UConn James Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Taken in Vain : New London's Folly In the end, the Pfizer facility is the only thing that went up, although many would argue that a lot of taxpayer money went up, too — in smoke, that is. At least Pfizer employees haven't had to look at tenements for the past 10 years. But how are those brownfields looking about now? Truth be told, Pfizer's decision to abandon New London is driven by the bottom line. The drug company is closing five other research sites as well. It's part of the fallout from Pfizer's $68 billion takeover of drug-maker Wyeth. When you play with those kind of numbers, it's easy to see that a $300 million facility is disposable. Sorry, New London, it's nothing personal. That's pretty tough medicine for the New London officials who championed the city's version of a merger with Pfizer 10 years ago. It was all personal when these politicians waved away homeowners like pesky gnats, convinced they knew better. It's a familiar scenario when small-time politicians are handed power and begin to take themselves more seriously than their constituents. The power of eminent domain is too heady for the hands of leaders with cold hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 I read that in the NY Times and thought it was very depressing. Can't they (state of CT) do anything with the land now? Our lives are run by greedy corporations and incompetent state & federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 I read that in the NY Times and thought it was very depressing. Can't they (state of CT) do anything with the land now? Our lives are run by greedy corporations and incompetent state & federal government. It's the city that owns the land now. Essentially, they kicked out taxpayers in exchange for empty lots. Many of the residents in that neighborhood were aging/elderly, so it wasn't like they had kids in the schools, costing the city; their taxes were pretty much above-board. The local media are trying to put a smiley-face on the situation, saying, 'When the economy picks up again, it'll be a very attractive property.' And being on the Sound waterfront... maybe it will. When's the economy going to recover? NL is going to be in a bit of a pickle in the meantime. They might shuffle some things around so the books don't look as bad as they are, but... losing all those taxes has gotta be a blow. What has happened should serve as fresh notice that "even the best-laid plans oft go amiss" re: use of eminent domain for non-traditional public projects/uses. Since the Kelo case, CT and several other states have re-visited the issue of eminent domain. CT legislature narrowed its allowed use for economic development projects... but did not prohibit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I interviewed at Lawrence and Memorial in NL in 2002. I was uber unimpressed with the city, and even less impressed with the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Another lesson on why government should generally stay out of commercial transactions. Can't wait for the same thing to happen for Rattner's grand plan in Brooklyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Absolutely disgusting. Yet another feather in the cap for the "Trust the government, they know best" crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts