Welcome to the year 2000

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?