- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Froma Harrop: The Civic Price of Courting Corporations
Amtrak riders passing through New London, Conn., can catch an odd sight in an otherwise picturesque New England setting: a fancy corporate center standing next to a street grid emptied of nearly all its buildings. This used to be the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, a working-class enclave that would have been largely forgotten had it not been central to a controversial 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain — the government’s right to take private property for public use.
New London had wanted to replace the area’s weathered cottages and auto-body shops with a cityscape more amenable to the corporate types at the new Pfizer research park. The city bought some of the properties and seized those whose owners refused to sell.
The old neighborhood is now gone, and soon Pfizer will be, too. The multinational drug company just announced plans to close its New London facility. It expects to complete the withdrawal by 2011, just when its tax deal with the city runs out. So much for those pretty architectural drawings of high-end condos, restaurants, offices and marina.
How many U.S. cities and towns have turned themselves inside out to attract and keep the big corporation? And how many later learned that their heroic efforts to please went largely unreciprocated? What municipal leaders often see as their economic salvation the corporation regards as but one piece on a global chessboard.
New London extended Pfizer a handsome deal whereby the company would pay taxes on only 20 percent of its property’s assessed value for 10 years. (Other local taxpayers made up the difference.) The company received a $5 million grant for engineering work.
Fort Trumbull had long lived with the smells from a nearby sewage treatment plant, but the city fixed that for Pfizer. The neighbors’ ability to share the sweeter air was short-lived, because of the $75 million plan to turn their area into a waterfront district for fancier folk.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution lets government seize private property for public purposes — such as roads or military bases — as long as owners are fairly compensated. But the definition of public use had been expanded to include giving condemned property to other private owners in the name of economic development. In its famous 1981 Poletown decision, the Michigan Supreme Court permitted Detroit to condemn an old neighborhood for a General Motors factory.
The Fort Trumbull property owners and their supporters asked the Supreme Court to stop that practice. Some of the holdouts had not cared for the city’s offer. Then there were old-timers, such as 86-year-old Wilhelmina Dery, who wanted to die in the house where she was born. No price was right for her. To the distress of many, the justices decided against the property owners. And what a bittersweet victory that’s become for the city.
Some in New London have comforted themselves with the thought that even if Pfizer empties its building, the company still has to pay tax on the property. They should know that when Pfizer closed a campus in Ann Arbor, Mich., two years ago, it promptly asked the city to cut its tax assessment in half. It eventually sold the complex to the University of Michigan, which as an educational institution pays no real-estate taxes.
New London remains blessed by fine old architecture, a waterfront setting and a choice location between New York and Boston. It will reinvent itself. In the meantime, it must live with this huge irony: Two years hence, the auto-body shops banished from Fort Trumbull would have been employing more people in New London than the pharmaceuticals giant they were sacrificed for.
— Froma Harrop is an independent voice on politics, economics and culture, and blogs on RealClearPolitics.com. She is also a member of the editorial board at The Providence (R.I.) Journal. Click here to contact her at Creators.com.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 11.23.09 @ 09:41 AM
High taxes-Huge government-Lazy gov workers-Big welfare-illegals-high workers comp rates-Pelosi-Boxer-Capps-all anti small business-This state is now 21 Billion in the red—
Thanks Liberals—job losses could hit 20%—
» on 11.23.09 @ 02:35 PM
Corporations only legal purpose is to limit executive and investor liability, as the former tries to make as much money as possible for the latter. Period.
When communities give away their land (or someone else’s), or sell their souls, for a
new building or plant, without any legal, long-time guarantees, you have communities sure to lose both. It’s another modern remake of “Faust”.
In the Bible, hungry Essau sold his birthright to his brother for a bowl of pottage. So
these kind of short-sighted strategic miscalculations are probably as old as the written word itself.
What Harrop’s article has to do with the angry, Fox-Palin “teaparty” letter-rant is totally beyond me.
» on 11.23.09 @ 04:17 PM
A good example of putting money before people. In the long run, everyone loses.
More Local News »
Michael Rattray: Preservation Vs. Retreat at Goleta Beach Park
A permanent solution is critical to maintaining the value of the community treasure
Joe Conason: Right Wing Gone Wild
Elizabeth Cheney, Glenn Beck et al take accusations of treason to the extreme
Tony Strickland: State Health-Care Bill an Ill Fit for Californians
Voters should have the power to protect themselves from state and federal health-care mandates
Eva Inbar: Foes of Curb Extensions Can’t See the Safety for the Cars
Milpas Street bulb-outs are not our biggest challenge; in fact, they can protect our most precious assets
Jerry Bunin: County Shortsighted in Funding Long-Range Planning
Poor decisions by the Board of Supervisors contributes to our continuing budget woes
Weather: Fair 60.0º
Search Noozhawk »
