Thursday.

“We're going to expect a commitment on their part to move it by a certain date, and if we can be of help, we'll be of help,” Joplin said.

NLDC Chief Operating Officer Gregory Coenen said he is pleased the Institute for Justice will be able to move the house.

“When the settlement agreement was formulated, we acknowledged the opportunity to relocate the house,” he said. “At his point, I'm certainly pleased to see that provision coming to fruition. It has always been our expectation, and I think theirs, that the house would be moved.”

City and state officials also welcomed Thursday's announcement.

“I'm pleased that Susette will be able to carry through with her plans to move the house,” City Law Director Thomas J. Londregan said.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, whose office was involved in negotiating settlements a year ago that compensated Kelo and the other plaintiffs for giving up possession of their former properties, “has consistently fought for the accommodation of the Fort Trumbull residents,” Rell spokesman Adam Liegeot said. “Today's announcement is further proof that working together and negotiating in good faith can benefit everyone involved — the City of New London, the state of Connecticut and the residents of the Fort Trumbull peninsula.”

The relocation of the house, funded with money raised by the Institute for Justice for that purpose, will not cost the state or NLDC, nor will it delay progress on the Fort Trumbull project.



Ex-Fort Trumbull Homeowner Claims Discrimination;  Athenian Cites Age; NLDC Calls Accusation 'Specious' 
By Elaine Stoll , Day Staff Writer  
Published on 3/3/2007     
 
 
New London — Byron Athenian is alleging that his mother was “discriminated against and taken advantage of” in her settlement with the city last year over possession of her former Fort Trumbull property.

New London Development Corp. President Michael Joplin said Friday that the complaint, made to the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, was “specious” and could delay work on roads and development that require timely completion.

Athenian did not say in the complaint what remedy he is seeking for the alleged discrimination, but Joplin said Friday that Athenian and his mother, Thelma Brelesky, want more money.

“I've been informed that this complaint will go away, they will settle this, for an additional $25,000 to $30,000. This is extortion. It really shows that from day one this has been about money,” Joplin said. “We're not going to be blackmailed. We're not going to be extorted.”

Brelesky's house at 78 Smith St., where Athenian has lived for nearly three decades, was among 12 seized when the city exercised eminent domain in 2000. Brelesky sued the city along with six other plaintiffs in the case Kelo v. City of New London, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the takings in June 2005.

About a year later, Brelesky, of Waterford, and her son both signed an agreement with the city and its agent, the NLDC. In exchange for $86,652 in settlement funds and up to $15,000 in relocation costs, in addition to the $88,000 set aside to compensate Brelesky for the fair market value of the house at the time it was taken, Brelesky and Athenian agreed to give up possession of the property and forgo any future legal action.

Athenian alleged in the complaint filed Jan. 31 that the city, NLDC and state Department of Economic and Community Development discriminated against his mother because of her age — she is 82 — and because of age-related disabilities.

“Thelma felt the offer was grossly unfair. She felt she was being taken advantage of, but she kept being told that it was the best amount she would be offered,” Athenian said in the complaint.

Reading an article last August detailing the settlement amounts received by five other plaintiffs “confirmed all of Thelma's feelings that she had not received fair and just compensation equivalent to what was paid for other similar properties,” he said in the complaint. “It further confirmed her feelings that she had been taken advantage of and forced to sell her home for an unfair amount which was not equivalent to comparable properties.”

Athenian continues to reside at 78 Smith St., though the settlement specified a Sept. 1, 2006, deadline for him to move. The NLDC extended the deadline while Athenian actively sought a new home with the assistance of NLDC Chief Operating Officer Gregory Coenen and a real estate agent, Joplin said. Athenian placed an offer to buy a house, and negotiations were under way when he filed the complaint, Joplin said.

Despite the complaint, “We stand ready to try to help Byron and Thelma buy a house,” Coenen said. “We would like to see Byron successfully purchase a house so he can comfortably move,” he said, adding that Athenian could continue to pursue his complaint if he moves.

The complaint puts Brelesky's settlement funds at risk if she and Athenian seek to negotiate a new settlement agreement, Joplin said. The complaint also jeopardizes the NLDC's ability to complete Chelsea and Walbach streets by a June deadline required in a development agreement with Corcoran Jennison, he said. The developer needs the roadwork completed in order to ready the office building known as Building 2 for tenants that are expected to include the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center, Joplin said.

The NLDC could send Athenian an ejectment notice but would rather abide by the original settlement, he said. “We would prefer that they act reasonably and go back to the negotiating table.”

Athenian could not be reached for comment Friday. His attorney, Dean J. Golembeski, returned a message seeking comment with another message but later could not be reached for comment.

In responses filed with the human rights commission on Wednesday, city attorney Brian K. Estep and NLDC attorney Edward B. O'Connell denied discrimination and stated that Brelesky received fair compensation for her former property and that she acknowledged that when she signed the settlement agreement. Brelesky also failed to file a complaint within 180 days of her settlement, they noted.

The state, whose mediator handled much of the settlement negotiations, must file its own response by March 7.

 

'This Is Totally Wrong'-Tears Shed As Razing Continues In Fort Trumbull 
By Elaine Stoll , Day Staff Writer  
Published on 3/3/2007


New London — Michael Cristofaro stood in the rain for several hours Friday as a backhoe tore into his father's former house at Fort Trumbull.

“If my dad knew this, it would kill him today,” he said, watching the demolition of 53 Goshen St. with occasional tears and a few angry words.

“This is totally wrong.”

The city seized Pasquale Cristofaro's Goshen Street property in 2000 when it exercised eminent domain as part of a municipal development plan that called for economic development including a hotel, office space and rental housing. He joined six other plaintiffs in suing the city in the case Kelo v. City of New London, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the city in 2005.

The Cristofaro family reached a settlement over possession of the property on June 30, 2006, but that hasn't ended Michael Cristofaro's resolve to fight eminent domain. “Until the last breath leaves me, I will fight eminent domain use forever,” he said.

Cristofaro was joined by Kathleen Mitchell and by Susette Kelo, lead plaintiff in the eminent domain lawsuit whose controversial court ruling reverberated around the country. To date, 34 states have passed legislation or approved constitutional amendments to restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development.

“It's too bad the city never figured out this was wrong. The whole country figured it out,” Kelo said.

Several police officers stretched yellow tape in front of the house to protect onlookers from demolition debris, they said, and they remained on scene through the demolition.

Michael Cristofaro alleged that police had earlier threatened to put him in handcuffs. “They said, 'You don't want a picture of you being arrested.' I said, 'Do you think being arrested is the worst thing that's going to happen today?' ”

None of the three protesters was arrested.

Barberi Brothers Demolition of Waterford demolished the former Cristofaro property Friday as well as a rental house next door at 49 Goshen St., formerly owned by Richard Beyer's company, Pataya Construction. A day earlier, Salecon LLC of Salem felled 41 Goshen St., also formerly owned by Pataya Construction.

The New London Development Corp. has a $63,510 contract with Barberi Brothers Demolition for asbestos abatement and demolition of 49 and 53 Goshen St. and 44 and 46 Smith St., said NLDC Fort Trumbull Project Manager John Brooks. A $12,494 contract with Salecon covered the demolition of 41 Goshen St.

Following the demolitions, the NLDC will be able to complete Chelsea and Walbach streets and grade a soil stockpile onto the parcel, he said.

Michael Cristofaro alleged Friday that the NLDC has not met its obligation, outlined in the settlement agreement, to transplant shrubs at 53 Goshen St. to another location and said the demolition equipment had damaged some of the plants. His brother is awaiting a response to complaints made to the governor's office, he said.

NLDC President Michael Joplin said the state arborist visited Fort Trumbull months ago and found that the shrubs are “post-mature” and cannot successfully be moved. In lieu of moving the plants, an agreement had been reached to provide the Cristofaro family with a $10,000 credit toward new shrubs, Joplin said.

 



Demolition of Homes Underway in Fort Trumbull 
DAY
By Jennifer Grogan  
Published on 3/1/2007
   
New London - A contractor hired by the New London Development Corp. on Wednesday razed a Fort Trumbull property formerly owned by Richard Beyer, a plaintiff in the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain lawsuit. Clean-up on the property continued today.

It took between three and four hours to demolish the 21/2-half story house with tan siding at 41 Goshen St. on Wednesday afternoon, said Joe Balavender, a demolition contractor from Salecon LLC in Salem.

“There hasn't been anything done here in awhile,” Balavender said in reference to the neighborhood. “This battle has been a long one.”

Balavender returned early this morning with a construction worker to clean up the debris and clear some of the foundation. He plans to get the hole inspected Friday, fill it in and compact it. He has an $11,500 contract for the work.



NLDC Ready To Start Work On Fort Property;  Smith Street resident is given extra time to move out of home
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 12/9/2006
 
New London — The New London Development Corp. is preparing to undertake substantial work on Parcel 3C at Fort Trumbull in 2007, Fort Trumbull Project Manager John Brooks reported Friday to the Executive Committee of the NLDC Board of Directors.

This winter, contractors will demolish properties at 41, 49 and 53 Goshen St. and at 54 and 78 Smith St. after asbestos is removed, Brooks said. The NLDC already has demolition permits for the properties. In mid-2007, a stockpile of soil will be graded on the parcel, and work on Chelsea and Walbach Streets will be completed, he said.

Byron Athenian, son of Kelo v. City of New London plaintiff Thelma Brelesky, has been given an extended deadline of mid-January to leave 78 Smith St. as he is actively seeking housing, said NLDC President Michael Joplin. Brelesky and Athenian originally agreed in a June 2 contract with the city to turn over the property by Sept. 1.

Brelesky and Athenian will receive funds being held in escrow — including $88,000 for the fair market value of the house when it was taken by eminent domain in 2000, $86,652 in settlement funds and $15,000 in relocation funds — when Athenian vacates the property, Joplin said.

Parcel 3C includes 4.6 acres planned for office or research and development uses, Brooks said.

On Parcel 3A, lease negotiations are under way between the U.S. General Services Administration and developer Corcoran Jennison over space in Building 2 that the U.S. Coast Guard wants for its Research & Development Center, Joplin said Friday.

The Coast Guard has committed to relocating the center from the Avery Point campus of the University of Connecticut to the Fort Trumbull peninsula but has not yet formally committed to any specific site. Corcoran Jennison has been seeking tenants for Building 2, which it began rehabilitating and paying taxes on in February.

An environmental assessment required for Parcel 1A, site of the future National Coast Guard Museum, is expected to be completed by late April, Joplin said. That study is required before the National Coast Guard Museum Association can take action, such as fund-raising, on behalf of the Coast Guard, Joplin said.

Groundbreaking on Corcoran Jennison's planned rental housing at Fort Trumbull, including apartments, townhouses and extended-stay hotel suites on parcels 2A, 2B and 2C, is expected in June or July 2007, Joplin said.

Other Fort Trumbull priorities for 2007 include working with fishermen now based at the commercial fishing pier on the peninsula to relocate to a new site so that the Coast Guard barque Eagle can be moored at Fort Trumbull, and making progress on the hotel project planned by Corcoran Jennison for Parcel 1B, Joplin said. “We need measurable progress,” he said of the coming year.  



Fort Trumbull Saga Ends On Costly Note;  City, state pay more than $4.1 million to settle with area's last six occupants
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 8/23/2006

New London — City and state officials have agreed to pay more than $4.1 million to the last six occupants of the Fort Trumbull peninsula and waive almost $1.2 million in fees, as compensation for the seizure of homes and businesses for the city's long-delayed redevelopment effort.

In the settlement agreements, which were reached in May and June but only released Tuesday after a vote of the City Council, negotiators for the state, the city and the New London Development Corp. agreed to pay more than $2.3 million more for the remaining 12 properties than their total appraised value in 2000, when the NLDC, acting as the city's agent, first seized them through eminent domain.

The payments include the original appraised values of the properties along with relocation expenses, and the additional funds offered to entice the plaintiffs to settle. The city is also waiving so-called “use and occupancy” fees, which the city and the NLDC argue are owed them by the occupants, since they have not legally owned the properties since they were condemned.

The $2.3 million infusion of additional funds — like most of the money expended over the course of the eight-year, $73 million project — came from the state Department of Economic and Community Development, which has largely underwritten the attempt to transform the peninsula from a neighborhood of modest homes, apartments and businesses into a complex centered on a hotel, office space, luxury housing and a museum for the U.S. Coast Guard.

Caught between that vision and the neighborhood's reality for nearly six years were the six property owners who contested the city's and the agency's right to seize their homes and businesses: Susette Kelo, Pasquale Cristofaro, Charles Dery, William Von Winkle, Thelma Brelesky and Richard Beyer, the owner of a business, Pataya Construction.

The property owners fought the city all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before losing last year, only to be buoyed by a wave of public opposition to the court's defense of eminent domain takings. In the year that elapsed after the June 2005 decision, the victors — the city, the NLDC, and the state — had attempted to negotiate a middle ground between what city officials saw as their legal win and the plaintiffs' public relations victory, trying to reach a deal with each of the holdouts that would persuade them to surrender their former properties on the peninsula without the messy struggle of eviction.

•••••

“We wanted to get out,” NLDC President Michael Joplin said Tuesday, describing the negotiators' mindset as they tried to reach the settlements. “We wanted to end this matter right now so we could get on with economic development.”

Ending that matter cost the NLDC, and the state, millions more than had been planned.

The largest settlement payment was to plaintiff William Von Winkle, who owned apartment houses at 27, 31 and 35 Smith St. initially appraised at $638,000. Von Winkle will now be paid $1.5 million for those properties, plus another $300,000 for a building at 216 Howard St., which stood just outside the project boundaries and had never been seized via eminent domain.

Von Winkle's agreement also forgave what the NLDC calculates as roughly $482,000 in occupancy fees, in part because of rental payments Von Winkle has collected since 2000, when he legally ceased to own the properties. Any rent collected between July 15 and Sept. 1, when Von Winkle is required to depart his property, must be paid to the city.

Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the court case, and one who was rendered an icon by national opponents of eminent domain, accepted an offer totaling $442,155 for her little pink house at 8 East St., more than $319,000 above the appraised value in 2000.

Kelo's agreement will permit her to move her house off of its current lot to another location, and gives her until June 15, 2007, to do so, or else vacate the premises. Kelo also was permitted to forgo roughly $85,000 in use and occupancy fees as calculated by the NLDC.

City officials said the amount to be paid for Kelo's house was based on the estimated cost of moving it, though no location has been specified or purchased.

Pasquale Cristofaro and his family — who, with Kelo, were some of the most outspoken opponents of the project and the last to settle — will receive $475,000, including relocation costs, for their house at 53 Goshen St. It was appraised at $150,000 in 2000. The city forgave $105,000 in use and occupancy fees.

The Cristofaros also retain the right to salvage fixtures and property from the house, will have shrubs from the grounds transplanted to their residences at no cost, and will be reimbursed for real estate taxes paid since the date of the taking in 2000. The NLDC also agreed to install a plaque in the finished development in memory of the late matriarch of the family, Margherita Cristofaro, and to issue a statement on behalf of the agency and the city: “We regret any hardship suffered during the course of this case. We understand that the battle was a principled one.”

City and agency officials, the settlements public at last, said they were confident that plaintiffs had been well-served in the negotiations.

“I think everyone is aware,” said Joplin, “that if this was a poker game, they maxed out their hand.”

“Everybody was dealt with in as fair and as equitable a way as possible,” said Ronald Angelo, the deputy commissioner of the DECD, which provided a last-minute infusion of state funds that helped seal final settlements with Von Winkle, Cristofaro and Kelo.

The NLDC had already received word that it could spend an existing pool of state funds — variously estimated at around $1.4 million — as enticements for plaintiffs to settle, but eventually used roughly $900,000 more than that, according to those involved in the negotiations.

•••••

Those on the other side were nowhere near as satisfied with the results, even after the settlements had been reached.

Von Winkle, an often acerbic presence throughout the Fort Trumbull fight, has not warmed to the city despite signing the settlement in early June.

“My property was stolen from me,” he said Tuesday, adding that he thought he had received about half of what his property was worth. “I sat at the table and negotiated with these people. They had weapons, they had guns. And I had nothing.”

Kelo struck a similar tone Tuesday: “First and foremost, my home was not for sale,” she said. “It was never for sale. They stole our properties from us.”

The manner of the settlements has also sowed discord among some of the plaintiffs, particularly those who settled first, thinking there would be only about $1.4 million in state money to divide among the six holdouts. The total amount added to sweeten the pot was increased to an eventual $2.3 million only after some of the former property owners had settled with the NLDC.

“They rewarded them for holding out further,” said Byron Athenian, who signed a settlement along with his mother, Thelma Brelesky, on June 2, for a little less than $190,000. Their property had been appraised at $88,000, the lowest of any of the remaining properties.

“The other people that held out right to the end and made that kind of money is ridiculous, and I'm sure my mother is not going to be happy when she reads that in the paper,” Athenian said.

Asked why he had agreed to settle, he replied, “If everyone's getting a proportion of 1.4 (million), I didn't know it was going to be 2.3. I'm not retarded. I stick around, I pick up another eighty or a hundred thousand. I can buy another house.”

It was still unclear Tuesday, since the settlements had been held secret, whether the city's residents would agree with Athenian, or with Joplin, who said he wished the agency could have spent less to resolve the cases.

Scott Sawyer, an attorney for several of the plaintiffs, said he hoped the details of the financial settlements wouldn't spark a backlash from city residents.

“Public opinion should just respect the fact that these people have gone through an absolutely awful event in their lives that they didn't choose to participate in,” he said.

Joplin, meanwhile, wanted to focus on the benefits the NLDC hopes will spring from the redeveloped peninsula, which he said “will dwarf the financial aspects of the settlement.”

“I think we have to go a long way to heal the psychological costs that we had to pay,” he said. “But can we make it a financial success? No doubt about it.”

 


City Releases Fort Trumbull Settlements ;  State kicked in an additional $2.3 million
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 8/22/2006
 
New London — The state kicked in a total of roughly $2.3 million to reach settlement agreements with the final six holdouts in the redevelopment area on the city's Fort Trumbull peninsula.

That amount is in addition to more than $1.72 million that had been held in escrow for the six property owners since their homes and businesses were condemned by the New London Development Corp. in 2000.

The city released the settlement agreements this morning, following a vote by the City Council to make details of the settlements public. The last two settlements, with former property owners Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro, were reached June 30.

The NLDC also calculated that it had forgiven nearly $1.2 million in “use and occupancy” fees that it said were owed to the city by the occupants, who fought the takings of their properties for more than five years, finally losing in the U. S. Supreme Court, which ruled for the city in the case of Kelo v. New London last summer.

The NLDC released a breakdown of the settlement payments along with the contracts.

The largest single outlay will go to plaintiff William Von Winkle, who owned buildings at 27, 31, and 35 Smith St. Von Winkle will receive $638,000 for the market value of his properties in 2000, the year of the taking, and $862,001 in settlement payments, for a cash total of $1.5 million. The NLDC also forgave more than $480,000 in use and occupancy fees, and purchased an additional building from Von Winkle for $300,000.

Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the case, and one who was rendered an icon by national opponents of eminent domain, accepted an offer of $319,155, over and above the $123,000 to which she was already entitled. The NLDC and the city agreed to forgive use and occupancy fees estimated at more than $85,000 for Kelo.

Other settlements, including the use and occupancy payments as calculated by the NLDC:

Plaintiff Charles Dery and his family will receive a total of $980,000 for their four properties, including $506,000 already deposited in escrow and an additional $444,000 in settlement funds. The city agreed to forgive $370,975 in use and occupancy fees.

Pataya Construction Inc. and owner Richard Beyer received $515,000, including $216,000 already deposited in escrow and an additional $284,000. The city also forgave an estimated $101,250 in use and occupancy fees.

Pasquale Cristofaro will receive $475,000, including $150,000 deposited in escrow and additional funds of $310,000. The city forgave $105,000 in use and occupancy fees.

Thelma Brelesky will receive $189,652, including $88,000 deposited in escrow and an additional $86,652. The city will forgive $40,537 in use and occupancy fees.

The city has not yet taken possession of most of the properties.

Cristofaro, Brelesky and Von Winkle agreed to departure dates of Sept. 1, with Von Winkle agreeing to pay all incoming rents for his apartment properties to the city, as of last July 15.

Cristofaro's family was relieved of water and sewer fees due since July 2005, and received the right to acquire a housing unit when the proposed development is built in the neighborhood.

The Dery family agreed to a departure date of Oct. 1, while Pataya Construction vacated its former property on June 1.

Kelo, the lead plaintiff, has until June 15, 2007, to leave her house on East Street, at which point she would be permitted to move it to another lot at her own expense.

 


Residents, State, City Settle
DAY editorial
Published on 7/2/2006
 
Now that the state and city have resolved the land disputes in Fort Trumbull, both levels of government should look ahead to avoid such direct confrontations in the future. The state should work on a statute that makes sure government allows the public to vote at referendum on any eminent domain proposal. And local governments should be determined to involve the public in the planning of projects at the outset and to allow room for revising plans if better ideas arise in the public discussions.

This is called flexibility, and government generally is not good at it. But in the agreement worked out over the past several months, both the state and New London demonstrated that they can react with intelligence and compassion when circumstances call for such qualities. The remaining property owners also showed that they would not let the enmity of the court case incapacitate them in seeking a fair settlement.

The settlement Friday with Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro family is the best possible result for all concerned under the circumstances. No matter what one thinks of the propriety of eminent domain, the highest court in the land had issued its conclusion favoring New London and it was time to move on. The negotiations leading to the settlement were long, deliberative and conducted with respect for one another by all parties.

No one in the city took this issue lightly. The proof was the conscientious and patient manner in which state and city officials labored over many months to achieve a settlement that was as fair as possible under the circumstances. Gov. M. Jodi Rell sought to make the painful transition for property owners considerate and decent. She assigned a negotiator to work with both sides, she urged that the city not force out the owners and she insisted on making sure that the property owners' concerns received the attention of the New London Development Corp. and the city.

The process of finding Ms. Kelo and the Cristofaro family suitable options required a determination and comprehensiveness rarely seen after such parties lose a lawsuit. The argument no longer could be about what happened in New London. Rather, it was to determine how to proceed to make the most favorable outcome and protect the property owners' interests in finding the best deal under the circumstances.

Gov. Rell addressed part of that issue by making available additional state funds. Just as she prodded the city to cooperate, so also did she show determination in setting deadlines. She set a deadline of June 23 for reaching a tentative settlement. That was achieved. She then set a deadline of June 30 for a final settlement agreement. Otherwise, she might have withdrawn state funds as the fiscal year was closing.

The efforts of many people made this settlement possible. Deputy Commissioner Ronald Angelo of the state Department of Economic and Community Development, Mayor Beth Sabilia, President Michael Joplin of the NLDC, attorneys Scott Bullock for the Institute for Justice and Thomas J. Londregan for the city, and, most especially, Susette Kelo and Michael Cristofaro.

To be sure, the taking of land in Fort Trumbull was far short of the city's finest hour. The extended court suit and the bitter feelings that erupted — not just among property owners but also among many citizens — do not lend themselves to a sense of community well-being. They were divisive and damaging to a city that desperately needs all the help it can get in solving a variety of urban problems.

New London now has an opportunity to make an attractive business and residential area in Fort Trumbull and to connect the Fort to a bustling Bank Street that is attracting new investment. The lessons of the Fort Trumbull litigation, meantime, should serve as a serious frame of reference for the city and for the state.

People's property rights are serious business and they deserve the sober consideration of government officials who would mess with them.


Settlements End Battle Of Fort Trumbull;  Last Eminent Domain Plaintiffs Agree To Leave The Peninsula
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 7/1/2006

New London — The city reached settlement agreements Friday with Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro, bringing closure to a legal fight of more than five years over the use of eminent domain at Fort Trumbull by the New London Development Corp.

Kelo and Cristofaro were the final two of seven original plaintiffs in the eminent domain case Kelo v. City of New London, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the city last year, to sign agreements with the city. They will receive undisclosed financial settlements in exchange for leaving the Fort Trumbull peninsula without further litigation.

Friday's agreements, signed separately by the plaintiffs in the afternoon, also acknowledge the attachment Kelo and Cristofaro have to Fort Trumbull. Kelo will have the option of remaining at her pink cottage at 8 East St., for approximately one year, giving her time to have it moved off the peninsula to another location at her expense if she so chooses.

“I am not happy about giving up my property, but I am very glad that my home, which means so much to me, will not be demolished, and I will remain living in it,” Kelo said in a prepared statement. “I will be able to continue living in the home ... with a real title to my property. Also, I will once again live in a neighborhood rather than a demolition zone.”

Kelo has not yet determined a new location for her home, said Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock, but it may be moved on or near Pequot Avenue, the street on which it originally stood before being moved in the 1890s to Fort Trumbull.

The agreement Cristofaro signed provides for the city to save and relocate the shrubs growing at his former house at 53 Goshen St., his second to be taken by the city through eminent domain.

Cristofaro emigrated from Italy in 1962, said his son, Michael Cristofaro, and he purchased a house on Woodbridge Street shortly thereafter. The city seized that house in the 1970s for a protective sea wall, never built, and Cristofaro used the money to purchase the house at 53 Goshen St.

By wheelbarrow or shopping carriage, Cristofaro transported his shrubs from his first home to his second, where he replanted them, Michael Cristofaro said.

The Cristofaro family will not move the house at 53 Goshen St., which had been in the family for almost 30 years when it was taken in 2000 and — though no Cristofaro lives there now — has been occupied over the years by several generations of the family.

“It's a bittersweet day. That's the only way I can say it. It was very hard to sign those papers today and see that house destroyed,” Michael Cristofaro said.

“There should have been a way to let anyone who wanted to stay at Fort Trumbull remain,” he said. With the efforts of Gov. M. Jodi Rell and state Department of Economic and Community Development Deputy Commissioner Ronald Angelo, Michael Cristofaro said, “we are able to keep a part of Fort Trumbull with us.”

The Cristofaro settlement agreement gives the family an option to purchase an owner-occupied house at Fort Trumbull should any be built there as part of the peninsula's redevelopment, Michael Cristofaro said.

No such housing is yet planned, and the option would not apply to the rental apartments and townhouses currently proposed by Corcoran Jennison for former Naval Undersea Warfare Center property, said NLDC President Michael Joplin. Neither is the NLDC adverse to such housing, which could be initiated by a private developer or by the NLDC itself but would require amending the Municipal Development Plan, he said.

“We wanted a deed for a deed. Unfortunately they could not give us a deed for a house that wasn't built yet,” Michael Cristofaro said. The family also requested a commitment from the city not to use eminent domain on any future Cristofaro house at Fort Trumbull, but the agreement did not include such a provision because it could not be enforced, he said.

“It is terrible that the city refused to allow them to keep their homes in Fort Trumbull. That position is indefensible. This agreement in no way takes away from that,” Bullock said. “We thank Gov. Rell for stepping in and restoring respect and dignity to the homeowners. It gives the homeowners, while short of what they ideally wanted — to keep their homes in Fort Trumbull — still something that is very meaningful.”

The city has not yet signed the settlement agreements, which must be ratified by the City Council at its July 10 meeting.

•••••

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on June 23, 2005, upholding the city's use of eminent domain, settled the legal question surrounding the Fort Trumbull takings, when five of the court's nine justices found the pursuit of economic development by a city to improve its economic circumstances an acceptable public use to justify eminent domain.

But last year's decision did not resolve the fight over the properties, which remained in possession of the plaintiffs — until they reached individual agreements with the city — though the city has technically owned the properties since the takings in November 2000.

That fight ended Friday.

“I still can't believe it,” said Mayor Beth A. Sabilia.

“The fight has been a principled one by both the plaintiffs and the city. We certainly regret the hardships that everyone had to go through during the litigation,” Sabilia said. “The whole goal behind the implementation of the Municipal Development Plan was to try to better the quality of life for everyone in the city.”

Now that project, which will bring office space, luxury rental housing, a hotel and the National Coast Guard Museum to the peninsula as well as a nearly finished river walk for public access, can continue unimpeded by litigation.

“It goes beyond significance,” Angelo said. “This project has taken so long. There has been such a tremendous amount of state investment. Today is so important. It allows us to move forward in a positive way.”

Angelo called the project “very important” for the city and the region. “The jobs that can come here and the types of jobs that could come here can be vital to the region,” he said.

The city continued negotiations rather than resorting to evictions after the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sabilia said, “because it was the right thing to do.”

“We've been trying to settle this thing since it went to Superior Court,” Joplin said.

That became feasible, he said, with Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's finding in March that state money could be used for settlements and with Gov. Rell's commitment of state financial and staff resources.

Rell issued a statement Friday praising the settlements. “Now these families can have some closure, and the Fort Trumbull economic development project will go forward without delay, infusing new jobs and vitality into the region,” Rell said.

The governor also called for eminent domain reform: “We must now focus our efforts on joining with the other 25 states in the nation that have passed eminent domain reform legislation to protect our citizens from expanded, unnecessary property seizure.”

•••••

The seven plaintiffs in Kelo v. City of New London owned 15 of the roughly 100 houses within the boundaries of the city's Municipal Development Plan for the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

Plaintiffs Laura and James Guretsky became the first of the seven to reach a settlement with the city, for properties at 19, 21 and 23 Smith St. Because the Guretskys were in bankruptcy at the time of the eminent domain seizures, the NLDC never took their properties. In an agreement reached last October, the NLDC purchased the properties for $310,000 and paid moving and other expenses totaling $25,000.

The other six plaintiffs have reached financial settlements with the city for giving up claim to their former properties without further litigation. To date the city has refused to disclose the amounts, citing agreements with the plaintiffs not to do so, and The Day has appealed the city's denial to the Freedom of Information Commission.

Plaintiffs Charles Dery and Thelma Brelesky reached settlements with the city on May 31. Dery formerly owned 79, 81-83 and 87 Walbach St. and 28 East St.

His late wife, plaintiff Wilhelmina Ciavaglia Dery, died in March at age 88 in the same house at 87 Walbach St. where she was born in 1918 and where the family ran Ciavaglia's Market until 1995. Dery's son, Matthew Dery, lives with his family at 28 East St., and members of the family have lived at Fort Trumbull since 1895.

Brelesky, of Waterford, is the former owner of 78 Smith St., where her son, Byron Athenian, lives.

On June 2 plaintiff Richard Beyer, manager of Niantic-based Pataya Construction Limited Partnership, reached a settlement with the city for his former investment properties at 41 and 49 Goshen St.

Three days later plaintiff and Fort Trumbull resident William Von Winkle settled with the city for his properties at 27, 31 and 35 Smith St., which contain 11 apartments. The city also agreed to buy Von Winkle's commercial property at 216 Howard St., never taken by eminent domain, for an undisclosed sum.




Kelo's pink house to be relocated
DAY
Published on 6/30/2006

New London -- Susette Kelo’s little pink cottage, the home that was the subject of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case and a national symbol of the fight over eminent domain, will be spared from the wrecking ball.  In a compromise between Kelo and  New London, the home will be saved and moved to another location, perhaps close to where it originally stood over a century ago, near Pequot Avenue.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled a year ago in Kelo v. New London that the city has a right to take the Kelo property and other homes to encourage economic development. The ruling sparked a national debate over the use of eminent domain for private development.
 
“It is wonderful that Susette Kelo’s little pink house, which is a national symbol of the fight against eminent domain abuse, will remain standing,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, which continues to represent the remaining two homeowners.  “The home will continue to serve as a tribute to her brave struggle and as a powerful symbol of the fight to stop land grabs by cities and their developer allies.”

“I am not happy about giving up my property, but I am very glad that my home, which means so much to me, will not be demolished and I will remain living in it,” said Kelo, the lead plaintiff in Kelo v. New London.  “I proposed this as a compromise years ago and was turned down flat.”

The city and the remaining homeowners had been at an impasse.  The city gave them a May 31 deadline for accepting a settlement or face eviction.  Two of the homeowners, Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro family, refused.  Gov. M. Jodi Rell proposed moving the homes and giving real titles back to the homeowners in Fort Trumbull, but the city rejected the suggestion.

Faced with eviction and the destruction of her beloved home, Kelo put forward an idea that she had originally proposed when first threatened with eminent domain abuse:  preserving the home and moving it.

Fewer details were avaiable concerning the Cristofaro settlement. The Cristofaros will lose their current home, but under the agreement, the city has agreed to support an application for more housing in Fort Trumbull, and the Cristofaro family has an exclusive right to purchase one of the homes at a fixed price.

Details of the settlement were provided by the Institute for Justice this afternoon.


Working Toward A Solution;  Agreement in principle at Fort Trumbull resulted from reasonable compromise.
Day editorial
Published on 6/24/2006
 
The agreement in principle reached with the two remaining property owners Friday is a reasonable and fair accommodation that will serve the public good in the Fort Trumbull section of New London. It will enhance the city's ability to provide tax and other benefits to the community if some remaining points can be negotiated in the next week.

This truly happened on the 11th hour and Gov. M. Jodi Rell was right to extend a deadline for reaching compromise. The governor understood the importance to the community.

Community is the key word, for the personal property rights of the Fort Trumbull residents were a critical factor, but not the only one. The city had a plan for this industrial zone that it believed would upgrade the area, improve the city tax base and make a stronger community. Both are still works in progress, but now the national Coast Guard Museum will move forward, a hotel will be built and more than 60 new housing units will be constructed on property not directly affected by the negotiations with Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro family.

There is an attractive new state park in the neighborhood along the Thames River. The sewage treatment plant, long an unpleasant blight on that section of New London, has been improved and the sickening odors it once emanated are largely gone.

Ms. Kelo and the Cristofaros deserve credit for their sense of the public benefit that could result. So does Gov. Rell who appointed a negotiator and made additional compensation money available. The negotiator, Robert Albright, worked skillfully in finding compromises that were acceptable to the aggrieved parties. Mayor Beth Sabilia pressed both the state and the property owners to find a solution and assisted immensely in the negotiations. Michael Joplin, leader of the New London Development Corp., showed persistence and patience in helping to resolve the impasse. The Institute for Justice, which had argued the case in the Supreme Court, was an important participant, too.

The city won the Supreme Court case. New London did what it legally could do under the state statutes governing eminent domain. But the city also should have learned two important lessons. In future projects, it ought to put such proposals to a referendum of all the voters. It also should be receptive to compromise at the outset, so that good ideas from the citizens can be used in the plan. The city and state do not have a monopoly on wisdom.

Finally, another word about Ms. Kelo. Her choice is not easy, for she had become a national symbol of the rights of any citizen when the government comes knocking to invoke eminent domain. She fought a principled battle to assert her personal property rights, a process made into tribulation by the spotlight cast upon her by coverage from the national media and the reaction of property rights groups across the country.

She has been under a great deal of pressure and she has shown character in her comportment.

Now, the best that can happen is that the bitterness and enmity that have characterized this fight will end. Perhaps Ms. Kelo's and the Cristofaro family's decisions will aid that process.

We hope so. The future at Fort Trumbull can be a credit to New London and to people such as Susette Kelo, who never wavered in stating her case.
 


Petition Asks City To Forgo Seizure Of Last Two Properties;  Fort Trumbull group presents 586 signatures to City Council
DAY
By Julie Wernau
Published on 6/20/2006         
 
New London –– The Coalition to Save the Fort Trumbull Neighborhood presented a petition to the city Monday, demanding that the City Council rescind its June 5 decision to take possession of the properties of Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro family or put it to a referendum.

Addressing the council Monday night, Michael Cristofaro, who signed and helped circulate the petition along with a dozen others, reiterated his position, saying he would protect his family's home against an eminent domain takeover regardless of the price the city offered for the property.

“My family will continue to fight the abuse of eminent domain in this city until all property owners' rights are protected,” he said. “No matter what the outcome of Fort Trumbull is, we won. This city will never use eminent domain against its citizens like they have in Fort Trumbull.”

Kelo also signed the petition, which contained 586 signatures, more than 200 more than the number required to call a referendum. The move comes days before Thursday's latest state-imposed deadline for the city to reach an agreement with the remaining plaintiffs in Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of the city and the New London Development Corp., which took Fort Trumbull properties by eminent domain.

City Law Director Thomas Londregan said Monday night that the signatures on the petition will need to be verified by the city clerk in time for the council's July 3 meeting. If sufficient signatures are verified, he said, he will then decide whether the petition meets the legal requirements for calling a referendum.

Londregan said late Monday night that he had not yet seen the petition and could not comment on its legality.

Neild B. Oldham, co-chairman of the Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull, said the coalition is ready to take the city to court if Londregan rules against holding a referendum.

“I'm apprehensive that attorney Londregan will say it's not legal,” Oldham said. “ ... If the city attorney plays games with us, we are prepared to take it to the court.”

Coalition member Richard L. Humphreville accused Londregan of setting policy for the city and said he expects that the city law director will “find some sort of a way to declare it (the petition) not valid.”

The city and state have said they are in negotiations with Kelo and Cristofaro, something Councilor Charles Frink called “financial terrorism.”

“The heroes are Mr. Cristofaro and Ms. Kelo,” Frink said. “And if they do not capitulate ... in the latest moving deadline, they will be heroes 10 times over.”

Former council member Bill Morse asked the council to reconsider developer Corcoran Jennison's plans for Fort Trumbull, saying that the hotel and apartments planned for the neighborhood's revitalization lacked the originality and appeal needed to bring money to New London.

The council was in executive session late Monday night.

 


Make The Terms Public:  New London violates FOI Act in keeping secret terms of Fort Trumbull settlements.
Day editorial
Published on 6/13/2006
 
The city, the City Council and the New London Development Corp. have chosen to flout the state Freedom of Information law by keeping secret the settlement terms with four Fort Trumbull tenants. So, apparently, has Gov. M. Jodi Rell's office.
The reason is obvious. The city doesn't want other tenants who have not settled to know the exact details of the agreements with those who have come to terms. So, to justify its ends, it has given a creative interpretation to the state FOI law.

City Attorney Thomas J. Londregan argues that the terms should be kept secret because they amount to “pending litigation,” an exemption from the FOI law under the state statute. He bases that opinion on the fact that the four plaintiffs have not yet withdrawn their legal appeals of the assessments of their properties.

But Colleen Murphy, executive director of the state Freedom of Information Commission, disagrees. The facts suggest she's right.

If the plaintiffs have agreed to the city's terms for settling the property disputes, it's clear they will withdraw the litigation, whether a fait accompli or not. The city isn't going to meet the terms of the settlements until the four do exactly that.

So attorney Londregan is stretching a point to try to get his arms around an FOI exemption that is made moot by the fact that the parties have agreed to settle.

Gov. Rell's office, which is anxious to move the Fort Trumbull project along and make political points with both sides — the city and the plaintiffs who settle and their supporters — takes a cop-out by saying the legal documents regarding the settlement are not yet in the hands of mediator Robert Albright.

The governor, should she want to follow state law, could be telling New London to make the settlement terms public. She has a precedent. Former Gov. John G. Rowland told the NLDC that no more state money would be forthcoming unless the agency made public information that was clearly public record under the FOI law. The NLDC then complied after first seeking a lawsuit to keep information secret.

It's true that the city and the Fort tenants are in tenuous negotiations now to move the project forward and settle the claims. But New London officials still have an obligation to follow state law, as do other municipalities and state agencies.

The city is trying to be practical to protect its negotiating options, but it is also disobeying state law. A push from Gov. Rell's office would be in order, but, unfortunately, that does not seem to be forthcoming.

Gov. Rell Still Trying To Forge A Settlement In Fort Trumbull
DAY
By Associated Press
Published on 6/8/2006
 
Hartford (AP) — Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Wednesday she's not giving up on brokering a possible settlement with two remaining New London homeowners from the Fort Trumbull neighborhood who have refused to vacate their homes.
Her comments come days after the City Council voted to begin eviction proceedings against the residents, Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro, whose properties are being taken by eminent domain for a riverfront redevelopment project.

Rell said she has asked Bob Albright, a mediator with state Department of Economic and Community Development, to continue the negotiations.

“I have asked Mr. Albright to work throughout the day and late into the night to try to reach a settlement with those two homeowners,” Rell said. “If that is not feasible, hopefully the City Council will come back and take my suggestion once again and perhaps go in that direction. But right now we continue negotiations.”

Rell has suggested the city move the remaining houses to one location on the Fort Trumbull peninsula, and allow the homeowners to retain deeds to the properties. The City Council rejected that idea.

“The city has trouble with the deed restriction. I think that is a stumbling block, but I don't think it's one that we cannot overcome,” Rell said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June that the city's development arm, the New London Development Corp., could take homes for the project by eminent domain, a decision that ignited debate across the country.

But the court also said states were free to change their eminent domain laws.

The New London project calls for razing the homes to allow a private developer to build luxury condominiums, a hotel and office space.


City Votes To Proceed With Property Seizures;  Another Resident of Fort Trumbull settles; Two Remain
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 6/6/2006

New London — And then there were two.

The City Council voted late Monday night to proceed with efforts to take possession of the former properties of two remaining plaintiffs in the Fort Trumbull eminent domain case.

The vote came just hours after William Von Winkle, one of seven original plaintiffs in Kelo v. City of New London, the case the U.S. Supreme Court decided last June, reached a financial settlement with the city.

Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro remain.

The motion, which instructed city Law Director Thomas Londregan “to proceed with the process to obtain possession of the properties,” also instructed him to “obtain past due taxes and rents collected from third parties and/or reasonable use and occupancy fees.”

Mayor Beth A. Sabilia, Deputy Mayor Jane Glover and Councilors Rob Pero, Kevin J. Cavanagh and Margaret M. Curtin voted in favor of the motion. Councilors William Cornish and Charles W. Frink opposed it.

“It is my strong belief that the previous City Council and this City Council have been exceedingly fair and forthright in seeking accommodations in order to move the Municipal Development Plan for Fort Trumbull forward,” Cavanagh, who made the motion, said. “We have made our intentions known, set a deadline which has expired and this is the next step that needs to take place.”

“In my own mind, in my own heart, I have a lot of difficulty doing what we're doing,” Pero said. “But ultimately, down the road, I think we're doing what's best for New London.”

Pero defended the Municipal Development Plan, which has been reviewed by numerous state agencies and upheld by the courts.

“This plan has seen more scrutiny than I think any plan anywhere has ever seen,” he said.

Frink, who called the motion “morally abhorrent,” called on the other councilors to change their minds.

“If throwing our neighbors out of their houses is immoral, and I think it's the bottom of the pit of public morality, and throwing them out of their houses with no money is unreasonable, why are these people sticking to their position?” he said. “On this issue they are stuck, and it's a mystery.”

The vote ignored the recommendation last week of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who recommended that the council allow those plaintiffs who decline settlements to be relocated together onto a portion of the parcel known as 4A and be given titles to their homes at their new locations.

The deeds would be transferable but would carry restrictions giving the city the first opportunity to buy the properties at fair market value if their owners wished to transfer or sell them to anyone other than immediate family.  The council voted in February to allow lifetime tenancy on Parcel 4A without returning transferable deeds.

“How come we can't give a little more?” Cornish said.  The council's vote, witnessed by an audience overflowing into the hallways and by at least seven video cameras, was preceded by two hours of public comment.  Michael Cristofaro and his brother, Franco Cristofaro, sons of Pasquale Cristofaro, said their family will not settle with the city for the second property it has seized from them by eminent domain.

“If you want to see an 81-year-old man who loves this country and has never been arrested be handcuffed and hauled away along with every member of the Cristofaro family, continue along the path you are going. We won't be leaving,” Michael Cristofaro said.

“We are not going to give up. We will stand our ground,” Franco Cristofaro said. “You are here of the people, by the people and for the people. We are the people. Do your job.”

Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the suit against the city that the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 against the plaintiffs last year, spoke quietly before the vote from the hallway.

“I really want the best for all my neighbors. The fact they settled, I'm very grateful for all of them for standing by me,” Kelo said.

“Eminent domain is wrong. It was wrong seven or eight years ago when they started this, and it's still wrong today,” she said.  Asked about her next step, Kelo said she didn't know what the council, then in executive session, was going to do.

“I'm assuming I'm going to have to get some boxes, if things keep going the way they're going,” Kelo said.

“Do the right thing, the ethically right thing. Go beyond the law, give back the deeds,” Sandra Beachy, a city resident, said.

She was one of 18 people from around the state who spoke in favor of Rell's proposal and in support of the former property owners at Fort Trumbull during the public comment portion of the meeting. Three said they supported the city's Fort Trumbull redevelopment plan.

“I am here tonight to give vocal support to those councilors who have been working so hard to find a resolution,” said Margo Bernier of Ocean Avenue. “Once the Supreme Court made its decision, we considered it an accomplished fact, a done deal. The highest court in the land made its decision, and whether one agreed with it or not, it was time to move on.”

“Some of us have waited many years for New London to turn a corner,” Bernier said. “That opportunity is here. We don't want to lose it.”

“It's time for New London to take the land, take the rent, take the taxes and get economic development going,” said Audrey Merrill.

Word of a financial settlement with Von Winkle came minutes before the start of the council meeting.

NLDC President Michael Joplin declined to reveal the settlement amount, as he has with settlements last week between the city and plaintiffs Charles Dery, Thelma Brelesky and Richard Beyer's Pataya Construction Limited Partnership. Laura and James Guretsky settled with the city last fall.

Von Winkle's settlement includes all three houses he formerly owned at Fort Trumbull, Joplin said. In addition, the city purchased 216 Howard St., a property owned by Von Winkle and approved earlier this year by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a used car dealership.




Institute for Justice Letter to Gov. Rell.
By theday.com 
Published on 6/5/2006
 
The Institute for Justice sent this letter to Gov. M. Jodi Rell today on the ongoing eminent domain dispute in the Fort Trumbull area of New London.

Dear Governor Rell:

On behalf of the remaining Fort Trumbull residents, I write to thank you for your statement on Friday supporting returning deeds to familial residences in the area. All Susette Kelo and her neighbors wish is to own their homes, to be good neighbors to the new occupants and businesses in this neighborhood, and, if they choose, to pass these homes down to other family members.

Your proposal now makes this a very realistic possibility. The remaining residents of Fort Trumbull and a vast majority of the public support your leadership in finding a way out of this ongoing crisis. It is our hope that the City Council approves your proposal this evening so that years of litigation, controversy, and national scorn for the City of New London can finally come to an end.

It was distressing to see New London Mayor Elizabeth Sabilia's June 2, 2006 return letter to you, where she claims that returning the deeds to the Fort Trumbull folks beyond a "lifetime occupancy" would violate the Municipal Development Plan (MDP), New London's zoning regulations, and the State of Connecticut's "financial endorsements" of the plan. This is simply not the case. As the trial in the Ke/o case demonstrated, there is very broad discretion in determining what is a "substantial" or "minor" change to the MDP. Indeed, the New London Development Corporation (NDLC) decides whether something is a substantial change, subject to agreement by the DECD. Obviously, it is within the power of the City and NLDC to simply classify the decision to retain some of the homes as a minor change. In fact, counsel for the NLDC testified at trial that only impossible changes would violate the MDP, such as "if everything was moved to the comer of Parcel 1 (of the development plan] or if "four thousand residential units" were added to Parcel 2. Even then, however, counsel could not say for sure whether those changes would be "substantial" and thus in violation of the MDP. Clearly, saving a few homes in this area, when the plan in fact calls for new residences, would not violate the MDP.

Furthermore with regard to the MDP, perhaps the best evidence as to why your proposal would not violate the MDP is the fact that the City and the NLDC approved retaining the Italian Dramatic Club (IDC) in the municipal development plan area, with the IDC maintaining full title to the property (even without the right of first refusal proposed by you for the remaining occupants of Fort Trumbull).

This decision was not considered a violation of the MDP nor any other applicable law. Surely, if the IDC, which was slated for acquisition and demolition under the MDP, can be maintained, so can a few homes in the neighborhood.

The City also wrongly claims that giving the deeds back to the property owners would violate New London's zoning ordinances. Most importantly, a decision to keep plaintiffs' homes would not even require a, change in the zoning code. All the existing properties are "grandfathered" into whatever land use changes were made for the area. Connecticut law uniformly holds that existing "non-conforming" property uses may continue unabated even if they are not in conformity to the existing zoning regulations. See e.g. Taylor v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 65 Conn. App. 687,693-96 (2001). Indeed, existing owners, such as the IDC and the remaining homeowners, have a vested property right under Connecticut law to continue to own their properties after zoning changes are made. Moreover, the experience with the mc once again demolishes this argument. The IDC, despite being slated for taking and demolition under the MDP, is now a specially permitted use under the new zoning regulations. However, those new zoning regulations were approved in January 2001, after the October 2000 decision to allow the IDC to remain in Fort Trumbull. Even leaving aside the fact that the existing homes are grandfathered, a similar modification of the zoning regulations could be made in this instance, just like it was for the IDC.

With regard to the City's third concern, I simply do not understand how your proposal would violate any financial "endorsement" of the plan by the State. If there were any problems, it seems like those could easily be addressed. Like her other arguments, it seems like Mayor Sabilia in her letter is grasping at technicalities that have no basis in the law.

Finally, I would like to make one last point with regard to Mayor Sabilia's letter.
Keeping the familial homes in Fort Trumbull unquestionably covers Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro family, which the mayor admits, but we also believe that this proposal would cover one of the properties owned by Bill Von Winkle, which he has used as a family residence, including living there now. There was a period of a few years when he did not live there because he moved back in with his ill father to take care of him but, beyond that time, he has been a long-time resident of Fort Trumbull. Of course, I have not discussed Bill's plans for his properties with him due to the tragic murder of his son last weekend so I don't what he would like to do with that property or the others. We, along with your mediator, Robert Albright, will keep you closely apprised once Bill has had the necessary time to be with his family.

Again, thank you very much for your efforts on behalf of the Fort Trumbull residents.

We would be happy to answer any questions you or any of your staff may have on this issue. I hope the City Council will vote in favor of your recommendations so that this controversy and ongoing dispute can finally end.

Scott G. Bullock
Senior Attorney
 



City, Another Fort Trumbull Plaintiff Agree To Settlement;  Beyer decides to 'move forward'; three cases left
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 6/3/2006

New London — Another plaintiff in the Fort Trumbull eminent domain case reached a settlement with the city Friday, the third this week.

“We fought a very long, hard battle to preserve property rights for everybody,” said Richard Beyer, manager of Niantic-based Pataya Construction Limited Partnership. “There comes a time when you have to move forward.”

Beyer's company is the former owner of investment properties at 41 and 49 Goshen St. Beyer did not live on the Fort Trumbull peninsula, though he said Friday he grew up in New London and had friends who grew up at Fort Trumbull.

He purchased the two investment properties at Fort Trumbull in 1994, he said.

“I wish the governor and all the political levels in this state will change the laws of eminent domain and prevent this from happening to any small business owner and any homeowner in the future, because I would not wish this upon anyone,” Beyer said.

Beyer was one of seven former Fort Trumbull property owners to sue the city after the New London Development Corp. exercised eminent domain in 2000 to make way for a hotel, upscale housing and offices on the peninsula as part of the Municipal Development Plan. The U.S. Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London in favor of the city in a 5-4 decision on June 23, 2005.

On Wednesday plaintiffs Charles Dery and Thelma Brelesky accepted undisclosed financial settlements to give up claim to their former properties and forgo future litigation. The three agreements this week were the first since October 2005, when James and Laura Guretsky settled with the city.

Lead plaintiff Susette Kelo and plaintiffs Pasquale Cristofaro and William Von Winkle have yet to reach agreements with the city, which owns their former properties but has not secured possession.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Friday made her strongest statement to date in support of the remaining plaintiffs and their families, who have long demanded that the city return the property titles to them despite the decision by the high court upholding the city's use of eminent domain.

“I believe strongly that the residents of Fort Trumbull have a right to hold property, to hold the title to that property and to pass that title on to their children,” Rell said.

Rell has instructed state-appointed mediator Robert Albright to work around the clock to negotiate settlements, she told city mayor Beth A. Sabilia in a letter dated May 31. The state has also made available an undisclosed amount — totaling at least $1.2 million — for financial settlements reached before June 15.

But those who wish not to settle ought to be moved at the state's expense onto Fort Trumbull Parcel 4A and be given title to their houses by the city, Rell said in a follow-up letter to Sabilia dated Friday.

Her proposal — a recommendation that would have to be approved by the City Council to take effect — would apply to “only those structures that have been used as familial residences for the past several years on the Fort Trumbull peninsula,” the governor wrote.

That excluded Beyer's properties and at least two of three properties owned by Von Winkle. Sabilia said the city will not “split hairs” about the Cristofaro house, occupied until recently by a member of the Cristofaro family but never by Pasquale Cristofaro.

Under Rell's relocation plan, she specified Friday, occupants would be given deeds to their new locations on Parcel 4A and would be able to transfer or sell the property titles to their immediate family members. Deed restrictions would give the city a right of first refusal to buy the properties if the occupants or their heirs decided to sell or transfer the property to someone other than an immediate family member.

Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock, who represents the three remaining plaintiffs, praised Rell's proposal on Friday as a possible solution to the impasse at Fort Trumbull.

“We certainly consider this a major breakthrough that will go a long way in solving a major part of this controversy,” Bullock said.

“It is great news that the governor has come through and made clear that she supports giving real deeds back to the family-occupied homes, something Susette Kelo and her neighbors have fought for since day one of this battle,” he said.

Bullock asked Rell to reconsider the exclusion of investment properties from the relocation plan.

“I was very confident that the governor would stand by the homeowners at Fort Trumbull and homeowners all across the state,” Kelo said Friday. “I really would just like to see the City Council do the right thing and follow the governor's lead.”

The City Council will address Rell's proposal at its June 5 meeting, Sabilia said. In a response to the governor dated Friday, Sabilia reaffirmed the longstanding position of the majority of the City Council that the city will not return transferable deeds. Lifetime occupancy on Parcel 4A or financial settlements remain available to the plaintiffs.

“The City Council's position has been consistent. The deeds of anything more than lifetime possession will not return to the former property owner,” Sabilia said in her letter to Rell.

“The proposal outlined in your letter of today is not consistent with the Municipal Development Plan, with the City of New London's Zoning Regulations, nor with the directives set forth in the State of Connecticut's financial endorsement of the revitalization of the Fort Trumbull area,” Sabilia said in the letter.

“The City of New London won. As far as I'm concerned, we're going above and beyond,” Sabilia said after sending the letter. “There are people in the City of New London who are livid, absolutely livid, that this has gone on this long. It's the majority I've been hearing. We are trying to do what is right for the 25,000 citizens of New London,” she said.

Lifetime tenancy in their former properties without ownership will not satisfy the remaining plaintiffs, Bullock said.

“That is essentially the equivalent of being a serf, when you are on your property as long as the government wants. That was given up in the Middle Ages,” Bullock said. “That is why it is so important to give them real ownership of their property and the right if they choose to pass it along to their heirs.”

NLDC President Michael Joplin confirmed Friday's agreement but declined to disclose the settlement amount.

Although he did not meet the City Council's settlement deadline of May 31, Beyer, along with Dery and Brelesky, will be exempted from any attempt by the city to collect use and occupancy fees from remaining plaintiffs, Joplin said.

One of Beyer's former properties includes an occupied apartment. “We will manage the house going forward. If the tenant wishes to relocate — the tenant's choice — we will pay relocation benefits,” Joplin said.

The same benefits will be available for tenants of the Dery family, Joplin said.

As part of the settlements reached earlier this week, the Dery family will have the option to remain living in Fort Trumbull until October, and Byron Athenian, son of Brelesky, will have the option to remain until September, Joplin said.

Negotiations are ongoing.


Rell Clarifies Stance on Fort Trumbull Properties
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 6/2/2006

New London — Gov. M. Jodi Rell today clarified her May 31 proposal to locate the remaining plaintiffs in the Kelo v. City of New London case on Parcel 4A.

The governor is recommending that “only those structures that have been used as familial residences for the past several years on the Fort Trumbull peninsula” be relocated to Parcel 4A, she said in a letter today to Mayor Beth A. Sabilia.

Under Rell’s recommended relocation plan, occupants would be given deeds to their new locations on Parcel 4A, she said in the letter. Occupants would be able to transfer property titles to their immediate family members, but deed restrictions would give the city a right of first refusal to buy the properties if the occupants or their heirs decided to sell or transfer the property to someone other than an immediate family member.

“Neither the State of Connecticut, nor I as Governor, possess the legal authority to overrule a decision of the United States Supreme Court or to order the City of New London to return property titles to the occupants,” Rell said in her first letter to Sabilia, dated May 31.

The city is expected to respond to Rell’s clarification later today. The City Council meets June 5.

Four plaintiffs remain since Charles Dery and Thelma Brelesky settled with the city for undisclosed amounts on Wednesday. The remaining plaintiffs and their lawyer, Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock, praised Rell’s clarification today.

“It is great news that the governor has come through and made clear that she supports giving real deeds back to the family-occupied homes, something Susette Kelo and her neighbors have fought for since day one of this battle,” Bullock said. “It is disappointing, though, that the governor does not support the small businesses who are keeping rental homes in Fort Trumbull, and we ask her and the City Council to reconsider their position.”

“Governor Rell has now made her position clear with regard to my home: I should have my deed back,” said Susette Kelo, lead plaintiff in the eminent domain lawsuit. “I really hope that the New London City Council now votes in favor of this on Monday.”

Monetary settlements are still available to the remaining plaintiffs but will be withdrawn June 15, Rell said Wednesday. The City Council has said it will seek occupancy fees from any plaintiff who had not settled by May 31, and will collect rent from any third-party tenants at Fort Trumbull as of June 1.


NL Officials Hail Two Settlements At Fort Trumbull - Deals are 'good news' for city; other plaintiffs to speak today
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 6/2/2006
 
New London –– City councilors Thursday praised settlements with two of six plaintiffs in the Fort Trumbull eminent domain case.

“It's good news. It shows good negotiations and good faith by the city to try to resolve this peacefully,” Councilor Rob Pero said. “The city has bent over backward to try to come up with a solution.”

“There has been over the last several months continuous movement forward with the announcement of the Coast Guard Museum, the hotel, the housing and now these two homeowners who have settled,” Councilor Kevin J. Cavanagh said. “These represent good news to the vast majority of New London.”

Meanwhile, representatives from the plaintiffs' case Thursday indicated they would comment today on a settlement proposed by the governor.

Plaintiffs Charles Dery and Thelma Brelesky reached financial settlements with the city Wednesday. In return for as-yet-undisclosed payments, they agreed to give up claim to their former Fort Trumbull properties without future litigation.

There were no new settlements Thursday. “Discussions are ongoing, but there have been no more settlements,” New London Mayor Beth A. Sabilia said Thursday.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell wrote to Sabilia Wednesday requesting that she share with the council Monday the state's recommendation that the city offer to relocate the remaining plaintiffs who have not settled with the city to Parcel 4A.

Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock, who argued the plaintiffs' case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and plaintiff Susette Kelo declined to comment Thursday on the proposed solution but said they planned to respond today.

Rell's plan would move only primary residences, not investment properties, to Parcel 4A and would grant the plaintiffs deeds to the land where their houses would be relocated on Parcel 4A. The deeds would include restrictive covenants under which the titles would be left to the city when the owners left or died.

It remained unclear Thursday how Rell's plan ultimately would differ from a February proposal by Sabilia to offer plaintiffs lifetime occupancy on Parcel 4A. Sabilia's proposal did not include returning property titles, which the plaintiffs have demanded, and included future occupancy fees. Rell's proposal would prohibit property transfers and would require future tax payments.

“I would give them the titles with restrictions to make sure that the property reverts back to the city when they're done,” Rell told reporters Thursday in Hartford.

It also remained unclear Thursday whether, under the governor's proposal, plaintiffs who would be relocated to Parcel 4A would owe the city back taxes or occupancy fees dating to the time of the takings. The City Council has said it is entitled to waive or collect the fees, and Bullock has said attempts to collect such fees would violate a pretrial agreement.

“That is a decision for the mayor and the city on whether back taxes would be forgiven,” said Rell spokesman Judd Everhart.

In April, the City Council rejected a proposal by Frink and Councilor William M. Cornish to return property titles outright to the plaintiffs, move all structures onto Parcel 4A, allow the city to collect back taxes dating to June 2005 and secure agreements from the plaintiffs to forgo future litigation.

A June 23, 2005, decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London affirmed the city's use of eminent domain to seize properties on the peninsula and upheld the city's ownership of those properties. The city still must resolve its impasse with four remaining plaintiffs who continue to possess or occupy their former properties: Kelo, Pasquale Cristofaro, Pataya Construction Limited Partnership Manager Richard Beyer and William Von Winkle.

Councilor Margaret M. Curtin said she was pleased with the two settlements announced Wednesday and hopes the remaining plaintiffs also will accept financial settlements.

“I'd like to see it resolved. It's been a long time,” she said.

Councilor Charles W. Frink continued to call Thursday for returning deeds to the properties to the remaining Fort Trumbull plaintiffs.

“I think that the city has a moral obligation to return those titles,” Frink said. “As a taxpayer in New London, I cannot accept the possibility that I might get some relief in taxes by throwing my neighbors out of their houses. It is a violation of life in a community.”

Councilors declined to speculate on the city's next step, pointing to Monday's council meeting as the forum for Fort Trumbull discussions and decisions. City Law Director Thomas Londregan is expected to brief the council on the situation at Fort Trumbull at that meeting.

 


Two Plaintiffs Settle With City;  Efforts to reach accord continue with four others in Fort Trumbull
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 6/1/2006

New London –– Two of the six remaining plaintiffs in Kelo v. City of New London, the Fort Trumbull eminent domain case, reached monetary settlements with the city Wednesday.

The Dery family, which has lived on the Fort Trumbull peninsula for five generations, and Thelma Brelesky, whose son, Byron Athenian, has lived in the neighborhood for almost three decades, accepted undisclosed amounts in agreements negotiated by state-appointed mediator Robert Albright.

The settlement money will be paid in addition to that held in escrow in New London Superior Court to compensate the former owners for the value of their properties at the time of the eminent domain takings. In return, those who settled have agreed to leave their Fort Trumbull homes and forgo future litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the city's use of eminent domain, invoked by the New London Development Corp. in October 2000 to make way for offices, upscale housing and a hotel, in a 5-4 decision on June 23, 2005. The decision affirmed the city's ownership of the houses even as the plaintiffs continued to occupy them.

In the months since the high court ruled, the city, the NLDC, the state Department of Economic and Community Development and Gov. M. Jodi Rell's office have sought a resolution, with Albright spearheading negotiations.

Rell directed Albright on Tuesday “to meet around the clock” to seek agreements with the plaintiffs, she wrote in a letter to Mayor Beth A. Sabilia dated Wednesday. “I am pleased to report that owners Dery and Brelesky have in fact reached agreement today and that we will continue our efforts to reach agreement with others,” Rell wrote in the letter.

Sabilia called the two settlement agreements “a good thing for the residents and a good thing for the City of New London,” but declined to release further details.

“My family circumstances have changed drastically since I started this battle to keep our family homes several years ago,” Matthew Dery, son of plaintiffs Charles Dery and the late Wilhelmina Dery, said in a statement relayed through Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock, who argued the plaintiffs' case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“My father is elderly and can no longer maintain his home on his own. My mother, Wilhelmina Dery, on whose behalf I was primarily fighting, passed away earlier this year. But she was able to spend the rest of her life at her home in which she had lived her entire life. For that fact I am eternally grateful to the Institute for Justice and the many other people and organizations that have supported our fight,” Dery said.

“Even though I have reached a settlement with the city, I completely support the other homeowners in their fight to keep their homes. Moreover, I still firmly believe that what happened to me and the other property owners in Fort Trumbull was terribly wrong. No American should face the loss of their home so that other private interests may benefit.”

Neither Brelesky nor Athenian could be reached by telephone Wednesday night. Athenian stands by the remaining plaintiffs, Bullock said, but was not interested in relocating his house, the only option aside from financial compensation being offered to the former property owners.

•••

The settlements, signed Wednesday, came just hours before the deadline set by the City Council for reaching a resolution with the six former property owners. The council voted May 15 to enforce a May 31 deadline by withdrawing settlement incentives after that date, including the city's offer to waive use and occupancy fees it calculates at approximately $1 million for all six plaintiffs.

As of today, the city will seek rent from all third-party tenants of the remaining plaintiffs.

The City Council also recommended that the money made available by the state for Fort Trumbull settlements –– $1.2 million originally designated for improvements on the peninsula –– be withdrawn as of May 31.

In her letter to Sabilia, Rell said that “state funds that have previously been made available to the City to assist in reaching a financial settlement shall be withdrawn and will be unavailable as to any remaining occupants who have not reached an agreement as of June 15, 2006.”

Rell also recommended that the city offer to relocate the primary residences, but no investment properties, of the remaining plaintiffs to Parcel 4A. Under that proposal, the plaintiffs would be given deeds to the parcel upon which their properties would be relocated, but the deeds would include restrictive covenants that would return them to the city “upon transfer or death of the title holder.” Sabilia previously proposed a plan to cluster the houses on Parcel 4A and allow their former owners life tenancy at Fort Trumbull without ownership.

In recent weeks, the plaintiffs have repeatedly called on Rell to support their efforts to remain in their homes. In her letter Wednesday, Rell urged “all parties to quickly settle any remaining disputes.”

“Neither the State of Connecticut, nor I as Governor, possess the legal authority to overrule a decision of the United States Supreme Court or to order the City of New London to return property titles to the occupants,” Rell wrote.

“The Connecticut General Assembly has failed to act in a comprehensive manner on this issue. The City of New London possesses the legal right and authority, as evidenced by both the Connecticut Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court decisions, to proceed with the plan to develop the entire Fort Trumbull peninsula.”

Negotiations with the remaining four property owners are ongoing, Bullock and NLDC President Michael Joplin said Wednesday.

“We are still working toward a solution that permits the folks who are in the neighborhood to remain there,” Bullock said. “Fort Trumbull in New London is one of the most well-known eminent domain cases in the country. Of course people are watching what happens in New London, hoping that the people who fought so hard to keep their homes, and would like to keep them, are able to do so.”

“I am hopeful that we can, with the continued help of the governor, do the right thing and settle amicably with the remaining four,” Joplin said. He suggested that the remaining plaintiffs accept compensation in lieu of future legal battles.

“The negotiation about the life tenancy seems to have failed,” Joplin said. “Barring the unforeseen, I would strongly encourage the former owners down there to take a substantial financial settlement.”

Joplin declined to release even the total amount being made available by the state for settlements, though the NLDC previously authorized the use of $1.2 million of the remaining $1.4 million in state funds designated for Fort Trumbull improvements for settlement purposes.

“The state, the governor's office, is trying to be both generous and reasonable. It's the taxpayer's money,” he said.

•••

The Dery family owned 87 Walbach St., Wilhelmina Dery's lifelong home; 28 East St., where Matthew Dery lives with his family; and properties at 79 and 81-83 Walbach St.

Athenian lives at 78 Smith St.

Laura and James Guretsky, originally the seventh party in the lawsuit against the city, lost 19, 21 and 23 Smith St. without the use of eminent domain because the family was in bankruptcy when the NLDC started assembling parcels.

Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, is one of the four remaining plaintiffs. She said Wednesday night, before appearing on the Fox News Channel's “Hannity and Colmes” program, that she still just wants to own her home at 8 East St.

“I would like to think the City Council could show some human kindness and just give us back our deeds,” Kelo said.

Michael Cristofaro and his father, plaintiff Pasquale Cristofaro, are waging the family's second fight against eminent domain at 53 Goshen St. In the 1970s, the Cristofaro family lost a Woodbridge Street home to eminent domain.

Richard Beyer, of Pataya Construction Limited Partnership, owned investment properties at 41 and 49 Goshen St.

William Von Winkle owned three Fort Trumbull properties on Smith Street. Facing the death of his son last Saturday, Von Winkle will be given a two-week extension of Wednesday's deadline, officials said.


Text of Gov. Rell's Letter to Mayor Sabilia
DAY
Published on 5/31/2006
May 31, 2006
 
The Honorable Elizabeth Sabilia
Mayor
City of New London
181 State Street
New London, CT 06320
 
 
Dear Mayor Sabilia:
 
We will soon mark the one-year anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. City of New London.  As you well know, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of New London yet certain plaintiffs continue to occupy property owned by the City on the Fort Trumbull peninsula.  During much of the past year, you, the state Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) acting at my direction, and the state’s mediator, Dr. Robert Albright, have attempted to seek a resolution between the City of New London and the peninsula’s occupants.
 
In that time and at my request, DECD has repeatedly sought to facilitate mutually agreeable settlements between the City and the occupants.  I realize that you as well have made significant efforts to resolve the disputes between the individual occupants and the City, including structuring settlement offers which forgive Use and Occupancy Fees and Charges owed to the City.
 
Yesterday I met with DECD Commissioner James Abromaitis, Dr. Robert Albright and others and directed Dr. Albright to meet around the clock, in advance of tonight’s deadline and your Council meeting next week, to seek agreements with the remaining occupants.  I am pleased to report that owners Dery and Brelesky have in fact reached agreement today and that we will continue our efforts to reach agreement with others.
 
Neither the State of Connecticut, nor I as Governor, possess the legal authority to overrule a decision of the United States Supreme Court or to order the City of New London to return property titles to the occupants.  Despite several opportunities, including a special legislative session called for the purpose of considering changes to the State’s eminent domain laws following the Supreme Court’s decision and the recently concluded regular legislative session, the Connecticut General Assembly has failed to act in a comprehensive manner on this issue.  The City of New London possesses the legal right and authority, as evidenced by both the Connecticut Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court decisions, to proceed with the plan to develop the entire Fort Trumbull peninsula.
 
Mayor Sabilia, I request that you share with the New London City Council at the Monday, June 5, 2006 scheduled meeting of the Council certain points:
 
(1)  With regard to the remaining occupants, please advise the Council that we will continue our assiduous efforts to reach agreements with the remaining property owners but that state funds that have previously been made available to the City to assist in reaching a financial settlement shall be withdrawn and will be unavailable as to any remaining occupants who have not reached an agreement as of June 15, 2006;
 
(2) With regard to the remaining owners who have not reached settlements with the City, the State of Connecticut recommends that the City offer to relocate their primary residences (but not investment properties) to an appropriate location on Parcel 4A, accompanied with a deed to the parcel upon which their homes will be relocated. Such deeds should include restrictive covenants to protect the development and cause title to the properties and all improvements to revert to the City upon transfer or death of the title holder.  As title holders, the occupants would discharge all of the duties and responsibilities of ownership consistent with City ordinances and state law.
 
Time is running out and it is my continued hope that the situation can be resolved by agreement of the parties.  Court decisions and the laws of the State of Connecticut as they currently exist are clearly on the side of the City of New London as it proceeds with the Fort Trumbull development.  As such, I am also asking that the City continue its efforts to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.  The development of the Fort Trumbull peninsula is central to the revitalization of the City of New London as it strives to improve the quality of life for its residents.  The parcel holds tremendous potential for New London and southeastern Connecticut as a whole.
 
I remain sympathetic to the efforts of the few remaining owners and hold out hope that they reconsider the State’s offer of a financial settlement by June 15th.  I am urging all parties to quickly settle any remaining disputes.
 
Very truly yours,
 
M. JODI RELL
Governor

 

A Reasonable Compromise.  It is time to move on and complete the Fort Trumbull project.
Day editorial
Published on 5/28/2006

It is time to move ahead in Fort Trumbull. The denouement to this drama witnessed by a huge national audience took place in the nation's highest court last year. The United States Supreme Court spoke on this issue last spring. Since then, the governor and the New London Development Corp. have made good-faith efforts to reach a reasonable conclusion. With a deadline facing them next week, they continue that process. Now, the former property owners should settle the matter.

The NLDC and city could have exercised the authority awarded by the Supreme Court to seize the properties and continue the project. To their credit, they have worked with Gov. M. Jodi Rell, through a mediator, to try to reach a more reasonable conclusion.

The governor was right to name a negotiator, Robert Albright, and to provide an additional $1.2 million as possible compensation to those former property owners still aggrieved by the NLDC's actions. Most New Londoners probably wish the Fort Trumbull neighborhood was still intact and the city were able to start fresh with a plan to merge the old and the new, but the neighborhood, zoned for industrial use, is far different from what it was. That is the reality.

Giving back the titles to the affected properties and leaving them all in place is not a reasonable option. It is time to move on.

Mayor Elizabeth Sabilia's proposal to relocate buildings to the northern part of Parcel 1-A and give the people lifetime uses of the dwellings is a sincere and accommodating proposal. It may well have placed additional pressures on all the parties — including the former property owners and the governor's office — to press with renewed vigor to settle the matter.

The governor, who is running for election, has tried to balance the interests of the former property owners with the need to complete a state project that would provide an enhanced tax base and a new center of economic activity for New London.

Beside the additional compensation and possible home relocations, there also may be other options. Perhaps some property owners could get new housing among some 64 units planned in the area. That is a fitting subject for negotiation.

But time truly is running out. The City Council has set a deadline of May 31, Wednesday, for the parties to reach a settlement. After that, the individuals would be subject to paying back taxes, give-backs on rents they collected since the Supreme Court decision and paying rent for their occupancy of the buildings. The former owners agreed to those stipulations in a court case before the matter was settled by the Supreme Court.

In spite of this contentious stand-off, good has come out of the project.

Pfizer has located its administrative building for global research and development just south of Fort Trumbull. An adjacent creek to the north has been restored and is flowing freely. The city's sewage-treatment plant has been improved.  The national Coast Guard Museum, in part taxable, will be built to the north along the water. Corcoran Jennison will build a hotel next to the museum. More than 60 units of housing will be constructed just to the southeast of the museum.

There is the prospect of relocating the Coast Guard Research and Development Center from Groton to Fort Trumbull.

All of these developments are taking place in an industrial zone.

There are lessons for everyone in the Fort Trumbull project. The proposal should have gone to a referendum vote by the residents of New London. The state and the NLDC should have been more receptive to a mixed use of the area, including the retention of some of the residences. Public agencies should be willing to change their plans as events change while they are trying to develop a major project.

The Day believes the state, NLDC and city have been receptive to modifying the original plan. They are trying to come to a reasonable settlement with the former property owners. Now, the residents and property owners must compromise, too.

Fort Trumbull's rejuvenation should not wait any longer. 

---------------
* = "About Town" notes that this is, in this website's opinion, the major point supporting the NLRC -  we suspect that the business zone allowed resident use within it--not the same thing as "taking" a purely residential zone and replacing it with "business" use).

Mayor Sees Way Out Of Fort Trumbull Impasse; Plan would let some live in homes for life; 'city needs to move forward,' Sabilia says
DAY
By Richard Rainey
Published on 2/6/2006 in Region » Region News

New London — Mayor Beth Sabilia wants to let four of the six remaining plaintiffs who sued the city after their homes were taken through the use of eminent domain stay in their homes for the rest of their lives.

The plan, which Sabilia said she will introduce to the City Council tonight, is meant to end the stalemate between the city and Fort Trumbull residents who have waged a five-year legal battle to keep their homes after they were taken by the city's development agency, the New London Development Corp.

“I think the sentiment on the council is — at least from the ones I've talked to — this has to be resolved,” Sabilia said Sunday. “The city needs to move forward.”

Sabilia's plan would move the homes of the plaintiffs who lived in their homes when the NLDC exercised eminent domain in 2000. It would include moving two houses, occupied by Byron Athenian and Pasquale and Margherita Cristofaro onto a block formed by East, Trumbull, Walbach and Smith streets known as Parcel 4A. Susette Kelo's and Charles and Wilhelmina Dery's homes already lie within that parcel, although their homes may have to slightly moved to make room for roadwork consistent with the municipal development plan, Sabilia said.

Under the plan, the city would maintain ownership of the properties, but the former homeowners would be allowed to live out their days in their homes while paying a life tenancy fee. Whether that fee would be paid instead of taxes or, in effect, act as a rent remained unclear Sunday.

The homeowners would also likely be responsible for uncollected taxes on the properties that accrued during the court disputes, Sabilia said.

The proposal comes at a crucial time during the overall plan to develop the peninsula. The NLDC is currently in intense negotiations with the Coast Guard to bring a national museum and a research and development center to the peninsula, along with going through with plans to build a hotel and high-end apartments there.

“We have more development possibilities than ever in the history of the project,” Sabilia said.

The mayor said she had discussed her proposal with Deputy Mayor Jane Glover. According to the agenda for the Monday council meeting, Glover plans to request that the former homeowners begin paying use and occupancy fees — in effect, rents — on the properties to the NLDC.

Kelo said she appreciated Sabilia's efforts to move the homes and find some sort of resolution to the five-year-long stalemate.

“Definitely a step in the right direction,” she said.

“We're very happy that she's talking about something the homeowners have supported for quite sometime as a compromise solution,” said Scott Bullock, the attorney who represents the former property owners.

While he said he favored moving the properties to Parcel 4A, Bullock continued that he wanted to see ownership of the properties be returned to the plaintiff's families.

“The idea of the life tenancy...is not something that should really be pursued,” he said.

Michael Cristofaro, who manages his parents' house at 53 Goshen St., said he would likely not support a proposal that made his family a lifelong tenant in a house they had lived in for the past 35 years.

“I would have to see what the exact proposal is, but no, I'm not going to go for life tenancy and pay rent to the city for a house that I own,” he said.

“I suggested moving those properties five years ago,” he continued. “I want to see the houses moved, the titles returned to the property owners and we be left alone.”

Dery declined to comment and Athenian could not be reached for comment. It is still unclear if the proposal will affect the other two plaintiffs. Pataya Construction Limited Partnership, which is managed by Richard Beyer, owns two homes on Goshen Street but Beyer does not live in either house. William von Winkle, who owns three properties on Smith Street within Parcel 4A, did not live there when the NLDC exercised eminent domain in 2000. He moved into 31 Smith St. before the Supreme Court rendered its decision in June 2005.

The deputy commissioner of the state Department of Economic and Community Development, Ronald Angelo, could not be reached for comment Sunday. Under Sabilia's proposal, the state would shoulder the cost of moving the homes. The DECD has been primarily responsible for funding the NLDC and the 90-acre development project.

The plan to move the homes is still too new to estimate a total cost, Sabilia said.

“All the costs have to be bourn by the state of Connecticut,” she said. “The city is broke.”

Michael Joplin, president of the NLDC, declined to comment on the proposal.

“(The mayor and I) talked a lot about Fort Trumbull in the last week, but we'll leave it at that,” he said.



Throwing Bombs At Fort Trumbull
By STEVEN SLOSBERG, Day Staff Columnist
Published on 10/25/2005

Harper's index, the rapid-fire compendium of the absurd, the scandalous and the all too dismal published each month by Harper's Magazine, has found friendly fodder in New London and Fort Trumbull.

For those unfamiliar with the Index, consider this sample from the current issue, November 2005:

Rank of the FBI among ideal employers, according to U.S. undergraduates, polled in spring 2004: 138.

Its rank in spring 2005: 10.

The Harper's Index source was Universum Communications of Philadelphia, a research firm for employers.

Then, there's this one, also in the new issue of Harper's:

Years that property owners in New London, Connecticut, spent fighting the city's seizure of their land: 5.

Minimum back rent that the city, after winning in the Supreme Court, is now intending to charge them: $951,718.

The source for the staggering back-rent figure was Waller, Smith & Palmer, P.C., the New London law firm doing legal work for the New London Development Corp. (NLDC), the city's development agent.

Exacting nearly $1 million in back rent from the six beleaguered property owners at Fort Trumbull trying to stave off the city's use of eminent domain to seize their property is not terribly unlike the protocols of the “Ministry of Information Retrieval” in the 1985 film “Brazil.”

In the film, a cult favorite, the ministry “retrieves” information from citizens by torture, and then charges the victims for the cost of their detention as well as for “procedures” deployed in their interrogation. Should the tortured expire during the retrieval process, their survivors are billed for the expenses.

Fort Trumbull property owners, assures Thomas Londregan, attorney for the City of New London, are under no such punitive gun, though he concedes the $951,718 is fairly accurate.

Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, 5-4, in favor of the city and the NLDC using eminent domain to take the properties as part of the transformation (and ensuing tax rolls enhancement) of the time-worn neighborhood near Shaw's Cove. The property owners had been fighting the loss of the homes.

“The plaintiffs have been living rent-free and tax-free for over five years, and at the state taxpayers' expense” says Londregan. “I don't know how many people get to live rent-free.”

That said, however, Londregan insists no action has been taken to collect that back rent.

“We are in a period of negotiations, and you don't throw bombs,” says Londregan. “You don't make claims, you don't start lawsuits. The City of New London wants the negotiations to go forward in good faith.”

The NLDC, however, which has been grappling in a power struggle and an object lesson in etiquette with the New London City Council, does throw bombs, or, at least, gut punches. After the Supreme Court decision, and the convulsive opposition to it throughout the land, the state, with a substantial financial stake in the Fort Trumbull project, asked the city to cool it while the politicians bowed and scraped to public hysteria. Nevertheless, the NLDC sent out relocation notices –– the first step in an eviction –– to three of the property owners.

The state fumed and ordered them rescinded. Notices of back rents also were dispatched by the NLDC, says Londregan.

One of the property owners suggests the back-rent threat is a tactic to coax the Fort Trumbull holdouts to give up the fight. “If we go, the idea is they'll waive the back rent,” says Matt Dery, with a wary grin and shrug.

Negotiations, as Londregan says, progress. Collecting five years' back rent at Fort Trumbull, as the Harper's Index reports, just bombs.




Rowland's Tarnished Legacy At Fort Trumbull
By MORGAN MCGINLEY
Day Staff Columnist, Editorial Page Editor
Published on 8/14/2005

To the surprise of very few, Bill Cornish, the former city councilor and persistent critic of city government, has helped organize a new political party in New London called One New London Party. Its origin lies in the level of frustration felt by city residents at the confluence of sharply rising taxes and continuing destruction of tax-paying property.

The rising taxes are a result of the city having a tiny geographical area, a huge amount of tax-exempt property and a heavy reliance on the property tax to pay for local budgets.

But the destruction of taxable property is a different matter. The purpose was to try to increase the city's tax base, but it hasn't worked that way. City Manager Richard Brown estimates the city has lost about $1 million in taxes over several years because of demolition in Fort Trumbull.

Two of the mass demolitions — one in Fort Trumbull and the other near Adm. Harold E. Shear State Pier — nominally bear the name of New London Development Corp. and the city of New London. But it was the Rowland administration's co-chief of staff, the now-indicted Peter Ellef, and the state Department of Economic and Community Development that pressed for major projects within New London and in other Democratic strongholds in Connecticut. And they controlled them tightly.

One of Ellef's grand plans was to revive the port of New London and State Pier. This was a good idea, but it has not materialized. Ellef sought to attract a Chinese appliance firm that would bring its products through this port and would have an assembly plant at the pier. On one trip to China, Ellef brought along none other than William Tomasso, the Rowland administration benefactor who got favored treatment on several large multimillion-dollar state contracts. Tomasso, whom Ellef allegedly indentified as Rowland's personal representative in China, later was indicted by the United States attorney, along with Ellef, for alleged corruption on state contracts.

The China connection for New London never worked out, but that was after more than a dozen homes were destroyed in the state pier area to make room for this future project. There even was the oft-heard report that the Rowland administration cleared the houses in an accelerated fashion to provide parking and to handle the huge crowds expected at the OpSail 2000 extravaganza.

Since then, the state has constructed a warehouse for Logistec, the pier operator.

In Fort Trumbull, the Rowland idea was to take a run-down neighborhood and revive it with new condominiums, offices, research laboratories and a hotel that would seize on opportunities created by the adjacent Pfizer Global Research & Development headquarters. Pfizer officials now understandably are eager to say that the Fort Trumbull takings were not intended to benefit their business. But Claire L. Gaudiani, the former NLDC president, so many times stood alongside George Milne, then the vice president in charge of research in Groton, that the two projects merged in the public mind. The more Gaudiani touted the concept, the more she mentioned Pfizer. It was necessary, she said, to complete Fort Trumbull “on Pfizer time.”

The idea to improve vastly the tax base in Fort Trumbull had appealing elements and coincided with the Rowland strategy to help the cities, a worthy goal. But a secondary motive of the Rowland political people may have been to cut into the Democratic votes in the cities by showing the Republican Rowland administration was a friend of urban enterprise. Significantly, one contractor hired by NLDC turned out to be the Downes Corp., a New Britain company headed by relatives of former GOP State Chairman J. Brian Gaffney. Gaffney is also the scion of a prominent lobbying firm, Gaffney and Bennett, in which a co-principal was Jay Malcynsky. The latter was a Rowland buddy and powerful lobbyist.

As the project moved along, the relationship between the NLDC and the city became virtual open warfare. But in spite of their enmity towards one another, the city and NLDC both balked to the state that it (the state) was controlling almost every decision in the project. Too bad, said the Rowland administration. If you want the tens of millions of dollars being sent to New London, you'll do as we say.

The state insisted publicly and officially that everything was ultimately the City Council's decision, but there was no room for argument. The Rowland administration's attitude, was: Do as you're told or we'll shut off the spigot.

It was this heavy-handed pressure that in part created the image of the NLDC as an arrogant organization. But the most significant problem was the Rowland administration's attempt to do local planning from Hartford.

The attitude was that the city of New London was inept and could not make good things happen. Turns out that central planning at the Capitol in Hartford, as in the case of the Soviet central planning agency, didn't work either.




An Injustice Contrary To What Progressive Means
Hartford Courant
July 18, 2005
Ralph Nader and Alan Hirsch

Progressive judges protect those who cannot protect themselves in the political process. For example, the Warren Court expanded the rights of the criminal accused and struck down laws persecuting blacks. This tendency to protect our most vulnerable citizens belies the conservative caricature of progressives as wantonly willing to sacrifice individual rights to the whims of "big government." But in the recent Supreme Court case of Kelo vs. New London, the more progressive justices ignored their role as tribunes of the powerless and provided fodder to those who claim they reflexively endorse government power.

New London exercised its authority of eminent domain to seize the homes of ordinary citizens - not for a traditional use such as a highway or railroad, but to transfer the land to private developers. How could five Supreme Court justices (including the supposed progressives) uphold this unconscionable action?

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution gives government power to take possession of private property needed for a "public use" (provided it give "just compensation" to the owner). However, today states and municipalities routinely use this power to transfer property to private parties, claiming that doing so confers a constitutionally adequate public benefit. Even before Kelo, the Supreme Court approved this practice.

To a limited extent, this can make sense - land may serve a legitimate public purpose even in the hands of a private party. Imagine that land abutting a dangerously overcrowded private hospital, the only health care facility in a community, is taken by the government to expand the hospital. This exercise of eminent domain serves a crucial public purpose that might otherwise be neglected.

But it does not follow that most uses of eminent domain to transfer property to a private party are acceptable. A transfer should never be used solely as a means to redistribute wealth - to take from X to give to Y because the government favors Y. Moreover, it makes some difference whose land is taken. For example, seizing a multi-generation family farm is different from seizing an apartment building leased for profit.

These distinctions have been ignored by the courts for some time, culminating in the egregious Kelo decision. The courts have swept aside virtually any objection to any exercise of eminent domain, essentially holding that "public use" is whatever the government says it is, and tough luck for those booted from their homes and communities.

To be sure, the Supreme Court has said that a "purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void." But this assurance is empty, because the government can always concoct an ostensible public purpose. When municipalities hand land to businesses or developers, they predict increased employment and tax revenue that will serve the community. But if this prediction proves wrong, there is no recourse for those who lost their homes. Moreover, there are invariably alternative measures to spur the economy other than evicting innocent people, such as finding other sites for development or offering loans and public works programs.

As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stressed in her dissent, Kelo leaves no American secure. Any house can be seized by government and turned over to Wal-Mart, Motel 6 or any business that promises to create jobs or tax revenue. As O'Connor noted, such transfers inevitably reward those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Ironically, her dissent was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and William H. Rehnquist, who often close their eyes to corporate control of American politics and economics. We can only guess how the progressive justices felt to be lectured by their conservative brethren about kowtowing to the powerful and trampling the rights of ordinary citizens, but this much is clear: In Kelo, the conservatives on the court were correct.

The situation is not hopeless. Many states have a "takings clause" (or other means of safeguarding private property from government) in their own constitutions, and state judges are the ultimate interpreters of their constitutions. And state legislatures may enact new protections. Both judges and legislators should do what the U.S. Supreme Court manifestly failed to do: protect their politically powerless citizens from government abuse.


Fight Against Fort Trumbull Ruling Not Over Yet, Says Kelo;  City moves ahead with development
By KATE MORAN
Day Staff Writer, New London & TED MANN
Published on 6/25/2005

New London — Susette Kelo held out hope Friday that the city would retreat from its efforts to take her pink cottage on East Street by eminent domain and allow her and her neighbors to remain alongside the development of offices, housing and a hotel planned for Fort Trumbull.

Absent a change of heart by the city, she was prepared to resort to civil disobedience. The city might have the right to take her house, she said, but she can refuse to go gently.

One day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London can seize 15 houses on the Fort Trumbull peninsula to pursue economic development, Kelo and her attorneys at the Institute for Justice promised they would continue to fight what they consider an unjust seizure of private property.

“Can you see them carrying 87-year-old Mrs. Dery out of her home?” Kelo asked, referring to her neighbor, Wilhelmina Dery, who has lived in her house since 1918.

Meanwhile, city officials were optimistic that the ruling in their favor would jumpstart a project designed to revive the city's flagging economy and increase tax revenue, which the city desperately needs. They were focused in particular on bringing the Coast Guard research and development center, now located at Avery Point in Groton, to an existing building on the Fort Trumbull peninsula. While that building was never involved in the eminent domain lawsuit, the city has long contended that the legal battle created an air of controversy that has prevented the development from coming to fruition.

“I think the thing to focus on is getting the development in place,” City Councilor Rob Pero said. “Everything that happened (Thursday) won't be meaningful unless the development happens.”

Corcoran Jennison, the Boston company selected to redevelop Fort Trumbull, is now negotiating a contract with the federal government for hosting the Coast Guard research center. The company also is completing site plans for the hotel and housing, which it must present to the city's Planning and Zoning Commission by July 15.

Marty Jones, president of Corcoran Jennison, called the court's decision a victory not only for the New London redevelopment but also for cities around the country that are trying to incubate business development.

“I think it's a great win,” Jones said. “There's certainly been a lot of interest in this nationwide, and it makes clear what the legal authority of cities is to do this kind of work. I certainly hope that now that this contentious issue has gone literally to the highest court in the land, people can focus on trying to come together and support economic development and some positive things that really do need to happen in the city.”

City councilors expressed doubt as recently as the fall that plans for Fort Trumbull were still viable in the current economy, which has undergone significant changes since the plans were approved in 2000. Councilors, who underwent mediation with the city's partner, the New London Development Corp., this winter, are now expressing solidarity with the agency and support for its plans, even as the recent announcement that the Naval Submarine Base in Groton will close has thrown a veil of uncertainty over the entire region.

Another piece of the puzzle still unresolved is the proposed Coast Guard museum, originally slated to be built on one of the disputed properties, known as Parcel 4A. While those properties were still locked in a legal battle, city business leaders arranged to have the facility placed on one of the areas already cleared by the NLDC.

With the legal obstacles seemingly removed, some said there was a chance the museum could go forward on the original parcel.

“It certainly clears the way for the Coast Guard museum to go on Parcel 4A, which is what they really want, and hopefully it will go forward,” said Alva Greenberg, who helped organize a task force late last year to reinforce the city's commitment to hosting the museum. She and others said the final decision on locating the museum will fall to the NLDC and a Coast Guard committee in the coming weeks.

Scott Bullock, the Institute for Justice attorney who represented the property owners, said Friday that his law firm would continue to fight to keep the residents in their homes, despite the unfavorable court decision. He said sympathetic phone calls and e-mails poured into his office all day from citizens enraged that the government can seize their property for private economic development.

“People are furious throughout the country. We are confident that this is going to lead to change in Connecticut and throughout the country,” Bullock said by e-mail. “This could very well turn out to be the high-water mark of eminent domain abuse in this country.”

“I personally have had no less than a dozen calls and e-mails from people wanting to encircle Susette's home and keep it safe from the bulldozers,” added John Kramer, an Institute for Justice spokesman, in an e-mail message.

The Institute for Justice has 24 days to ask the court to reconsider its opinion, though only in rare cases does the court choose to do so. Kelo and the other homeowners can also ask New London Superior Court for higher compensation for their property, though Kelo said Friday that the fight was not about the money for her.

Instead, she hoped the City Council would intervene and allow her to stay put.

“Somebody has to say enough is enough,” she said.


Seizure of homes ruled legal;  Court expands scope of eminent domain
CT POST STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS 6-24-05

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling stems from a New London, Conn., case in which Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

"It's a scary decision because it really broadens the public-use doctrine," said Raymond Rizio, a Fairfield, Conn., lawyer who has handled cases on both sides of the issue. "It's no longer just a clear public use, but for anything they believe will be an economic benefit.

"A municipality does not have to be as cautious in their reasons for seizing a property," he said. "It can also control who the buyer will be."

Rizio also believes the ruling will limit the issues that a party fighting eminent domain can raise in a lawsuit.

But he thinks the ruling may lead to more involvement by the public in the political process.

"Taking a property by eminent domain still has to go through several boards," he said. "So there still must be public input and awareness." Bridgeport, Conn., in recent years has used eminent domain to seize the entire Steel Point peninsula, and to take land for the city-owned baseball stadium and sports arena.

Bridgeport Mayor John M. Fabrizi said the ability to take property is crucial to cities like Bridgeport.

"The power is essential for us to renew and revitalize post-industrial cities. But the powers need to be used judicially, and due process needs to be followed, and the reasons have to be for the public good," Fabrizi said.

"Municipalities can't take these powers lightly. You are weighing the rights of property owners against the public good," Fabrizi said.

Brian Calvert, an English immigrant and proprietor of Calvert Safe and Lock in Derby, Conn., is one of a dozen landowners inside a 12-acre redevelopment zone in downtown Derby where a private developer has proposed a large mixed-use housing and retail development. While Calvert hopes the developer will make him a fair offer before the city resorts to eminent domain, he reacted strongly to Thursday's Supreme Court decision.

"This is like a reverse of Robin Hood. It's a hood robin. It's taking from the poor and giving to the rich. It's a disgrace and goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for."

The decision — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America — was a crushing defeat for some New London residents whose homes are slated for destruction. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development [plan] that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

New London residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said New London resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home even if bulldozers show up. "I won't be going anywhere — not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today, and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

New London officials countered that the private development plans serve a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.

O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of fewer than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
 

Eminent Domain Chronology
Published on 6/24/2005, DAY

January 2000: The Planning and Zoning Commission, Redevelopment Agency, City Council and New London Development Corp. approve the Fort Trumbull development plan.

May 8, 2000: The NLDC votes to begin taking 11 properties by eminent domain.

Sept. 5, 2000: The City Council rescinds an earlier decision that prevented the NLDC from razing buildings in Parcel 4A where the city hopes a Coast Guard museum will be built.

Sept. 20, 2000: The Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull submits a petition with more than 400 signatures to the City Council to save Fort Trumbull homes from demolition.

Oct. 2, 2000: The city law director rules that a petition asking for a referendum on Fort Trumbull demolition is invalid.

October 2000: The NLDC votes to use eminent domain to acquire the last 22 properties it needs to transform the Fort Trumbull peninsula into a maritime village.

November 2000: The NLDC offers 11 property owners, including Susette Kelo and Matthew Dery, more than $2.7 million for their properties. They reject the offers.

Dec. 19, 2000: The Institute for Justice agrees to represent more than a half dozen Fort Trumbull residents in a lawsuit against the city and NLDC.

Feb. 21, 2001: The city, NLDC and property owners reach an agreement under which the Fort Trumbull residents will be able to stay in their homes while the eminent domain case is heard in court.

March 13, 2002: Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Corradino rules on the eminent domain lawsuit. He upholds the taking of some houses but not others.

March 18, 2002: Fort Trumbull property owners announce they will file an appeal with the state Supreme Court.

August 2002: The city and NLDC file appeal briefs asking the state Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling.

October 2002: City Council grants the NLDC a two-year extension of its eminent domain powers in Fort Trumbull area.

December 2002: Connecticut Supreme Court hears arguments in the eminent domain case.

March 3, 2004: The Connecticut Supreme Court affirms the NLDC's right to take property at Fort Trumbull by a vote of 4 to 3.

July 19, 2004: The Institute for Justice files an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

July 30, 2004: The Michigan Supreme Court, relying solely on the state constitution, forbids the use of eminent domain for economic development.

Sept. 28, 2004: The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Kelo v. New London, the case that will determine whether governments can seize private property to promote economic development.

Feb. 22, 2005: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Kelo v. New London.

June 23, 2005: The U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 that economic development is a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.



 Months After court's Ruling, Kelo Case Still strikes A Nerve;  Conference Takes Up Lingering Debate Over Eminent Domain
By TED MANN
Day Staff Writer, Politics/Government
Published on 12/6/2005

Hartford — It has been nearly nine months since Wesley W. Horton and Scott Bullock stood before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue the validity of Connecticut's eminent domain laws and the seizure of private homes in New London.

In some ways, it seemed Monday as if they haven't stopped.

More than half a year has passed since the high court upheld the state's eminent domain statute, and with it the New London Development Corp.'s seizure of private property for an economic development project it conceived with Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceutical manufacturer.

But there were Horton and Bullock at the 12th Annual Gallivan Conference at the University of Connecticut School of Law, trying along with legal scholars and journalists to say just how and why the questions raised by the New London case had struck such a nerve in news coverage and among the broader public across the country.

The daylong conference, organized by UConn professor Jeremy Paul, was only the first of the day for Bullock and the lead New London plaintiff, Susette Kelo, who was scheduled to speak later Monday at Brown University, as was Horton's law partner, Daniel Krisch.

The reason for the continued debate over the decision –– which has sparked eminent domain reform movements in state legislatures across the country –– was a topic for broad disagreement.

Some, like Richard O. Brooks, a professor of law and founding director of the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law School, blamed lingering unrest about the case on press reports, which he said had unfairly favored the cause of the plaintiffs and the nonprofit Institute for Justice.

Others, including three reporters in an afternoon panel on press coverage, said they thought the public interest had been stimulated by the presence of a compelling group of plaintiffs, by the passionate arguments of critics of the decision who said it would put all private property at risk of seizure by the government, and by the reticence of NLDC and city officials in speaking to the press after the decision was announced.

Part of the blame, said Horton, lay with him, and that pesky question of the Motel 6.

Horton said the question of whether the state's eminent domain law would permit a city to replace a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton in order to increase its tax base had first been raised in his practice sessions before oral arguments last spring, and that he had initially rejected such a concept.

But rather than be bogged down in explaining how that hypothetical example would not fit the state's definition of a public use, Horton said he decided to simply answer “yes,” thus providing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with a central example for her impassioned dissent in the case.

Months after the Kelo case was decided, the project that initiated it remains at an awkward standstill, with Kelo and her fellow plaintiffs retaining control over properties that the city has technically owned since 2000.

Meanwhile, as Bullock and the Institute for Justice continue to lobby for changes to eminent domain statutes around the country –– a vote was expected Monday on one proposal in the Pennsylvania Senate –– he dismissed the idea that he and his organization were “master Svengalis of media” who had been able to whip up popular fury over the decision by clouding its true meaning.

That fury, said Paul Bass, the former editor at the New Haven Advocate who now runs the news Web site New Haven Independent, was a result of the “convergence of left and right and the outrage at the hubris of liberals and what they've done to cities for the last 50 years.”

Also on the panel was Kate Moran, who covered New London and the Kelo case for The Day before joining the New Orleans Times-Picayune earlier this year.

While much of the controversy since the decision was announced has focused on the constitutional issues involved, Moran said much of the local opposition has questioned the specific project planned for the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, and whether it would really reinvigorate the city as the NLDC, the state and Pfizer hoped it would.

“It seemed hard to believe from the ground that this was truly going to be the renaissance coming to the city of New London,” she said. “It seemed a lot more murky than that.”
 



Decision Puts Issue Of Eminent Domain Back In States' Hands;  Legislatures are free to pass laws narrowing right to take property
By KATE MORAN
Day Staff Writer, New London
Published on 6/24/2005

The Institute for Justice had bold aspirations for the Kelo v. New London case.

Before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the Institute had been battling in state courts from Ohio to Connecticut to prevent governments from using their eminent domain powers to promote economic development. Kelo gave its attorneys the chance to secure a broad federal ruling that would restrain the ability of government to take private property.

Such a ruling would have upset 50 years of precedent, however, and the court declined Thursday to impose the sort of straitjacket the Institute was seeking. But the decision still does not cripple conservative property-rights watchdogs such as the Institute for Justice and the Pacific Legal Foundation, for whom a Supreme Court victory was the ultimate prize.

It simply sends their fight back to the states.

Although the Supreme Court said Thursday that governments can use their condemnation power to foster private development, state courts can invoke their own constitutions to narrow the scope of eminent domain, as the Michigan Supreme Court did this spring. State legislatures can also modify their laws to strengthen the rights of property owners.

“We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. “Indeed, many states already impose public use requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline.”

Utah became the first state to do this when Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed Senate Bill No. 184 into law this March. The law forbids redevelopment agencies from using eminent domain for projects such as sports arenas, and it places a one-year moratorium on blight condemnations to give the legislature time to decide how badly a property has to deteriorate before the government has the right to seize it.

State Sen. Curtis Bramble, the Republican who introduced the legislation, said support gelled after the city of Ogden tried to take three houses that were standing in the way of a Wal-Mart.

“Property rights are the rights to own, possess and enjoy property, and they are what sets America apart from most other countries,” Bramble said. “The government power to take property needs to be very limited in scope. I can't think of a circumstance where you should seize one person's private property and turn around and give to another private interest for development. To me, that's just untenable.”

Bramble said the bill encountered some resistance from mayors who believed development would stymie without the tool of eminent domain. However, he said the Utah League of Cities and Towns, while never endorsing the legislation, decided not to oppose it.

“There were some mayors who were quite exercised and rather aggressive in their opposition, but there were also many mayors and city councilors who saw how abuses of eminent domain were out of control,” Bramble said.

In Connecticut, House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, has waged a lonesome battle in the legislature to rein in Connecticut's eminent domain laws.

Ward proposed a ban on taking residential property for private development except in the case of blight, but his bill died without a vote. But the Republican leader saw an invitation in the court's majority opinion for states to revisit and reform their own laws, and said he would redouble those efforts when the legislature convenes again next year.

“What I ran into this year ... was a statement that we shouldn't take any action until after the court reviews it,” Ward said. “I argued that we should provide our citizens with rights whether or not the Supreme Court was prepared to. But now that we know the Supreme Court will not give private homeowners this level of protection, the legislature should.”

While no state other than Utah has imposed a wholesale ban on using eminent domain for private development, some states have found ways to shore up the rights of property owners without depriving government of a powerful tool for promoting growth.

The Virginia legislature passed a law this year that helps property owners push for higher compensation when their land is taken by eminent domain. If a jury awards an owner at least 30 percent more than the price offered by a development authority, the owner is entitled under the new law to recoup appraisal fees for his property and the cost of bringing up to three expert witnesses to court.

In Missouri, a Republican state representative introduced a bill this spring that would have allowed property owners to hire his own appraisers when the government tried to take their land through eminent domain. If the owner and the government could not agree on a price, the bill, which died in committee, would have introduced a panel of three disinterested commissioners, including a county assessor, to set a dollar value.

Steve Hobbs, the legislator who introduced the bill, said by cell phone from the fields of his 600-acre farm that he understood the need to balance business development with the rights of owners to reap the value of their land.

“In state of Missouri, we've had some tremendous abuses by municipalities who make blight definitions that are just terrible,” Hobbs said. “We've had areas in Kansas City that were declared blighted 15 years before any development was done on that property. Can you imagine what that does to the property values in those areas? I'm a big fan of economic development, but we have to protect people's rights.”

Timothy Hollister, a land-use attorney with the Hartford firm Shipman and Goodwin who organized a forum on Kelo this winter, said the case put property rights in the national spotlight even if it did not result in a victory for the homeowners.

“Regardless of how the case has now come out, its legacy has already been to start a national debate about the fairness of eminent domain” Hollister said Thursday. “The Supreme Court was interpreting the federal Constitution, but every state is still allowed to be more protective of property rights. If Kelo had risen in Michigan, it would have come out the other way.” 




Eminent Domain Issue
By ROBERT KOCH Hour Staff Writer
June 24, 2005
NORWALK -- Local reaction varied to the U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday allowing New London to seize homes for a private developer.

"Eminent domain should only be used as a last resort in urban renewal projects, and it should be used as the result of a plan that has been fully vetted with the community, and where there's an agreed-upon consensus as how to implement the plan," said Timothy T. Sheehan, Norwalk Redevelopment Agency executive director.

"I believe that's exactly what happened in New London." The high court decision comes as Norwalk pushes forward with urban renewal projects for Wall Street, Reed-Putnam and West Avenue. Each could -- or in one case has -- involved an eminent domain battle with the city. "(The New London decision) has to help the West Avenue proposal," said Frank N. Zullo, former Norwalk Mayor, and land-use attorney representing Stanley M. Seligson, the local developer seeking to redevelop West Avenue. "Economic growth outweighed the property owner rights," said Zullo, referring to the New London decision.

"The primary motive is for the city to benefit -- you have to be boosting the economy for the city and addressing an area that needs attention. (But) the fact that a developer is also reaping some economic benefit doesn't make the process fatal." For years, Seligson has sought to redevelop West Avenue with retail and housing. The Redevelopment Agency, after public hearings last winter, cut Seligson's plan by 20 percent. Also reduced is the number of potential property takings, particularly of homes on Orchard Street. At the same time, the Redevelopment Agency is moving away from a municipal development plan toward a redevelopment plan for West Avenue.

Susan Schweitzer, economic development project manager at the agency, said Norwalk has relied on redevelopment plans, which require a Common Council finding of blight. By contrast, the New London case rested on a municipal development plan, where economic development is key. "A place that is blighted is obvious to everyone. The municipal development plan is not so clear. ... Who defines economic development?" Schweitzer asked. "In addition to it being a simpler approval process and a straightforward finding of blight, (a redevelopment plan) is an easier tool to use."

Meanwhile, the eminent domain battle between the city and Maritime Motors Chevrolet remains pending before the Connecticut Supreme Court. The city has successfully argued before two lower courts that it needs the West Avenue car dealership and a nearby storage lot to complete its Reed-Putnam Urban Renewal project -- up to 1.1 million square feet of office space between Interstate 95 and the Norwalk River.

Mayor Alex Knopp said municipalities should exercise their power of eminent domain rarely and carefully. He said the U.S. Supreme Court reached the correct decision in the New London case. Knopp expressed hope that the state Supreme Court soon will hear the Maritime Motors case. "It's very important to municipalities all over the country that the ability to utilize eminent domain for important and legitimate public uses be protected," Knopp said.

"My impression is that the Connecticut Supreme Court deferred to the U.S. Supreme Court when it postponed ... the Maritime Motors case. I hope that the court will now take up that matter."

Representing Maritime Motors is attorney Michael S. Taylor of the Horton, Shield & Knox, the Hartford law firm that represented the city of New London. He distinguished between the Norwalk and New London cases. "Maritime Motors is totally about blight, whether you need a new finding of blight, whether you need to integrate" the car dealership, Taylor said. "None of this has anything to do with (the New London case)."

Sheehan also pointed to differences. He said the New London case involved "contesting the actual takings," whereas Maritime Motors is contesting several points. For instance, should the city have integrated the car dealership into its redevelopment plan, and was a renewed finding of blight necessary?

For Leigh Grant, president of the Norwalk Association of Silvermine Homeowners and Planning Commission member, the question of blight is relative when one compares one area of a community to another. She said blight doesn't necessarily mean that "buildings are falling down." Grant said cities develop plans for their futures, and that "sometimes the plans are done for the right reasons, and sometimes they're done for the wrong reasons."

She said the New London decision offends her "sense of property rights."

"This opens the door to taking land from private owners and giving it to speculators who have sold you on their plan, which is not always the best plan," Grant said. "The way to avoid that is to have as open a process as possible, and let everybody look at it and air it and come up with better ideas where the ideas."


The rights of resident property owners weighed against possible future commercial redevelopment in Kelo
Handicapping The Kelo Case Is A Difficult Call;  Supreme Court ruling in New London eminent domain case could come tomorrow
By KATE MORAN
Day Staff Writer, New London
Published on 6/12/2005

New London — Attorneys on opposing sides of the Kelo v. New London case dispersed onto the plaza outside the U.S. Supreme Court immediately after oral arguments ended Feb. 22 to take questions from reporters on the proceedings in the most important property rights case in two decades.

Inside the court, the justices were hearing arguments in a second property rights dispute, Lingle v. Chevron, a sleeper of a case that was eclipsed in the media by Kelo but which will have profound effects on the way government can regulate private property.

At issue in Lingle was whether courts can toss out regulations they deem to be bad law — not law that is simply unfair but law too poorly conceived or crafted to accomplish its objective. If the justices had allowed courts to meddle in lawmaking in such a way, they would have touched off a flurry of challenges to laws that regulate land use, enact rent caps and protect the environment.

But the court took a hands-off approach with its unanimous decision on May 23 that the judiciary should let the legislatures conclude whether a particular regulation will be effective. The ruling, possibly a harbinger of what will happen in Kelo, was a disappointment to conservative groups who would limit the government's ability to decide how individuals can use private property.

Attorneys in Connecticut who have followed both cases were hesitant to predict what Lingle might mean for the outcome of Kelo, which should be decided by the court on a Monday in June. But they said the decision does not contain much good news for the homeowners who are trying to prevent New London from taking their property by eminent domain to make way for offices.

The best the homeowners can hope for, attorneys said, is that the Lingle ruling is a neutral indicator of what might happen in the Kelo case.

“It's very hard to read the tea leaves. To predict what's going to happen based on what the court said in Lingle would be risky,” said Michael Shea of the firm Day Berry and Howard, who wrote an amicus brief in the Kelo case for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. “Having made that disclaimer, I'd say as somebody who supports the city that we were pleased by the decision in Lingle and what it says about the standard of review the court is going to use for takings claims.”

The Lingle case arose after the Hawaii legislature passed a law in 1997 that capped the amount oil companies could charge dealers who rented retail gas stations from them. The state's isolation meant competition was limited, and the legislature hoped that the rental caps would help to deflate the price of gas for consumers.

Chevron, the oil company that controlled 60 percent of the market in Hawaii, sued the governor and the attorney general, claiming the rent ceiling amounted to a taking of property. The company also argued that the taking was improper because it did not advance the interest of the state. Consumers never saw a reduction in price so the law was ineffective.

The trial court and a federal circuit court sided with Chevron. In their decisions, both relied on a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave judges the right to examine whether a law “substantially advances” the interest of the state. When the Lingle case went to the Supreme Court this term, however, the justices used it to repudiate their earlier decision and renew the practice of deferring to legislative judgment.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the author of the unanimous decision, said courts would be unduly burdened if they had to review every challenge to a regulation that limited what could be done with private property.

“If so interpreted, it would require courts to scrutinize the efficacy of a vast array of state and federal regulations — a task for which courts are not well suited,” O'Connor wrote. “Moreover, it would empower — and might often require — courts to substitute their predictive judgments for those of elected legislatures and expert agencies.”

Here is where some prognosticators believe the Lingle decision bodes poorly for the homeowners in the Kelo case. The attorney for the homeowners, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice, asked the court to rule that governments never have the right to seize private property to generate land for business development, even if such projects help the public by producing jobs and tax revenue. If the justices reject that argument, Bullock asked them to review whether developments have a reasonable chance of coming to fruition before courts authorize the taking of private property.

Some attorneys guessed that the court, given its history of deference in Lingle and other takings cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, would not agree to conduct that sort of review.

“The Scott Bullock arguments are eclipsed, I believe, by the powerful statement in Midkiff about deference to legislative discretion. The fact that this is reiterated in Lingle suggests a pro-government stance,” said Dwight Merriam, a Hartford land use attorney who is editing a book about the Kelo case that will be published by the American Bar Association in October.

Bullock, however, was not particularly distressed by the Lingle decision. He said the Supreme Court used a separate line of analysis than it would be using in the Kelo case. While Lingle focused on questions of compensation, he said, the Kelo case revolves around whether the jobs and taxes created by private business development are enough of a “public use” to warrants the taking of private property. He noted that the Lingle decision never mentioned the court's seminal takings cases, the 1954 case Berman v. Parker and the 1984 Midkiff case, which will doubtless play heavily in the Kelo decision.

Bullock also said the Institute for Justice is asking courts for a different sort of review than Chevron was demanding in the Lingle case. He says his law firm, based in Washington, D.C., is trying to prevent the seizure of property for developments that are purely speculative. He said some of the property owners in the Kelo case could lose their homes even though the city has only nebulous plans for the property once the houses are gone.

“What Lingle was really talking about was whether this rent control statute would be effective, whether it would do the things it claimed to do,” Bullock said. “The court said it shouldn't be making those types of judgments. We're not asking if the office park will be successful or if it will create tax revenue, but we're asking if there is some likelihood that it will come about at all.”

Matthew Berger, a New London land-use attorney, said he thought Lingle was “devastating” for Kelo after he read the decision for the first time. But in a later reading, he homed in on a paragraph in which O'Connor points out that the question in Lingle is whether the rent control regulation is effective — not whether it served a valid public purpose. The primary question in Kelo, however, is whether economic development takings serve primarily a public or private use.

“Whoever wins, people will look back and say in retrospect that Lingle foreshadowed it,” Berger said. “The emphasis on legislative deference would seem to support the city's claims in Kelo, but having read Lingle, I still don't know who will win.”




Remember the TV show?  Bill passed in '04 dealing with this!
Twilight zoning Court action may let homeowners avoid regulations
By Ryan Jockers, Greenwich TIME Staff Writer
April 25, 2003

A Wilton couple's quest to add a garage and breezeway to their home has disrupted the local zoning laws that municipalities use to regulate
subdivisions, and may end up muddling efforts by towns such as Greenwich to prevent large houses from jarring street-scapes, according to land use attorneys and officials.

The couple, Guy and Colette Poirier, sought a building permit but were denied because the addition would have exceeded what is allowed under current zoning regulations. They appealed, arguing that a state law permitted them to build as much as allowed under the zoning regulations that were in effect when the subdivision in which their lot is located was approved. The Poiriers' subdivision was approved in 1954.

A state Superior Court judge initially ruled against the couple. But in an appeal of that decision, the state Appellate Court agreed with the Poiriers, and now planners, attorneys and others in the land use field are looking at how the ruling affects municipal zoning regulations.  The decision has significant bearing in Greenwich, land use attorneys and officials said. For the past four years the town has grappled with how to slow the spread of "McMansions," which some residents say ruin Greenwich's character. This year the Planning and Zoning Commission approved limiting house size by reducing bulk-control measures such as floor area ratio, or FAR, regulations.

But due to the Poirier vs. Town of Wilton Zoning Board of Appeals decision, houses in Greenwich subdivisions that were approved before the recent FAR amendments may not have to abide by those newer regulations.  "Poirier seems to say that any lot that exists prior to 1984 can be developed or expanded to limits of regulations in place at the time the subdivision was approved," said Dwight Merriam, a land use attorney with Robinson & Cole in Hartford, and former director of the American Planning Association. "So that means that any (recent) attempt by Greenwich or any municipality to limit the size of homes on lots would have no effect."

Town Planner Diane Fox said a resident seeking a building permit under these circumstances would have to provide documentation showing when the subdivision in which they live was created and the regulations that were in place at the time.  At least one resident, Rebecca Balikci of Carissa Lane, who lives in a "conservation" subdivision created in the late 1970s, said she has sought a building permit under the relaxed restrictions which the Poirier decision seems to offer to homeowners like her. She said she wants to add a guest room to her 5,000-square-foot colonial. She said she's waiting to hear from town attorneys regarding her request.

Fox said the ruling has caused a stir among her colleagues and that she has asked Town Attorney John Wetmore to review the ruling in order to ascertain its effect on local regulations.  "A lot of town attorneys are looking at it to see how widespread it is," Fox said.  Greenwich resident Alan Small, president of the Concerned Homeowners of Greenwich, which has opposed the town's FAR laws, said the court's decision was "interesting" and appeared to do "something good for people in our situation," but that he needed to research it more "to look at all its implications."

The case revolves around the wording of a single state statute, which says that "when a change is adopted in the zoning regulations . . . no lot or lots shown on a subdivision plan for residential property, which has been approved, prior to the effective date of such change . . . shall be required to conform to such change."  The statute, passed in 1959, had set a time limit during which homeowners would be exempt from zoning regulations passed after their subdivision was created.  That time limit was deleted when the statute was revised in 1984. Wilton attorneys argued that while that particular statute no longer contained a time limit, similar limits found in other state laws restricted the Poiriers from getting a building permit.

In the court's unanimous decision, it concluded that the "plain terms" of the statute give the plaintiffs a "vested right" to a zoning permit.  Donald Poland, the legislative committee chairman of the Connecticut chapter of the American Planning Association, said the practical effect of the ruling will require zoning agencies to have access to all of their previous regulations to find those governing the time period in question, since decisions in granting permits may no longer rely simply on existing rules.

But the deeper impact, Poland said, could be that it undermines in some way the efforts by Greenwich to control house size.  "If they (municipalities) have recently adopted changes in regulations to regulate things like the size of a house or the footprint to deal with current issues," Poland said, "this says, 'No, those regulations don't apply.' "

Poland said the local American Planning Association has not yet reviewed the decision but will do so later this year. He said that if the organization disagrees with the decision it will likely lobby for a legislative remedy.  The lawyer who represented Wilton in the case, Maureen Cox of the Waterbury firm Carmody & Torrance, said the town has filed a request to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court. The plaintiffs' attorney has filed a request to reject the "petition for certification."

Cox said the appellate court's decision affects all towns that have adopted zoning regulations after subdivisions have been approved. She said it will effectively mean that houses next to each other but built upon different subdivisions could be guided by different regulations, breaking up the uniformity that is sought through the application of zoning.

"We think it is a significant decision and we're hopeful (the state Supreme Court) will take it up," Cox said. 




City responds to invalidation of part of zoning law
BY MARCEL PRZYMUSINSKI
Staff Reporter, New Haven REGISTER
November 9, 2004

Reacting to a recent Connecticut Appellate Court ruling that invalidated part of New Haven's zoning law, city leaders are preparing to either formulate new legislation or appeal the court's decision.

On Wednesday, the court ruled in Campion v. Board of Aldermen that planned development districts, special zones used for large building projects, are illegal. The city's leaders must now decide whether to modify New Haven's zoning legislation or appeal the ruling to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

The result may affect Yale directly, particularly since the University is seeking to zone the planned parking structure for Ingalls Rink as a planned development unit, which is similar to a PDD.

New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. said his administration's initial reaction is not to appeal the ruling, though the possibility is still being considered. DeStefano also said he does not think the ruling will have a significant impact on what projects are actually constructed in the city.

"The court ruling doesn't apply to the merits of the project itself," DeStefano said. "It applies to the process by which we zone them. That distinction is important."

Ward 1 Alderman Ben Healey '04, who is chairman of the Board of Aldermen's Legislation Committee -- the committee that will have to approve any proposed changes to the city's zoning regulations -- said he believes the administration and the board should cooperate quickly to formulate new legislation.

"I would recommend we get together and write the new law rather than use up valuable time and money in what I think will be probably a losing case," Healey said. "The main thing that makes me nervous is trying to figure out what happens in the interim, either while the court case is being appealed or while the new law is being written. I think if we don't have a law we're operating in a vacuum."

This uncertainty about ongoing and upcoming projects may affect Yale's parking garage project, though the structure actually may not require special zoning.

"The claim has been made that [the parking structure] didn't actually require a PDU, in which case even if the current PDU plan falls apart under the court ruling, there's an opportunity to move it under regular rules of the zoning code," Healey said.



Developer appeals housing plan ruling;  Landmark appeals EL zoning decision on Oswegatchie Hills
By Michael Kolber - New London DAY - Published on 11/01/2002; for earlier story, click HERE.
East Lyme— The developer who sought to build affordable housing on 236 acres of the Oswegatchie Hills has appealed the Zoning Commission's rejection of his application...COMMENT: and now (in January 2004) a civil rights suit is brewing!



Consultant for NL transportation study favors keeping hub downtown: Fort Trumbull plan is seen as too costly, too far away 
DAY
By Karin Crompton    
Published on 10/18/2008 

HERE'S WHY: The five reasons TranSystems lists for keeping the transportation center downtown instead of moving it to the Fort Trumbull peninsula...

1 Support among stakeholders, which include the “transportation operators” almost all of whom said they prefer to stay downtown.

2 Only the cruise ships would benefit from a move to Fort Trumbull, but the move is unnecessary “and it appears to be costly and infeasible.”

3 Many transportation operators would face constraints at the Fort Trumbull site: limited access under the railroad for buses and trucks; limited space for parking without affecting other development; it would be “difficult if not impossible” to move the ferry facilities to Fort Trumbull.

4 The existing site offers capacity and opportunities for improvement.

5 There is support for opportunities for enhanced development around the existing site.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
A consultant hired to examine how to better link transportation services in New London is recommending that the study focus on keeping a transportation center downtown rather than moving the services to the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

Keeping the services downtown - including the train station, bus service and ferries - costs far less, would tie in better with future transit-oriented and downtown developments, and offers better pedestrian access, according to the consultant, TranSystems.

View the intermodal transportation center study



”Located in the downtown area, the (existing) site has a strong existing pedestrian oriented infrastructure/network with nearby supportive uses and development opportunities relative to the Fort Trumbull site, which has poor connectivity and limited access to the surrounding areas,” the study contends. “The downtown site has the strongest potential to capture the momentum of people living, working and visiting in downtown New London.”

Determining location is the first phase of the 14- to 18-month study, which the local Council of Governments is administering with funding from the state Department of Transportation. The COG signed a $690,000 contract with TranSystems in June.

A steering committee will meet Tuesday afternoon to discuss the recommendation. The COG's executive director, James Butler, is the project manager and will tell TranSystems which site to focus on after consulting with the committee and with the DOT.

The overall study will recommend how best to connect the existing network of bus, rail, ferry and taxi services, which currently operate near each other but are not formally linked to one another.

The study will also look at how best to capitalize on opportunities for transit-oriented development - development that takes advantage of nearby mass transit, creating neighborhoods and retail areas within walking distance.

The DOT asked TranSystems to consider Fort Trumbull because it is better suited for cruise-ship visits and to position the project for possible federal funding. The federal Environmental Protection Agency, for one, requires an analysis of alternatives.

The study refers to New London's current nexis of transportation services as a “regional intermodal transportation center,” or RITC, the term for connected transportation services.

New London's downtown RITC lacks a clear connection between services and the ability for pedestrians to easily get from one to another, the preliminary study says. However, improving the connections downtown is far less expensive than moving them to Fort Trumbull - a move TranSystems estimates would cost more than $75 million.

Additionally, the Fort Trumbull location is too far from the downtown to lend itself to transit-oriented development and to benefit downtown New London business owners, according to the report.



Union Station project (Transportation Center?)
2007: Region Will Refocus On Development, Sub Base Issues;  Impact of two near misses still shaping area economy
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 1/1/2007
 
Back in 2005 the future of two major initiatives promised to have an enormous influence on the economic future of southeastern Connecticut. One was the effort to save the Naval Submarine Base in Groton. Another was a plan for a major development on the former Norwich Hospital property.
Both are sure to be major newsmakers again in 2007.

While the Pentagon's proposal to close the base was ultimately reversed, many who fought that battle see it as only a temporary reprieve. In essence, they contend, the effort to save the base must begin anew this year.

The next round of proposed base closings and realignments will not be released for at least three or four more years. But a special state commission has warned that if Connecticut waits that long to take action, it would very likely prove to be a costly mistake.

Meanwhile, the future of the former Norwich Hospital property remains a big question mark. In 2005 Preston was negotiating with Utopia Studios Ltd. to develop a massive theme park and movie studio complex on the 419-acre property, with the developer vowing to create 22,000 jobs. But in 2006 the deal collapsed.

Now the Town of Preston is again going in search of developers for the property, perched scenically over the Thames River across from soon-to-be-expanded Mohegan Sun casino.

But while the two big issues are back, the dynamics have changed.

Having gone through a prior fight to save the base, veterans of that battle feel they know what needs to be done to best position the base to ward off a future attempt to close it.

Similarly, Preston officials have the experience of the failed development deal with Utopia Studios. And Utopia did meet one requirement of the development agreement. It prepared a report that outlines the extent of pollution on the property and what it will take to clean it up, a roughly $40 million job.

That report is now the property of the town and should benefit negotiations with a future developer for the site, according to First Selectman Robert Congdon.

•••••

A major question that should be answered in the coming months is whether the concern in this region about the submarine base's future is shared by the rest of the state.

In a report filed Dec. 15, the Governor's Commission for the Economic Diversification of Southeastern Connecticut called for the state to explore the potential for financing improvements at the base. John Markowicz, who chaired the subcommittee that came up with the recommendations, said such direct investment by a state in enhancing the military value of a base may be unprecedented. But it is the kind of bold action Connecticut needs to demonstrate that it is serious about keeping the facility open, he said.

The report to the governor calls for the creation of a “Connecticut Military Value Enhancement Fund.” Money would be drawn from the fund to pay for needed construction on the base. The Navy would reimburse the state over time under a lease arrangement.

The cost would be substantial. According to the commission's recommendations, improvements should begin with the rebuilding of several piers, at a cost of $32 million each. Markowicz said he would like to see progress in the legislature this year in the form of creating the fund, beginning to invest in it and starting negotiations with the Navy to determine if it is willing to enter into such an arrangement.

Local lawmakers said whether Gov. M. Jodi Rell supports the recommendation, and how forcefully, will be critical.

“I think the concepts are good ones and are well thought out, and they make sense in terms of what we need to do to put us on a better footing as far as how the Navy views the sub base and the region,” said state Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford.

“But these recommendations were made to the governor, and we do not yet know how she feels about them,” Stillman said. “The governor controls the bond agenda, and we have a difficult year ahead of us without a lot of competing needs.”

Rell will have the opportunity to display her support for the proposal, or lack of it, over the next month as she delivers her inaugural address Jan. 3, and subsequently releases her budget proposal and addresses the legislature.

Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, said the challenge will lie in persuading colleagues representing the state's larger cities that investing in the base is worthwhile because it benefits the entire state economy.

“I don't think there is any question the legislature would allocate the money if we got on the list again,” Hewett said. “The argument we have to make is that it makes sense to invest that money now, when it could make more of a difference.”

Andrew Maynard of Stonington, the Democratic senator-elect from the 18th District, said it will be a challenging fight with several critical elements — getting the support of the governor, the legislature and the Navy.

“I'm supportive, and I think the concept is a particularly intriguing one, but will the Navy play ball with us?” Maynard said. If the Defense Department is set on getting the base back on the closure list, the answer is likely “no,” he added.

“If they want to close the base, they will value what they need to value to lower the score,” Maynard said. “The hope is that if we signal a commitment (to the base), in this coming session, that would be enough to spare us.”

•••••

In Preston they will be starting over.

Congdon said he expects the town will go through the same process it did prior to reaching a development agreement with Utopia. Requests for proposals from developers will be issued, an agreement hammered out with the developer selected, and the agreement presented to voters at a referendum for their approval.

Asked what lessons may have been learned from the experience with Utopia, Congdon said he is satisfied with the way the town handled the process. Congdon said he would not do anything differently if he had it to do over again.

Because the Utopia backers had no development track record, at least not one they would share with the town, and few assets, Congdon said the town drafted a very tough agreement, including more than $50 million in escrow to cover environmental cleanup, tax and consulting obligations prior to the closing. Utopia did not produce the money by the Nov. 20 deadline.

If the next developer has a substantial record of successful projects and substantial assets, the agreement is likely to be drafted differently to reflect that reality, Congdon said.

With less than two years left on an option the town has to buy the property from the state, for a token $1, this is possibly the last opportunity the town has to control the future development of the former hospital campus. When the option expires, control would return to the state.

Congdon does not feel the threat of a lawsuit by Utopia, which has challenged the legality of the town's terminating the development agreement, would deter interest from other developers. In fact, several have already expressed interest, he noted.

 

Getting There From Here:
Without a single agenda, it will be as hard to make a better working New London transportation center as it is to get to the ferries and trains from the Water Street Parking Garage.
DAY editorial
Published on 12/17/2006
 
Any future planning for a regional transportation center in New London begins with the advantage that there's already one there. Nearly 2 million travelers every year use transportation services clustered about Union Station. Most of these people are patrons of the three ferry services, which comprise the region's most robust transportation business. But a good 250,000 of them travel on trains and buses that stop at the station.

The master plan isn't going to have to make pie from scratch. The ingredients are already there, a unique neighborhood of water, bus and rail transportation services, a place that is bustling despite multiple handicaps.

Nor has there been no planning to make what's there work better. The trouble is much of the planning has been in pursuit of rival agendas.

The trick to success will be not only to connect the pieces of the transportation center, but bring the players into harmony.

A master plan for a transportation center must connect the existing businesses, but to do so, it will have to unite the conflicting interests around a single agenda.

An advisory group needs to be established that represents parties with a significant interest in the outcome: The owners of the train station, the ferry operators, the city, New London's downtown organizations, the Council of Governments and state Department of Transportation, tourism industry and casinos and rail representatives. And that group must initiate a public discussion. A group like the one that met at The Day Dec. 5 and decided to develop a master plan for a regional transportation center.

The group needs to work with planners in reconciling the differences that have stood in the way of progress and created in its place a growing stock of hard feelings.

Foremost among these are the issues of whether to build a pedestrian bridge across the railroad tracks and where to put the “center” of the transportation center; should it be in Union Station or a new building?

The Council of Governments is the logical agency to assume this task. It is representative of the region and has the planning credentials and legal authority to receive state funds for a study. This is a regional as well as a local issue. But it must engage the public and stakeholders in the process, or maybe vice versa.

Just as important as the $500,000 to $750,000 it is estimated the study will cost is the planning process and how open and inclusive it is. Planners must be informed by public opinion and by the people with a stake in the results. The product must be something the public and all the interests can accept, or it won't work. Experience to date is evidence of the futility of operating without consensus or public support.

Public involvement essential

The plan must engage the public because the issues are public, although the major players are private businesses.

New London has an immediate stake in the matter. The center could be a catalyst for growth in its downtown business district by making the city even more vital as a transportation hub.

Southeastern Connecticut would benefit because more creative uses of public transportation centered on the New London waterfront would help solve the highway gridlock problem. The state also would benefit from this advantage.

New London owns the two major parking facilities, a lot that's leased by one of the ferry companies and the Water Street Parking Garage. It also has jurisdiction over Water Street, the troublesome artery travelers must cross to get from the garage to the ferries and trains, and the Parade, the bunker-like plaza the city is considering revamping.

And substantial public investments will be required and must be made in the public interest.

The public, with this clear stake, must be kept in the loop of planning for this transportation center. Its capacity for creativity and good sense must be respected.

But so, too, do the several significant businesses have a stake in the plan. Cross Sound Ferry, while it enjoys a robust business, is hemmed in and handicapped by the cockeyed arrangements for parking and getting to the boats.

Barbara Timken, principal owner of Union Station, has invested heavily in the landmark building and with her business partner, Todd O'Donnell, has shouldered the costs of maintaining a building that is also a public facility. They get little compensation for the public use of the building. That isn't fair, or practical.

A master plan must accommodate both these interests. Union Station needs to be an integral and sustainable part of the transportation center, but the plan must also respond to the pressing needs of the ferry operations for more convenient accommodations for its passengers. Better public accommodations will be a key to making the transportation center work.

'Gateway' to southeastern Connecticut

Current efforts are focused on maintaining Amtrak service at the station. That's important. Planning should also revisit the idea of maintaining a visitor center for the Thames River Heritage Park in the station, as Adam Wronowski, vice president of Cross Sound Ferry, suggests in an article in this section. The center could become a “gateway” to New London and the region that surrounds it and tht may one day revolve around the city as it did in earlier times as a transportation hub for boats and trains and center of commerce.

A planning group doesn't have to wait for the legislature to act. It should get started right away. It also doesn't have to wait until it has a blueprint before it engages the public. A public that is left out of the loop isn't likely to get excited over a plan it had no role in designing. Those kinds of plans are the ones that gather dust and slip into oblivion.

Even before professional planners get their hands on the task, people must decide what kind of transportation center they're talking about? How will it differ from what's there? How will it work? What purposes will it serve that aren't served now?

The planners need a visionary sketch to work from, such as the one architect Barun Basu, president of Main Street, has drawn in an article in this special section. Mr. Basu envisions what the future might be like in several decades with a vigorous transportation center in its midst.

The planning process needs guidance and support that only can come from the bottom up, from a representative group that is willing to listen respectfully to one another and consult with the public. The failure to appreciate that fact before this helps explain why it's been almost as hard to come up with a plan as it is to get to the ferries from the Water Street Parking Garage.



Norwalk plan up for debate
By ROBERT KOCH, Hour Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
NORWALK -- Traffic, development and park space could emerge as topics tonight when the Planning Commission's Land Use Committee invites residents of southeast Norwalk to a public workshop on the city's unfolding master plan.  The commission hopes to finish updating the city's Plan of
Conservation and Development by the end of the year. So far, the commission has finished compiling comments heard at earlier neighborhood meetings.

Tonight's workshop at the East Norwalk Library is the first of four new meetings to revisit neighborhood concerns before pressing forward with the master plan. The workshop will begin at 8 tonight in the Community Center of the library, 51 Van Zant St.  "We have formulated a list of items which reflect the major issues pertaining to Norwalk's neighborhoods," wrote commission Chairman Walter O. Briggs in a memorandum to interested parties. "For discussion purposes we have listed them below in general categories. Clearly there will be overlapping interests so these should not be considered as fixed units."

Those general categories are buildings, environment and quality of life. Specifics include modifying zoning regulations to reduce the height and bulk of single-family homes; creating an open-space acquisition fund by a property transfer tax; and forming village districts, based on public input from
meetings more than a year ago.

"The neighborhoods have done a lot of work (since then), and that's wonderful. We'll take the information and incorporate as much of it that makes sense into the master plan," said Briggs, referring to the four workshops. "These are very important meetings." So far, at least two East Norwalk neighborhood groups plan to attend tonight's workshop -- one of four scheduled by the commission -- to ensure that their concerns are incorporated into the master plan.

Laurel Lindstrom, president of the East Norwalk Neighborhood Association, said her group intends to present a 30-page draft of its "mini-master plan." Lindstrom said the draft plan offers many recommendations on larger "livability" issues facing East Norwalk residents. She named traffic, zoning and development, sidewalks and acquiring land for pocket parks among the recommendations addressed in the neighborhood mini master plan.

"You don't want to just talk about specific streets and potholes (tonight). It's really the larger issues," Lindstrom said.  Also expected to attend the workshop are members of the East Norwalk Improvement Association. "We still want to keep our voices known," said Terry Rooney, former president of the association.

A similar workshop for the Norwalk's northwest quadrant is scheduled at 7 p.m. May 11 at the Dolce Norwalk Center, 32 Weed Ave.




And for the earlier story about the right to erect billboards in the first place...click here.
'HELD ON FOR DEAR LIFE' - 2 escape collapse of I-95 billboard
By AARON LEO aleo@ctpost.com, 4-21-04
STRATFORD - Two men working on a pair of massive billboards 60 feet above the ground alongside Interstate 95 escaped injury Tuesday after a support buckled, sending one end of the signs crashing through the roof of a building.

Shawn Heath, 19, and Jon Miller, 48, both of Pennsylvania and employed by J&G Industries of York, Pa., were saved by harnesses they wore in accordance with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules.  The billboards and their horizontal support were hanging at a 45-degree angle after the accident on Moffitt Street. The signs had been visible from Interstate 95, north of exit 30.

Heath, harnessed to a ladder on the vertical pole supporting the twin signs, and Miller, attached to a catwalk, were performing maintenance about 5 p.m. when the collapse occurred.  "I heard a snap; I saw it going, and I just held on for dear life," Miller said after the accident.  He said he slid partway down the catwalk before his harness saved him.  He then unbuckled the harness and crawled the rest of the way down.  Heath said he climbed down the ladder on the vertical pole to safety. The pole remained upright after the billboards fell.

Both workers said the structure did not appear unstable before they climbed onto it.  Miller has been working with billboards 32 years, while Heath has one year of experience.  The billboard crashed through part of the roof of Soundview Land Design, at 65-85 Moffitt St.  Oscar Santana, brother-in-law of the design company's owner, was moving dirt with a loader when he saw the crash. "I heard a great big crack. I saw the thing just come down on the building."

The billboards also fell on the boom of a bucket truck parked underneath them, Santana said.  He said he did not worry about the signs falling in the two years the company has been on Moffitt Street. But he said perhaps the billboard should have been supported by two poles.  A Stratford resident, Edward Mackowski, of J. DeRosa and Associates, is part owner of the billboards.  He said cranes will be used to remove the structure.  Police blocked traffic from the intersection of Moffitt Street and Surf Avenue on Tuesday night because of the collapse.  Town building officials were investigating the cause.




Appeals court sides with Stamford in billboard dispute
June 26, 2002, Associated Press
STAMFORD, Conn. -- The Constitution does not give advertisers the right to erect giant billboards along an Interstate highway, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The court upheld a decision zoning decision by the city of Stamford, which denied a permit request from Granite State Outdoor Advertising to erect two 10-story towers with 48-by-14-foot billboards.  Granite State sued claiming the city's regulations violated the First Amendment and other constitutional guarantees.

U.S. District Court Judge Alan Nevas last year ruled in favor of the city, and the state Department of Transportation, which entered the case as a defendant.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Nevas' decision, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said.  "The federal appeals court rightly ruled that there is no constitutional right to billboards that impose traffic hazards and visual blight on local communities," Blumenthal said.




Wilton to deny apartment bid
By JERROD FERRARI
Special to The Hour, Thursday, January 15, 2004
WILTON -- The Wilton Planning and Zoning Commission is moving forward with a resolution to deny a modified application submitted by AvalonBay to build a 100-unit complex at 116 Danbury Road.  The consensus among commission members Monday was that the modification of a plan proposed by Avalon in February 2003 was "little different" from the original proposal.  "No significant changes were made," said Commissioner Laurie
McTeague.

Commission Chairman Calvin Braustein said that even if the modification had corrected all of the flaws for the reasons they had originally denied "there still would be problems with the site." "We (the commission) don't have the power to fix all of the problems there," he said.  Currently the town's Planning and Zoning Department is working on a resolution to deny Avalon's proposal, said Town Planner Bob Nerney on Wednesday. Avalon has also applied for a modification to a zone approved with Avalon's original plan and a change in zoning to that designation at 116 Danbury Road.

The commission is expected to make modifications to the zone definition, to deny the zone change at 116 Danbury Road and to deny Avalon's application for the development at that location. They are next scheduled to discuss Avalon at their Feb. 9 meeting.  Avalon's application falls under Connecticut's affordable housing statute and is governed by state mandates not placed on normal zoning proposals. These mandates only give the town 65 days from the submission of the proposal to render a decision. That time was extended because it took the Inlands Wetlands Commission longer than expected to come down with their decision on the matter.

In December, the Inlands Wetlands Commission approved Avalon's proposal. Planning and Zoning now has 35 days from the end of that approval to render their decision (Feb. 12).  Neither the town's attorney Marianne Barbino Dubuque of Carmody & Torrance LLP nor Avalon's attorney Timothy Hollister of Shipman & Goodwin LLP returned calls for comment this week.  Hollister, who some credit with penning the state's affordable housing laws, filed the modification to the Avalon's plan on the heels of a victory over Wilton's Inlands Wetlands Commission at the state Supreme Court regarding a 1999 application for 113 units at the same site. Avalon has been submitting similar plans to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the land at 116 Danbury Road since the mid-1990s.

The proposed 100-unit apartment complex would add 30 affordable housing units in Wilton and bring the town closer to fulfilling the state's requirement that 10 percent of housing in a town must be deemed "affordable." The proposed site of the development is on a 10.6-acre property owned by James and Marilyn O'Halloran.



Friday, Feb. 4, 2005 DAY:
Bill Would Curb Use Of Eminent Domain;  GOP Leader Inspired To Act By Situation At Fort Trumbull
By TED MANN

Hartford –– To Rep. Robert Ward, the Republican leader in the state House of Representatives, it's pretty simple: the government shouldn't take away your house because someone wants to build a hotel.

No potential economic benefit –– not even an infusion of tax revenue in a struggling, cash-strapped city –– can justify the use of eminent domain on behalf of a private business.

For the second year in a row, Ward has introduced legislation to prohibit the state's eminent-domain law from being used to justify such a taking.

The veteran lawmaker's concerns about the use of eminent domain were galvanized by the controversial redevelopment efforts of the New London Development Corp., which invoked the law to condemn houses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, which the city and the NLDC hope to recast as a mixed residential and commercial neighborhood, complete with a hotel and a home for the Coast Guard Museum.

Seven property homeowners have held out, saying the seizure of their homes violates their right under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case, Kelo v. New London, later this month, the first time the court has revisited the constitutional limits of eminent domain in decades.

Ward, meanwhile, has set to work on changing the law, with a bill that would ban the acquisition of some residential property by eminent domain if it is to be privately owned or controlled.

The bill would apply to owner-occupied property with four or fewer dwelling units. As currently drafted, it would not be retroactive, and thus would not apply to Fort Trumbull, but Ward said he would consider changing the language if he thought it would draw support.

“It's important because I believe our current law allows individual homeowners to lose their property so that private business interests can make more money,” Ward said. “I find that unacceptable and unjust.”

“If there is a blighted area, I have no objection to the use of eminent domain,” he said. “But you don't destroy non-blighted residential neighborhoods in the name of economic development. The strength of a city is in its people, and you don't make cities stronger by tearing down homes and building hotels.”

Ward's position echoes that of the Institute for Justice, the legal center that will argue the case of the Fort Trumbull homeowners before the court.

It also mirrors similar efforts in states like Colorado and Arizona, said Scott Bullock, the institute's lead attorney on the case.

“The bills faced vociferous opposition, as I'm sure they will in Connecticut, from government bodies and from developers,” Bullock said in a message left for a reporter.

“In both of those states, watered-down versions of the bills passed,” he said. “... It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing happens in Connecticut on this bill.”

The NLDC and the city have their own vociferous defenders. Among the organizations filing friend of the court briefs on their behalf were development agencies in New York, Massachusetts and California, attorneys general from numerous states, and organizations like the American Planning Association.

Taking private property in order to foster private commercial development is a justified use of eminent domain law, the planning association argues, if the development will plausibly benefit the larger community.

“If you're going to have economic development, somebody's got to come in and assemble the property,” said Patricia Salkin, the chairman of the APA's amicus curiae committee and associate dean of the Albany School of Law.

Proposals like Ward's, she said, “run a significant risk of cutting off government's ability to be a part of the engine of economic development.”

That doesn't mean the proposal is unattractive.

Rep. Ed Jutila, D-East Lyme, said he had followed the New London case from afar, but felt “a little skeptical” that the NLDC's project would result in the boon to the city that the organization claims.

“I'm not sure that the government should be in the business of taking private residential property for other than public use, even though there may be some indirect public benefit that results from it,” Jutila said.

But he was also careful to say that he did not necessarily support Ward's bill, and that he felt sympathy for the city in its efforts to shore up a flagging tax base after years of attrition.

“Towns are out there groping for any means they can find, and I don't fault them for this,” he said.

To push his law through the legislature, Ward will have to focus on the first sentiment more than the second, but it is a feat that he and others say is not out of the question.

A proposal to restrict eminent-domain use “unites people that are typically across the ideological divide,” said Bullock of the Institute for Justice. “It wouldn't surprise me if some Democrats and Republicans who want to protect people's rights joined forces to try to make this happen.”

Ward's similar bill last year easily won approval in the Judiciary Committee last spring, but was killed by one vote in the committee on Planning and Development.

“This is a wild card, and because it's a wild card, the big thing is for him to get the bill out on the floor for a vote,” said Rep. Diana Urban, R-North Stonington, an economist who added that she was, like Jutila, “of two minds” about the proposal.

“The economist would look at this from a utilitarian perspective –– the most good for the most people,” she said. “If eminent domain issues don't override ... it is clearly a benefit for the entire area. And I think that's what they're resting their hat on in the Fort Trumbull case.”

But Urban nevertheless seemed to lean toward Ward's position.

“Oftentimes we are using eminent domain to go into neighborhoods that work, that are clear communities that have created a community web, and we ruin them,” she said. “I really think that we have not carefully weighed the issues on a lot of these cases, and sort of just gone ahead with tunnel vision.”

“It's all about getting that bill to the floor,” Urban said, where Ward stands the best chance of getting his colleagues in line behind him. “You just can't draw party lines on this one.”

Ward seemed to expect an uphill battle, but having elicited a promise of a hearing from leaders of the Judiciary Committee, he was confident.

“I think it has a good chance,” he said.



Eminent domain takes aim at life's work
By Jake Wagman
Of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (cites New London case)
01/31/2005

Every month for 20 years, Gentle "Jim" Day mailed his $1,222.22 mortgage payment on his business, Royal Auto Repair.  He finally paid if off last year. But now Day, the son of Arkansas sharecroppers, faces losing his land and business.  An agency backed by the city is preparing to take Day's business by eminent domain to make way for something called a "Media Box."

Day can take the offer of $67,500 for his property - less than the city says it's worth - or continue with an already drawn-out court battle. Either way, he has little chance of keeping his shop on a triangle of land at Spring Avenue and Olive Street.  Critics say Day's situation is a classic example of the abuse of eminent domain. A case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court could affect thousands of similar cases nationwide.

In St. Louis, Day is one of a growing number of property owners angered by the methods being used to redevelop the city's arts district, an effort that has been led by a former mayor.

"Coming up, I was afraid of losing my property for tax purposes, lack of payment," says Day, 57. "I paid the property off, and I still lose the property. That's a bad feeling."

Compounding his frustration is that he knows little about what the plans are for the land, nor what a "Media Box" is.
Day's business is just steps way from the Fox Theatre, Powell Hall, the Contemporary Art Museum and other cultural institutions. The area is struggling and has been targeted for redevelopment by the city. Leading the charge is Grand Center Inc., a nonprofit organization headed by former Mayor Vincent C. Schoemehl Jr.

The redevelopment plan passed in 2002 by the Board of Aldermen names Grand Center as "master developer," giving the agency broad and almost unilateral powers to control land use. As president and chief executive of the agency, Schoemehl is the mini-mayor of a swatch of midtown roughly the size of 20 Busch Stadiums. Grand Center can approve or reject building designs, dispense up to $80 million in tax incentives and acquire land by eminent domain.

Grand Center's vision has the area becoming the "cultural soul" of the city, a residential and commercial district that will rival the Delmar Loop and Central West End.  The vision does not include an auto repair shop. The Post-Dispatch obtained a map of Grand Center's "Strategic Development Master Plan" that shows the "Media Box" in the same spot as Royal Auto Repair.

"Can't talk" about it

So just what is a Media Box?  For weeks, officials in Grand Center and others involved refused to discuss the plan.  The redevelopment plan originally given to the city called for a park, open space or residences on the site; an artist with a history of multimedia projects is involved.

"I can't talk to you about the Media Box," Eric Friedman, a real estate agent who describes himself as a principal in the project, said earlier last month.  But last week, Michelle Cohen, a public relations executive recently hired by Grand Center, said the "Media Box" is a building that will hold a design studio and apartments or condominiums.

"The 'Media Box' is really the working title for the design studio piece of it," Cohen said.  Friedman is working with the city's postmodern standard-bearer, an asbestos lawyer turned multimedia artist named Paul Guzzardo. Guzzardo has been involved in creative presentation of images, including projecting the last episode of "Seinfeld" on the side of a building on Washington Avenue. He also owned an "interactive" nightclub, Cabool, where dance moves were broadcast over the Internet.

"I have an interest and kind of obsession with information culture and urbanism," Guzzardo said recently - although he also refused to discuss the Media Box.  The proposal submitted to the city by Grand Center says nothing about using Day's property for commercial purposes. Still, Schoemehl says the intended use of the land is consistent with the redevelopment plan.

"It is not simply being condemned in furtherance of a piece of abstract art," Schoemehl said.

Fighting Grand Center

Day developed a knack for engine repair while working on farms in Crawfordsville, Ark., where he grew up.

He came to St. Louis as a young man for formal training as a mechanic. Before he bought Royal Auto Repair, Day worked jobs including on an assembly line at an envelope factory and in the kitchen of Uncle Bill's diner.  In October 2003, Schoemehl offered Day $125,000 for his land. Day rejected it. Two months later, Schoemehl cut the offer to $67,500. That is $12,800 less than the city's official appraisal.

"Let me put it this way - $67,000, if you give me three months, I could probably make that here," Day said in an interview in his cramped office at the repair shop.  After Day rejected the second offer, an arm of Grand Center filed a lawsuit to have the property condemned. It is pending in St. Louis Circuit Court.

Other property owners have sued Schoemehl and Grand Center over tactics they consider heavy-handed and bullying.

A group of property owners led by the Masonic Temple sued Grand Center in October in federal court. They charge that Grand Center has wrongfully threatened property owners with eminent domain "in an effort to get them to sell at a distressed price, sometimes offering only $1, which itself carries an ominous implication."

The company that operates the Fox Theatre sued Grand Center over parking spots, accusing it of seeking the "gentrification" of the area. That suit was dismissed, but, in a separate suit, Grand Center sued the company that owns Fox in a land dispute that was dismissed in circuit court. That suit is now pending in state appeals court.

Even the alderman who sponsored the measure to give Grand Center its power now says they might be taking those powers too far.

"Eminent domain should be the exercise of last resort," said Alderman Mike McMillan, D-19th Ward. "I do not think that, long term, it is the best thing for the development of the district because it creates a lot of bad will."  McMillan says he was surprised to learn about Day's situation.

"Had I been aware of it, I would not have supported the way it was done," McMillan said.

What is blight?

The Fifth Amendment allows local governments to take private property for "public use" as long as "just compensation" is provided. In the two centuries since those terms were inked, it has been up to judges and lawmakers to decide what they mean.  Grand Center's eminent domain powers stem from the designation that the area is "blighted."

And just what is the definition of blight?

"Bottom line is anything a local legislature says is blight is blight," says Stanley J. Wallach, a lawyer who is chairman of the Missouri Bar's Eminent Domain Law Committee. "Absent fraud or collusion or bad faith, courts will not second-guess it."

For instance, the campus of St. Louis University was deemed blighted by the Board of Aldermen. That made the university eligible for tax breaks on building its 13,000-seat arena.  Day's property also is blighted, which means it is ripe for acquisition, regardless of whether the Media Box is for the public good.

Clients who come to Wallach with eminent domain complaints get this advice: "Get to City Hall with everybody you can, bang on some pots and pans, and try to stand up for your rights at the political level. Because by the time it gets to me, you are fighting an uphill battle to say the least."

The case before the Supreme Court could change that. Residents of New London, Conn., sued the city in 2000 after the City Council gave permission to a development agency to take their homes by eminent domain to build office space and a hotel. The city's rationale was that the new projects would provide more tax dollars and economic development than the homes. The nation's highest court will hear the case Feb. 22.

If it issues a broad ruling against the city, the decision could affect eminent domain disputes everywhere. That includes fights in Arnold, Sunset Hills and Maplewood, where developers are seeking to take private homes for shopping centers.

Day is waiting for his day in court. A hearing set for Jan. 18 was postponed to March 7. If Day and Grand Center don't settle, the court could condemn the land and set compensation for Day.

"I sleep at night so I can defend myself from it," Day says. "I try to have a nice sleep and a clear mind because every day I have to defend myself from this."

Reporter Jake Wagman
E-mail: jwagman@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-622-3580



Sunday, Feb. 20, 2005 New Haven REGISTER
Residents ask Supreme Court to block eminent domain
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

NEW LONDON, Conn. (AP) -- Fifteen houses are all that remain of Fort Trumbull, a once vibrant immigrant neighborhood flattened into expanses of rutted grass and gravel.

The homes stand in defiance of New London's plan to pave the way for a riverfront hotel and convention center, offices and upscale condominiums.

Refusing the city's efforts to get them to leave, seven families are going before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, arguing that the city has no right to take their private property solely for economic development. The rebellious homeowners include an elderly Italian immigrant, a mechanic and a former deli owner.

"It's a case of the rich eating the poor," said Matthew Dery, who lives in one of four houses on a compound his family has owned since 1901. "Sometimes the poor are difficult to digest."

Leading the charge is Susette Kelo, a 47-year-old nurse who bought her home in 1997.

"They have over 90 acres now," Kelo said. "It's more than enough room to build on. We never said they can't build. We just said 'We want to stay.'"

But Kelo's apricot-colored house, with a decorative outhouse in the front yard and wind chimes made of silverware, doesn't fit in the city's development plans.

"They just would not be compatible with all the other uses," said Edward O'Connell, an attorney representing the New London Development Corp., the quasi-public agency behind the redevelopment effort.

Whether building highways or public offices, laying railroad tracks or eliminating blight, governments have long relied on eminent domain laws to allow them to take private property.

The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property for "public use."

New York used eminent domain to improve Time Square, expand the New York Stock Exchange and build the World Trade Center. Baltimore replaced a downtrodden waterfront with a bustling harbor development.

But Fort Trumbull is not besieged by blight, poverty or crime and New London is not building a highway or government building, and the residents' appeal asks if "public use" allows governments to seize unblighted taxpayer property solely to encourage private development.

The Supreme Court has given governments broad power to take private property through eminent domain, provided the owner is given "just compensation." But in recent years many cities and towns have been accused of abusing their authority.

New London officials say the taxes generated by redeveloping Fort Trumbull ultimately will benefit the public, and the state Supreme Court ruled that was enough to justify the condemnation.

City officials have worked to remake the area since 1996, when the Naval Undersea Warfare Center left town with its 1,400 jobs. When pharmaceutical giant Pfizer opened a $350 million research center nearby that year, city officials saw an opportunity to create high-end housing, retail shops, a business park and a hotel.

All that was standing in the way were 115 homes.

Most owners accepted the city's buyout offers. Those who remain fall into two categories - people who simply won't leave and people who feel they're being cheated out of the fair value of their homes.

"The sentimental holdouts are the more difficult to deal with," O'Connell said. "No matter what you offer, they won't consider that sufficient or appropriate. They're just not motivated by the logic of the marketplace."

Kelo says it's not about the money for her. She was raised nearby, and when her children moved out she wanted a house by the water. Her small but cozy house has a front porch with a a great view of the Thames River.  Dery is upset that the city wants to take his property before putting a developer under contract and deciding exactly what will replace his neighborhood.

"What they're saying," Dery said, "is that anything that we put there will be better than you."
 

AND ANOTHER REPORT 2/20:

Hartford Courant:
High Court To Test Seizure Of Homes;  Eminent Domain Is Focus Of New London Case
By LYNNE TUOHY

NEW LONDON

The Fort Trumbull eminent domain controversy is the most significant Connecticut case to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 40 years, and offers the court its first opportunity in half a century to address the government's power to take private property for economic development.

The owners of 15 tiny parcels scattered throughout the 90-acre redevelopment plan for the Fort Trumbull peninsula will board a plane Monday for Washington so they can hear their fate argued Tuesday before the justices.  The court's ruling, expected in June, could dramatically affect personal property rights, struggling municipalities and economic development for decades to come.

Attorney Wesley Horton, who will argue the case on behalf of the city of New London and its designated redevelopment agency - the New London Development Corp. - said that aside from the recently decided federal sentencing guidelines case, "I don't think there's a more important case on their docket this year."

Dana Berliner of the Washington-based Institute for Justice, a private civil liberties law firm that represents the property owners, agreed.

"The Supreme Court hasn't looked at a case of eminent domain for private development in more than 50 years," Berliner said. "So whatever the court has to say is going to affect how eminent domain is used in this country for the next 50 years."

The case pits the working-class property owners of Fort Trumbull against an economically distressed city looking to capitalize on its first major industrial development in a century: the construction of the global research and development headquarters for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc., which was announced in 1998.

In place of the mosaic of homes and shuttered military buildings on Fort Trumbull, the city envisions a hotel and conference center, office space, luxury condos and extra parking for the Fort Trumbull State Park.

The handful of homeowners who resisted attempts to buy their homes - and had them taken by eminent domain - claim it's unconstitutional to take their homes for private development. Susette Kelo and her neighbors sued the city of New London and the private New London Development Corp.

The Connecticut Supreme Court last March ruled 4-3 that the Fort Trumbull project has "the public benefits of creating new jobs, increasing tax and other revenues and contributing to urban revitalization" - thereby satisfying the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The high courts of five other states have also held that government may condemn property for economic development, if there is a public benefit involved.

The government's taking of private property through eminent domain historically resulted in a tangible public use - a school or a road, a dam or a public utility company. But in an era of burgeoning development in the suburbs and cities declining because they have no land with which to compete for malls and corporate office parks, the "public use" clause of the Fifth Amendment has been contorted into a variety of innovative applications.

Blurring The Lines

Not since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1965 ruling in Griswold vs. Connecticut - in which the court held that a state law barring distribution of contraceptives violated marital privacy rights - has a Connecticut case been poised to have such resounding national impact.

"If the court agrees with the Connecticut Supreme Court, it will change home ownership as we know it in America," Berliner said. "They will be saying all you need to do to take somebody's home is to think of something else that would go there that would produce more taxes and jobs."

The high court has shown great deference to state and local governments to determine what constitutes "public use" and "public benefit." But it also has long barred the use of eminent domain to benefit private interests.

The court blurred that distinction somewhat in its 1954 ruling that expanded the "public use" clause to encompass the elimination of blight and razing of slums. Once that goal was accomplished, the court held, the government entity was free to permit private development of the now-cleared land. That case, Berman vs. Parker, permitted the razing of blighted areas of southwest Washington and subsequent redevelopment.

The court in Berman rejected the appeal of the owner of a non-blighted department store in the midst of the area being razed, saying, "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area."

The fallback position of the homeowners is that, even if economic development is a legitimate public use, their homes should still remain because the development plan for Fort Trumbull includes no specific use for their particular properties.

Horton rejects that as unrealistic.

"A developer wants the whole area available," Horton said. "You don't want to see what's called a spotted leopard - a house here and a house there. Parcel 3 is a wasteland. It looks like it's been bombed, but there are a few houses."

The case has drawn nearly 40 friend-of-the court briefs - 13 in support of the development and 25 in support of the property owners - often with multiple organizations signing onto one brief. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities brief, for instance, was joined by municipal leagues from 31 states.

A brief filed by a group of law school professors on behalf of the Kelo coalition notes that state courts have gone in markedly different directions in cases presenting similar facts, creating a "hodgepodge" of decisions. The professors said the Kelo case offers the high court the opportunity to "reinvigorate" the takings clause of the federal constitution.