Bringing Pfizer to New London came at a heavy cost to taxpayers

November 20, 2009 11:00 pm • Last Updated: November 21, 2009 3:57 pm

By By TED MANN Day Staff Writer

New London - It took a lot more than the promise of spiffed-up surroundings and the desire of a top executive to help a struggling city to bring Pfizer Inc. to New London.It also took money. A lot of money.

It also took money. A lot of money.Public records show that, since 2000, city and state taxpayers have kicked in at least $160 million, through tax breaks, direct grants and infrastructure improvements, to bring Pfizer and its new global research center to a waterfront brownfield - before the company announced last week that it would pull out in 2011, just when the last of its tax abatements are due to expire.

Public records show that, since 2000, city and state taxpayers have kicked in at least $160 million, through tax breaks, direct grants and infrastructure improvements, to bring Pfizer and its new global research center to a waterfront brownfield - before the company announced last week that it would pull out in 2011, just when the last of its tax abatements are due to expire.Those investments included the redevelopment project that would eventually bring New London to national prominence and widespread criticism: the razing and redevelopment of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood that adjoined the brownfield site where Pfizer built its glittering $295 million research headquarters.

Those investments included the redevelopment project that would eventually bring New London to national prominence and widespread criticism: the razing and redevelopment of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood that adjoined the brownfield site where Pfizer built its glittering $295 million research headquarters.State development officials made that redevelopment project a condition of Pfizer's move into New London, documents show, long before either the company's plans or the neighborhood's fate were made public.

State development officials made that redevelopment project a condition of Pfizer's move into New London, documents show, long before either the company's plans or the neighborhood's fate were made public. Those assurances also came years before New London residents had a chance to vote, in 2000, on the Municipal Development Plan that continues to govern the future of the 90-acre development area around Pfizer's building.

Those assurances also came years before New London residents had a chance to vote, in 2000, on the Municipal Development Plan that continues to govern the future of the 90-acre development area around Pfizer's building.In a confidential letter written in December 1997, the state Department of Economic and Community Development pledged to then-Pfizer executive George M. Milne that the state would provide a vast package of incentives and improvement projects to "ensure Pfizer's ability to select New London for a new Headquarters operation."

In a confidential letter written in December 1997, the state Department of Economic and Community Development pledged to then-Pfizer executive George M. Milne that the state would provide a vast package of incentives and improvement projects to "ensure Pfizer's ability to select New London for a new Headquarters operation."The incentives included not only direct financial assistance, but also a commitment to fund a "comprehensive, State-funded waterfront improvement and development project" in the adjoining Fort Trumbull neighborhood.

The incentives included not only direct financial assistance, but also a commitment to fund a "comprehensive, State-funded waterfront improvement and development project" in the adjoining Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The letter also commits to using $8 million in initial funding to the New London Development Corp. to acquire properties adjacent to Pfizer's new site and the abandoned Naval Undersea Warfare Center property on the Fort Trumbull peninsula, "as defined in the Pfizer concept plan."

The letter also commits to using $8 million in initial funding to the New London Development Corp. to acquire properties adjacent to Pfizer's new site and the abandoned Naval Undersea Warfare Center property on the Fort Trumbull peninsula, "as defined in the Pfizer concept plan."Contemporary notes and an organizational chart from a meeting of state, NLDC and Pfizer officials from the same period show the intense collaboration of private business and government agencies, including discussion of how to deal with property owners who did not want to leave their land.

Contemporary notes and an organizational chart from a meeting of state, NLDC and Pfizer officials from the same period show the intense collaboration of private business and government agencies, including discussion of how to deal with property owners who did not want to leave their land."Those on Pequot Avenue that are holdouts will be treated differently & separately from holdouts in the rest of the project in that they are more critical to Pfizer development," reads one section of notes from a Feb. 12, 1998, meeting about the project, a section that appears to refer to properties purchased for the Pfizer site, not those later taken by eminent domain in the fort neighborhood.

"Those on Pequot Avenue that are holdouts will be treated differently & separately from holdouts in the rest of the project in that they are more critical to Pfizer development," reads one section of notes from a Feb. 12, 1998, meeting about the project, a section that appears to refer to properties purchased for the Pfizer site, not those later taken by eminent domain in the fort neighborhood. The notes were acquired from the DECD, pursuant to state open-records laws, from the files of Peter Lent, then a principal on the New London projects.

The notes were acquired from the DECD, pursuant to state open-records laws, from the files of Peter Lent, then a principal on the New London projects.And despite statements from Pfizer over the years disavowing any role in the Fort Trumbull development or its controversial eminent domain case, it was no secret at the time of Pfizer's announcement.

And despite statements from Pfizer over the years disavowing any role in the Fort Trumbull development or its controversial eminent domain case, it was no secret at the time of Pfizer's announcement. Speaking to The Day that week, in March 1998, then-Gov. John G. Rowland boasted of the state's pledge to spend millions renovating the surrounding neighborhood in order to strike a deal with one of the world's most successful pharmaceutical companies.

Speaking to The Day that week, in March 1998, then-Gov. John G. Rowland boasted of the state's pledge to spend millions renovating the surrounding neighborhood in order to strike a deal with one of the world's most successful pharmaceutical companies."They weren't about to build a major operation next to a garbage site," Rowland said of the nearby Calamari scrapyard. Referring to the rest of the project, he added, "They wanted a good quality of life. So they wanted to know what was going to happen to the surrounding property. It was an easy sell once they saw what was going to happen."

"They weren't about to build a major operation next to a garbage site," Rowland said of the nearby Calamari scrapyard. Referring to the rest of the project, he added, "They wanted a good quality of life. So they wanted to know what was going to happen to the surrounding property. It was an easy sell once they saw what was going to happen."As the company prepares to depart, the people who helped strike that deal on behalf of the city say they regret Pfizer's current plans, but also express no reservations about the investment of public money to help bring a private corporation to town. That investment, the thinking went in the late 1990s, would help pull New London to its feet after decades of slow decline.

As the company prepares to depart, the people who helped strike that deal on behalf of the city say they regret Pfizer's current plans, but also express no reservations about the investment of public money to help bring a private corporation to town. That investment, the thinking went in the late 1990s, would help pull New London to its feet after decades of slow decline. "Yes, Pfizer was the catalyst to doing what Governor Rowland wanted to do anyway, which was to revitalize the cities," said Steve Percy, a real estate agent and a longtime executive board member of the NLDC, which the state and city tasked with running the Fort Trumbull project.

"Yes, Pfizer was the catalyst to doing what Governor Rowland wanted to do anyway, which was to revitalize the cities," said Steve Percy, a real estate agent and a longtime executive board member of the NLDC, which the state and city tasked with running the Fort Trumbull project.Current and former elected leaders also say much of the good in the public investment around the fort and the Pfizer site has been overlooked, and could help as Pfizer seeks a buyer for its building, and the city and state seek a way forward at the unfinished Fort Trumbull site.

Current and former elected leaders also say much of the good in the public investment around the fort and the Pfizer site has been overlooked, and could help as Pfizer seeks a buyer for its building, and the city and state seek a way forward at the unfinished Fort Trumbull site."The city has benefited from having Pfizer in it," incoming Mayor Rob Pero said, including the state's 40-percent share of Pfizer's tax abatement, which was paid to the city, along with the 20 percent paid by the company itself.

"The city has benefited from having Pfizer in it," incoming Mayor Rob Pero said, including the state's 40-percent share of Pfizer's tax abatement, which was paid to the city, along with the 20 percent paid by the company itself."Sixty percent of what we were getting was better than the nothing that was there," Pero said.

"Sixty percent of what we were getting was better than the nothing that was there," Pero said.Former councilor Elizabeth A. Sabilia recalled driving a startled friend past the Calamari junkyard and the former mill site in the years before Pfizer and the state paid to have the sites cleared and cleaned.

Former councilor Elizabeth A. Sabilia recalled driving a startled friend past the Calamari junkyard and the former mill site in the years before Pfizer and the state paid to have the sites cleared and cleaned."We've got to remember what that site looked like," she said, "and what the infrastructure around that site looked like. It's easy to forget.

"We've got to remember what that site looked like," she said, "and what the infrastructure around that site looked like. It's easy to forget."Even with the closure, it's not like New London got nothing out of the deal. It's just a question of what kind of use New London's going to get out of it now, which is a big - a huge - open question."

"Even with the closure, it's not like New London got nothing out of the deal. It's just a question of what kind of use New London's going to get out of it now, which is a big - a huge - open question."t.mann@theday.com

t.mann@theday.com