The old city still has it within its capacity to be ground-breaking.
The City
Council made history on March 18 by becoming the first government in
the state’s history to reject outright the creation of a local historic
district.
Voting 5-2 along party lines, the
council shot down the proposed Pequot Colony Historic District, which
organizers spent more than two years planning and researching.
“It is really unfortunate,” said Sandra Kersten Chalk, executive director of New London Landmarks.
The
Pequot Historic District conducted a vote of residents in February that
passed by more than the two-thirds majority needed to bring the item
before the City Council.
Democratic Deputy Mayor Wade
Hyslop and Democratic Councilor John Maynard were the most vociferous
opponents of the creation of the district, both claiming the boundaries
were “gerrymandered” to ensure a positive outcome and that the district
would create an unnecessary level of bureaucracy.
Hyslop said there was “no fairness” involved in what he called “a flawed process.”
Maynard
objected to the exclusion of a row of homes along one side of the
western end of Glenwood Avenue, while homes he considered to be of
little historic value were included.
“You did that just to get the [district] passed,” he said.
The
decision last week came amid a series of arguments about the purpose of
the district and confusion about the council’s procedure that preceded
the vote.
In 2005, the City Council voted to form a study group to
assemble a local historic district consisting of homes already within
the national Pequot Colony Historic District.
According to Chalk,
who served as an adviser to the group, only Chapel Street, with its mix
of Italianate and Greek Revival cottages built as part of the
long-demolished Pequot Colony summer resort, was to serve as the
district. Over time, other residents wished to be part of the district.
After two years of meetings, the study group conducted a vote among the owners of the 44 properties in the district.
The
measure passed by more than the two-thirds required and was forwarded
to the council’s Administration Committee, chaired by Maynard, for a
review before it could be sent to the full council for approval.
On
March 10, the committee heard testimony from opponents of the plan,
including William Brennan who owns the Bodenwein house once occupied by
a former publisher of The Day, one-time One New London candidate for City Council Suzanne Berkman, and inn operator Gail Schwenker-Mayer.
Former Mayor Carmelina Como Kanzler also wrote the council to state her objections.
All of them objected to the “extra layer of bureaucracy” and claimed they were being bullied into joining the district.
In
an exchange with Hyslop, both Chalk and study group chairman Ben
Burdick said they did, in fact, target homeowners who would be inclined
to vote for the district.
Hyslop accused them of “rigging the vote” and gerrymandering.
In an interview last week, Chalk called Hyslop’s accusation a “specious argument.”
“Would
the New London Democratic Party choose candidates who would lose
elections?” she said. “They are going to choose people who are going to
win. What is the difference?”
Hyslop did not a return a message asking for further comment.
Initially,
the Administration Committee was prepared to send a negative
recommendation to the full council, before Councilor Michael Buscetto
intervened with a compromise.
Buscetto asked Burdick if he would
see whether the district could be reconstituted excluding the property
owners who did not wish to be part of it.
The measure passed 3-0.
The committee, however, did not officially specify an amount of time Burdick had to broker a compromise.
At
the March 18 council meeting, Maynard announced he gave Burdick, who
did not attend the meeting, a week to come up with an agreement among
the neighbors.
The seven-day deadline was not mentioned in the minutes of the March 10 Administration Committee meeting.
Maynard said later that he spoke with Burdick privately and imposed the deadline.
Chalk
said it would have been impossible for Burdick and supporters of the
plan to broker a compromise because of an action of the Administration
Committee.
“We could not have done anything with that,” she said, adding it was looking for direction from the council.
According to state law, the City Council had three options with the plan: pass it, reject it, or send it back with revisions.
If
the council voted for the third option, the supporters of the historic
district would have had 65 days to report back to the city, according
to state law.
Republican Councilor Rob Pero, who voted for the
district, said he felt compelled to do so because the study group
violated no laws.
“They followed everything,” he noted.
Chalk
was incensed that the councilors did not ask questions of Mary Dunne, a
consultant with the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism, the
state agency that assists towns with the creation of historic
districts.
Dunne was in attendance for the duration of the four-hour meeting.
But for
Maynard and Buscetto, the fact that no supporters of the
district—including Burdick who was not in the council chamber—spoke
during public comment was an indication that they did not want to change the plan.
“They did not show up,” Buscetto said. “There was no testimony.”
Maynard did not think the 65 days stipulated by state law would have made much of a difference.
“They had two and a half years,” he said.
Maynard also said the district would have “infringed on people’s rights” as property owners.
Chalk found parallels between the Pequot Historic District episode and the Fort Trumbull eminent domain saga.
“It goes back to that wonderful
question of property rights,” she said. “The City Council was not
sympathetic to the Fort Trumbull property owners, but it was
sympathetic to these property owners.”