Kelo: New London, CT proceeding with property seizures

City Votes To Proceed With Property Seizures
Another Resident of Fort Trumbull settles; Two Remain

The New London Day - June 6, 2006

New London, CT — 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.