Text of Gov. Rell's Letter to New London Mayor

The Day ^ | May 31, 2006 | Gov. Rell

[FortRumbull]

May 31, 2006

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

[mtbopfuyn]

Is this another eminent domain situation?

[coconutt2000]

My stance has always been that if the development of the property is worth that much, the government entity intent on possessing the land, and the developer intent on developing the land should be willing to shell out the necessary money required to convince the owner to part with the property.

If it requires eminent domain to obtain the land, it can't be worth the planned private development.

[CatoRenasci]

Not another eminent domain situation, it's THE eminent domain situtuation that was featured in the dreadful Supreme Court decision.

I am very disappointed with Rell's letter and her refusal to tell New London, "you may have the law on your side, but morally, I think you're all wet and that you should leave these people alone. Take the property already seized or bought and turn it into a park, and let it stand forever as a monument to the overarching greed of those who would use the machinery of the state for their private business needs."

[sittnick]

Yes, it is THE eminent domain case. However, if Governor Rell REALLY wanted to have fun, she could do the following:

She can wait for the deed to change hands and THEN pull an eminent domain on the new owners and decree the district historical (before the buildings get torn down). After all, those properties are a piece of history now!

She is, of course, a gutless RINO.

[nutmeg]

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.