Just some comments about the previous article.
As I read through the latest New London Times article entitled "Lingering Questions in Fort Trumbull" published on 3/13/2007, I couldn't help but wonder if I was caught in a vortex of amnesia. Once again, the question of who owns the properties in Fort Trumbull has perculated to the top of the local political discourse. The fact is, this question being considered has been lingering for, at least, seven years. It has been addressed in public forums, council meetings, and even in Hartford before the Judiciary and Planning and Development Committees. This question is not a new one. In fact, very often when David Goebel, the former Chief Operating Officer of the New London Development Corporation would assert that they (NLDC) did everything lawfully and above board, we would point out that they were not complying with the statute that requires all property acquired in the MDP to be held in the name of the city. His response was typically no answer. What really bothered me was trying to understand why the city's law director, Thomas Londregan hadn't pressed harder, or even sued NLDC to comply with the law. More on Tom Londregan later.
Less that a year ago the same question was addressed in detail on the local cable show "Fort Trumbull Facts." It's too bad more people didn't see the program. In at least two episodes the late Fort Trumbull activist Neild Oldham and I discussed the specific statutory nuances of the development agreement between NLDC, the state, and the prime developer, Corcoran-Jennison. As I stated then, much of the confusion over who owns what in Fort Trumbull has to due with the issue of "unified land" and what the development agreement provides. I have spoken about this issue to John Brooks and Mike Joplin from NLDC, Marty Jones (C-J's President)and a few others who have actually read the statutes and agreement. Indeed, the development agreement and proposed lease agreements between NLDC and CJ seemed to have ignored what the statute requires, specifically that the properties be held in the city's name.
In a nutshell it goes like this; the State of Connecticut, using NLDC as its agent has agreed to aquire properties and then unify them in a single development scheme. The City of New London is not a party to this agreement and therefore, has no contractual power to determine how the land is used. The city does have regulatory powers through the Planning & Zoning Commission, but the City does not have "control" over the development plans. NLDC has site control for a specific time in which they are required to build out the parcels according to the Municipal Development Plan. However, if they fail to perform, they may be kicked out of the contract.
Now to unifiy land, all the parcels need to be owned by the same entity. Therefore, all the properties in the development parcels which are part of the development agreement must be owned by NLDC which is a party to the agreement. The City of New London is not a party to the agreement. If they (the city) were the owners of the parcels, there would have to be a new agreement between the state, the developer, and the city. Someone in the original agreement would have to be in default to change the current contract status.
Now here's the rub. Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 132 Sec. 8-199 states "Action to be taken in name of municipality. Any development agency shall exercise its powers in the name of the municipality, and all bonds issued pursuant to this chapter shall be issued in the name of the municipality and title to land taken or acquired pursuant to a development plan shall be solely in the name of the municipality." The fact is that all the property should have been held in the city's name until the land was unified. Then the city could have quitclaimed the property to the developer, allowing NLDC to act as the development agency (or manager) for the city. It seems that plan was just too cumbersome for NLDC, so they decided to skip it.
Where it gets complicated, as if it isn't already, another statute, CGS 132, Sec. 8-193 states, "Acquisition and transfer of real property. General powers of agency. (a) After approval of the development plan as provided in this chapter, the development agency may proceed by purchase, lease, exchange or gift with the acquisition or rental of real property within the project area and real property and interests therein for rights-of-way and other easements to and from the project area. The development agency may, with the approval of the legislative body, and in the name of the municipality, acquire by eminent domain real property located within the project area and real property and interests therein for rights-of-way and other easements to and from the project area, in the same manner that a redevelopment agency may acquire real property under sections 8-128 to 8-133, inclusive, as if said sections specifically applied to development agencies. The development agency may, with the approval of the legislative body and, of the commissioner if any grants were made by the state under section 8-190 or 8-195 for such development project, and in the name of such municipality, transfer by sale or lease at fair market value or fair rental value, as the case may be, the whole or any part of the real property in the project area to any person, in accordance with the project plan and such disposition plans as may have been determined by the commissioner." The commissioner is from DECD commissioner.
I have to address one other point in the Times article, although I do have other issues with it. It has to do with the comment New London City Director of Law Thomas Londregan made regrading the property ownership. It seems that Tom has had an awakening. Back in 2005, he testified in Hartford before the joint legislative committees holding hearings on eminent domain reform, that the City of New London held the titles to all the properties in Fort Trumbull. Wow! I guess Tom just didn't know how to read the tax roles. Guess what? He still doesn't get it.
As a final note, I have to say that I'm a bit annoyed by those who have recently decided to mount a crusade to monitor events in Fort Trumbull. Monitoring has been going on for eight years. Where were they when the fight was real?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Lingering Questions...
A New London Times article by Stephen Chupaska
Lingering Questions in Fort Trumbull Published on 3/13/2007
Throughout the nine-year legal labyrinth of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment, politicians and citizens alike have been admonishing that “the devil is in the details.”
Now, a group of citizens led by New London Realtor Lori Hopkins has begun to ask questions about something that is at once seemingly simple and extraordinarily complex: Who owns the titles to the properties in Fort Trumbull, and why is this important?
Hopkins, who plans to organize a citizens' group to monitor events at Fort Trumbull, spoke at a recent City Council meeting claiming the New London Development Corporation is not adhering to a state statute that says the municipality must hold the title to property taken or purchased in a development plan.
“This law has been violated,” Hopkins said on March 5. “NLDC claims to own these properties. There is no written agreement that says otherwise, because there is no contract between the city and the NLDC.”
According to the most recent tax assessor's records dating to the end of January of this year, the NLDC holds the titles for most of the property purchased on the peninsula since the quasi-public agency reformed in 1997.
The NLDC does not, however, hold the deeds to the property seized by eminent domain made famous nationwide during the Kelo v. New London case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.
Those properties belong to the city, which settled with the plaintiffs in the Kelo case last summer and began demolishing the houses last month.
A Feb.20 memorandum from city Law Director Thomas L. Londregan to members of the City Council notes that NLDC has been advised of the state statute.
“I have pointed it out to (NLDC),” Londregan wrote. “There is a clear understanding – so clear that I recall putting it in writing – that the title to this land is to be in the name of the City of New London.”
In May 1998 the City Council voted to authorize the NLDC, then led by former Connecticut College President Claire Gaudiani, as the city's agent in the Fort Trumbull redevelopment.
Londregan, however, also points out there is a “clear understanding between NLDC and the City... that when NLDC has secured possession and title to the entire development parcel will be put in the name of the City of New London.”
In other words, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan, passed in 2000, divided up the former working-class neighborhood into different numbered parcels, such as 1, 2 and 4A, where the plaintiffs in the Kelo case owned property.
According to the “understanding,” the city would receive titles once all the properties in the parcel were secured.
“That is why properties purchased by NLDC are in NLDC's name,” Londregan continues in his correspondence. “Just until all the properties are collected so as to give one MDP (Municipal Development Plan) parcel to the City.”
Londregan did not return repeated phone calls requesting further comment.
Mayor Margaret Curtin and Councilor Rob Pero are the only members of the current council who remain from the body that voted to name NLDC the city's agent.
Pero downplayed the fact that NLDC still holds titles to property in Fort Trumbull.
“It's not a major issue,” he said.
Pero speculated that the failure of NLDC to transfer the titles to the city is due to administrative delays due to the agency's lack of funding and staff.
There is evidence that there is stagnation with the agency.
NLDC's Web site, for instance, lists erroneous information, such as indicating David Goebel as the executive director, a position he has not held since 2005.
Pero also noted that at some point NLDC will cease to exist.
The city would gain the titles to the property should it sever its relationship with the agency before the project is complete.
The city has had a historically tempestuous relationship over the last decade with NLDC, which was originally funded by the state under the now disgraced Governor John G. Rowland.
Connecticut's Department of Economic and Community Development, which provided NLDC with its initial injection of cash, acts as a “mortgage holder” over the Fort Trumbull project.
In the midst of the municipal election season in August 2005, the City Council's frustration with NLDC reached a fever pitch, and it voted to disengage, or essentially fire, the agency and called for the resignation of Goebel and President Michael Joplin.
Subsequently, the City Council made amends with the agency, though Goebel resigned and was replaced on an interim basis with Greg Coenen, a position he holds today.
Coenen directed questions regarding the status of the titles in Fort Trumbull to NLDC legal counsel Ed O'Connell of the New London firm of Waller, Smith and Palmer.
“The fine points of the law are best addressed by our attorneys,” he said.
O'Connell did not return messages asking for comment. By Stephen Chupaska
Times Staff Writer
Lingering Questions in Fort Trumbull Published on 3/13/2007
Throughout the nine-year legal labyrinth of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment, politicians and citizens alike have been admonishing that “the devil is in the details.”
Now, a group of citizens led by New London Realtor Lori Hopkins has begun to ask questions about something that is at once seemingly simple and extraordinarily complex: Who owns the titles to the properties in Fort Trumbull, and why is this important?
Hopkins, who plans to organize a citizens' group to monitor events at Fort Trumbull, spoke at a recent City Council meeting claiming the New London Development Corporation is not adhering to a state statute that says the municipality must hold the title to property taken or purchased in a development plan.
“This law has been violated,” Hopkins said on March 5. “NLDC claims to own these properties. There is no written agreement that says otherwise, because there is no contract between the city and the NLDC.”
According to the most recent tax assessor's records dating to the end of January of this year, the NLDC holds the titles for most of the property purchased on the peninsula since the quasi-public agency reformed in 1997.
The NLDC does not, however, hold the deeds to the property seized by eminent domain made famous nationwide during the Kelo v. New London case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.
Those properties belong to the city, which settled with the plaintiffs in the Kelo case last summer and began demolishing the houses last month.
A Feb.20 memorandum from city Law Director Thomas L. Londregan to members of the City Council notes that NLDC has been advised of the state statute.
“I have pointed it out to (NLDC),” Londregan wrote. “There is a clear understanding – so clear that I recall putting it in writing – that the title to this land is to be in the name of the City of New London.”
In May 1998 the City Council voted to authorize the NLDC, then led by former Connecticut College President Claire Gaudiani, as the city's agent in the Fort Trumbull redevelopment.
Londregan, however, also points out there is a “clear understanding between NLDC and the City... that when NLDC has secured possession and title to the entire development parcel will be put in the name of the City of New London.”
In other words, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan, passed in 2000, divided up the former working-class neighborhood into different numbered parcels, such as 1, 2 and 4A, where the plaintiffs in the Kelo case owned property.
According to the “understanding,” the city would receive titles once all the properties in the parcel were secured.
“That is why properties purchased by NLDC are in NLDC's name,” Londregan continues in his correspondence. “Just until all the properties are collected so as to give one MDP (Municipal Development Plan) parcel to the City.”
Londregan did not return repeated phone calls requesting further comment.
Mayor Margaret Curtin and Councilor Rob Pero are the only members of the current council who remain from the body that voted to name NLDC the city's agent.
Pero downplayed the fact that NLDC still holds titles to property in Fort Trumbull.
“It's not a major issue,” he said.
Pero speculated that the failure of NLDC to transfer the titles to the city is due to administrative delays due to the agency's lack of funding and staff.
There is evidence that there is stagnation with the agency.
NLDC's Web site, for instance, lists erroneous information, such as indicating David Goebel as the executive director, a position he has not held since 2005.
Pero also noted that at some point NLDC will cease to exist.
The city would gain the titles to the property should it sever its relationship with the agency before the project is complete.
The city has had a historically tempestuous relationship over the last decade with NLDC, which was originally funded by the state under the now disgraced Governor John G. Rowland.
Connecticut's Department of Economic and Community Development, which provided NLDC with its initial injection of cash, acts as a “mortgage holder” over the Fort Trumbull project.
In the midst of the municipal election season in August 2005, the City Council's frustration with NLDC reached a fever pitch, and it voted to disengage, or essentially fire, the agency and called for the resignation of Goebel and President Michael Joplin.
Subsequently, the City Council made amends with the agency, though Goebel resigned and was replaced on an interim basis with Greg Coenen, a position he holds today.
Coenen directed questions regarding the status of the titles in Fort Trumbull to NLDC legal counsel Ed O'Connell of the New London firm of Waller, Smith and Palmer.
“The fine points of the law are best addressed by our attorneys,” he said.
O'Connell did not return messages asking for comment. By Stephen Chupaska
Times Staff Writer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
