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
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Obituary for Neild Oldham
New London — Neild Burgess Oldham, 79, of 11 Plant St., New London, died of cancer on Wednesday, March 7, at home.
He was born May 21, 1927, in New Bedford, Mass., the son of the late William Ewart Oldham and Sarah Burgess Oldham Wallace. He had been a resident of New London since 1969.
Mr. Oldham spent most of his professional life in publishing. He and his wife, Susan H. Munger, owned The Oldham Publishing Service that for 10 years published the New London Gazette, a monthly newsletter devoted to the city of New London. He ran weekly newspapers in Maine; was a reporter on the Providence (R.I.) Journal-Bulletin; and ran the design, editing, and production departments in a division of a major book publisher in New York City. He is the author or co-author of several textbooks, reference books, and one novel. The novel, “Right to Know,” grew out of his passionate belief in freedom of the press.
He was active in and a member of several local organizations including the New London County Historical Society of which he was president for three years, New London Landmarks, and the New London Maritime Society. As an active volunteer he served as a docent at the Hempsted Houses, the Shaw-Perkins Mansion, and, for many years, at the Monte Cristo Cottage. For several years he was involved in helping to run the New London Trolley Information Station.
He was co-chair of the Coalition to Save the Fort Trumbull Neighborhood, which led the fight to stop the abuse of the power of eminent domain in New London as the 20th century became the 21st century. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. He had earlier joined with those opposing urban renewal and who worked to save Union Railroad Station from the wrecker's ball.
A veteran of World War II, Mr. Oldham joined the Navy on his 16th birthday. He served four years, mostly in the Pacific on the USS Baron, DE 166, which participated in several major actions. He earned the European Theater of Operations Medal and the Pacific Theater of Operations Medal with four battle stars.
He had become a convinced pacifist and joined with those opposing a war with Iraq. During the Vietnam War, his home in New London was often a staging area for those coming from around the world to protest at military or defense institutions in the area.
Mr. Oldham was a forest ranger in Maine as a young man, and a lifelong lover of the outdoors. He was an avid canoeist, hiker, birdwatcher, and photographer.
He is survived by his wife, Susan; a daughter, Patricia Namerow of Middletown, R.I.; three sons, Kitteridge Oldham and Davis Oldham of Seattle, Wash., and James Oldham of Amherst, Mass., and their mother, Alison Oldham, of Seattle, Wash.; six grandchildren, Dana Harrell of Middletown, R.I., Alexis and Edith Angela Oldham Barca of Amherst, Mass., Rebekah Sponaugle of Portland, Ore., and Sophie Alexander Segel and Jemma Davis Alexander of Seattle, Wash.; a great-granddaughter, Saylor Nyla Redfearn, of Middletown, R.I.; a brother, Hugh Oldham of Cotuit, Mass.; and numerous nieces and nephews.
A sister, Betty Sawyer of Coventry, R.I., and a brother, Peter Oldham of Pocasset, Mass., predeceased him.
Mr. Oldham's family requests that, in lieu of flowers, friends make donations to the Monte Cristo Cottage, care of Eugene O'Neill Theater Center, 305 Great Neck Road, Waterford, CT, 06385, or to Hospice Southeastern Connecticut, P.O. Box 902, Uncasville, CT 06382-0902.
The family invites friends to join them for a celebration of Mr. Oldham's life on Sunday, April 1, at 1 p.m. at the Pilot House, Ocean Beach Park, in New London, Connecticut.
For directions or to send an online condolence to the family, please visit www.neilanfuneralhome.com.
New London
Monday, March 12, 2007
An Editorial Tribute to Neild Oldham
Over the years, we often heard from Neild Oldham. Whenever he felt the Day had done something stupid or repugnant he would call an editor, or more often, fire off a letter full of fire and brimstone, never mincing words about the perceived idiocy or moral betrayal of the press' responsibility.While he had been an editor for a larger metropolitan newspaper, Mr. Oldham, who died this week at the age of 79, more resembled a small-town crusading editor. He was imbued with a sense of mission to set matters straight, employing the printing press as his weapon of choice.
He was both a craftsman with words and a journalist in the tradition of Horace Greeley, the 19th-century crusading newspaper editor. His anger toward The Day belied a strong affection for the newspaper and the tradition out of which it grew. This feeling intensified when he spent two years editing the book about The Day, “The Day Paper: The Story of One of America's Last Independent Newspapers.” He was a meticulous and thoughtful editor, poring over every line without losing sight of the story.
For Mr. Oldham, the purpose of the press was unambiguous. Its responsibility was the same as that of any good citizen in the American democracy: To look after the rights of the people and the public interest. This was nothing more than the printer's creed that had been passed down across generations from colonial times. He thoroughly had assimilated it, as a newspaperman and later independent editor and printer.
It was in this spirit that he took up the cause of the homeowners in Fort Trumbull when New London took their homes by eminent domain for a redevelopment project. For Mr. Oldham, there were no shades of gray on matters of this importance. Issues that had the impact this one did on people's lives were black and white, and all those who had supported the city, including The Day, were in his estimation allied with the devil.
The matter of Fort Trumbull was for Mr. Oldham an example of misbegotten history repeating itself. He was particularly aggrieved that the New London County Historical Society had not taken a stand against city urban-renewal projects in the 1960s and 1970s that had leveled historic New London neighborhoods. As a board member and president of the Society, he was determined to see that that didn't occur in Fort Trumbull. He also frequently shared with The Day his strong misgivings about the newspaper's support for the project. The newspaper tradition he revered always put the rights of the people and the underdog first, he would say.
There was never any doubt about where he stood. The Day and New London will miss his strong, clear voice and conscience.
NEWLONDON
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Oldham's Heroic Efforts Fought Off City 'demons' | |
| | |
| A letter to the Editor of The Day: | |
| My intention today was to write to state my unequivocal opposition to the “strong mayor” concept. Having served as mayor during the takeover of the city by New London Development Corp. and the John G. Rowland conspirators, I am well aware that we need more than the panacea and a promise of a “build it and they will come” mayor as proposed by The Day management. What we need is a hero in the battle for the salvation of our fair city. We lost just such a hero on Wednesday with the passing of Neild Oldham, the curmudgeonly gentleman who has been pointing out our silliness and foibles for the past 10 years or so. In my 30 years or so as a concerned citizen and through my eight years as city councilor, I have found no one who can match Mr. Oldham in honesty, veracity, human compassion, and the courage to challenge those who think they know better what this city needs. One comes by such a hero only once in life and I am blessed to have stood in the ramparts with him fighting off the demons who think they can determine what is good for our citizens rather than asking us what we need to become fulfilled as members of this wonderful city we call New London. I appreciate Neild for his friendship and comradely advice. Editor's note: The writer was mayor of New London from 1997-1998 and from 2001-2002. | |
| New London | |
Friday, March 9, 2007
Connecticut legislators tackle eminent domain reform
March 8, 2007
HARTFORD - Legislators last night resumed grappling with an issue that consumed much of last year's state General Assembly session - eminent domain reform.
The legislature's joint Planning and Development Committee held its first public hearing last night on two bills aimed at reforming existing state laws. One was generated by the committee, another by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
Originally scheduled for 2 p.m., the hearing was delayed until about 6 p.m. because of lengthy House and Senate sessions.
"I think we're expected to get something through," state Rep. Gerald Fox III, D-Stamford, a committee member, said afterward. "And I believe we will."
Eminent domain reform became a priority in 2005 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London could take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to make way for a waterfront project slated to include condominiums, a hotel and office space.
But legislators did not reach an agreement in the 2006 session. This year, the eminent domain rhetoric has been replaced by Democrats' and Republicans' calls to reform state energy, health care and education policies.
"This has been too slow a process," Tim Calnen, a lobbyist from the Connecticut Association of Realtors, told the committee last night.
Calnen said association members and the public have become more cynical about whether the state would ever act.
"Is anyone listening?" he said.
The Planning and Development Committee did for three hours last night, receiving testimony from more than a dozen people, including residents from throughout the state whose families had lost property to eminent domain; the Farm Bureau Association; a representative of the state Office of Policy and Management, speaking in support of Rell's bill; and a representative of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.
And additional bills are coming. State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said yesterday that the Judiciary Committee, of which he is co-chairman, will send legislation of its own to a hearing late this month. Fox also is on the Judiciary Committee.
"This must be the year we finally resolve this issue for Connecticut residents," Rell said in a statement yesterday.
The governor has proposed requiring municipalities to integrate private properties into their plans when feasible and making towns and cities prove that the use of eminent domain is "reasonably necessary" to accomplish redevelopment goals.
She also wants property owners compensated 125 percent of fair-market value and seeks a two-thirds or "super-majority" vote of the governing body or town meeting to approve a property seizure by a municipality.
The Planning and Development Committee bill also calls for public hearings on each proposed seizure.
Calnen suggested that the legislature should go a step further and also require a committee of "disinterested citizens" be established in a municipality contemplating eminent domain condemnation to review government actions.
Many members of the public yesterday urged legislators to go as far as possible to ensure their homes cannot be seized for economic development.
"Most of us who have been through it feel you don't take from us to give to someone else to use," said Mike Dudko, who in 2000 lost 40 acres his family had owned for years to Bristol for an industrial park.
But Ron Thomas, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities' manager of state and federal relations, urged caution.
Thomas said it is worth reexamining the definition of "just compensation . . . to recognize the social and sentimental value of the property" beyond market value.
But he said if the state does decide to compensate businesses for "loss of good will" if they relocate, the burden of proof must be on the business, using "independent expert testimony on the effect the dislocation is likely to have."
Thomas said CCM is also concerned with a section of the Planning and Development Committee bill that would prohibit the taking of any properties that have tenants and that comply with local building and zoning requirements.
Thomas said the provision allows one individual to hold up an economic development project.
State Reps. Craig Miner, R-Litchfield, and Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, committee members, said the legislature at some point needs to say a resident's home cannot be taken for economic development.
"There should be a floor of property rights we're willing to protect," Candelora said.
Thomas said CCM backs reforms, but the General Assembly also needs to have faith in municipal governments to make the right decisions.
"We know these decisions are extremely difficult," Thomas said. "The prospect of having your home taken away is very disturbing."
Dudko, who attended public hearings on eminent domain reform last session, said he had more faith the Judiciary Committee would take action this year. And he plans to keep testifying.
"It's all over for my family, but I'm still here," he said. "I want to see a change. I want citizens rights protected."
HARTFORD - Legislators last night resumed grappling with an issue that consumed much of last year's state General Assembly session - eminent domain reform.
The legislature's joint Planning and Development Committee held its first public hearing last night on two bills aimed at reforming existing state laws. One was generated by the committee, another by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
Originally scheduled for 2 p.m., the hearing was delayed until about 6 p.m. because of lengthy House and Senate sessions.
"I think we're expected to get something through," state Rep. Gerald Fox III, D-Stamford, a committee member, said afterward. "And I believe we will."
Eminent domain reform became a priority in 2005 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London could take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to make way for a waterfront project slated to include condominiums, a hotel and office space.
But legislators did not reach an agreement in the 2006 session. This year, the eminent domain rhetoric has been replaced by Democrats' and Republicans' calls to reform state energy, health care and education policies.
"This has been too slow a process," Tim Calnen, a lobbyist from the Connecticut Association of Realtors, told the committee last night.
Calnen said association members and the public have become more cynical about whether the state would ever act.
"Is anyone listening?" he said.
The Planning and Development Committee did for three hours last night, receiving testimony from more than a dozen people, including residents from throughout the state whose families had lost property to eminent domain; the Farm Bureau Association; a representative of the state Office of Policy and Management, speaking in support of Rell's bill; and a representative of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.
And additional bills are coming. State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said yesterday that the Judiciary Committee, of which he is co-chairman, will send legislation of its own to a hearing late this month. Fox also is on the Judiciary Committee.
"This must be the year we finally resolve this issue for Connecticut residents," Rell said in a statement yesterday.
The governor has proposed requiring municipalities to integrate private properties into their plans when feasible and making towns and cities prove that the use of eminent domain is "reasonably necessary" to accomplish redevelopment goals.
She also wants property owners compensated 125 percent of fair-market value and seeks a two-thirds or "super-majority" vote of the governing body or town meeting to approve a property seizure by a municipality.
The Planning and Development Committee bill also calls for public hearings on each proposed seizure.
Calnen suggested that the legislature should go a step further and also require a committee of "disinterested citizens" be established in a municipality contemplating eminent domain condemnation to review government actions.
Many members of the public yesterday urged legislators to go as far as possible to ensure their homes cannot be seized for economic development.
"Most of us who have been through it feel you don't take from us to give to someone else to use," said Mike Dudko, who in 2000 lost 40 acres his family had owned for years to Bristol for an industrial park.
But Ron Thomas, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities' manager of state and federal relations, urged caution.
Thomas said it is worth reexamining the definition of "just compensation . . . to recognize the social and sentimental value of the property" beyond market value.
But he said if the state does decide to compensate businesses for "loss of good will" if they relocate, the burden of proof must be on the business, using "independent expert testimony on the effect the dislocation is likely to have."
Thomas said CCM is also concerned with a section of the Planning and Development Committee bill that would prohibit the taking of any properties that have tenants and that comply with local building and zoning requirements.
Thomas said the provision allows one individual to hold up an economic development project.
State Reps. Craig Miner, R-Litchfield, and Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, committee members, said the legislature at some point needs to say a resident's home cannot be taken for economic development.
"There should be a floor of property rights we're willing to protect," Candelora said.
Thomas said CCM backs reforms, but the General Assembly also needs to have faith in municipal governments to make the right decisions.
"We know these decisions are extremely difficult," Thomas said. "The prospect of having your home taken away is very disturbing."
Dudko, who attended public hearings on eminent domain reform last session, said he had more faith the Judiciary Committee would take action this year. And he plans to keep testifying.
"It's all over for my family, but I'm still here," he said. "I want to see a change. I want citizens rights protected."
Copyright © 2007, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
New London Activist Neild Oldham Dies
New London — The city lost a passionate promoter and an outspoken critic Wednesday when Neild B. Oldham died of prostate cancer at his home at 11 Plant St. He was 79.
Mr. Oldham, who moved to New London in 1969, leaves a legacy of historic preservation work and activism against eminent domain. He opposed the city's large-scale urban renewal projects in the 1960s and '70s, and joined the fight to preserve Union Station when the building, designed by famed American architect Henry Hobson Richardson and completed in 1888, seemed destined for the wrecking ball, Susan H. Munger, Mr. Oldham's wife, said.
“He tried hard to make a difference,” she said. “He felt people had to speak out when they felt things weren't right.”
Speak out, Mr. Oldham did. “He was a hero of New London,” said former Mayor Lloyd Beachy. “When he saw wrong happening, he knew who to call, and he wasn't afraid to make the call.”
That included impassioned comments before the City Council and numerous letters to The Day.
Mr. Oldham's best-known campaign may be his opposition to the use of eminent domain to seize middle-class homes on the Fort Trumbull peninsula to make room for economic development.
“Very early on, he felt it was wrong,” Munger said. “He believed the government shouldn't take private property for economic development, shouldn't take private property to give to someone else and shouldn't take private property for financial gain that isn't for the whole public.”
He joined — and, for a time, served as chairman of — the Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull. He also hosted a public-access cable television show with Munger called “Fort Trumbull Facts.”
His passion for history shone even in his Fort Trumbull fight. In a%2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
