Fort Trumbull - Adam T. Sprecace: The Councilor

The Editorial Board invited participants in the Jan. 28 Fort Trumbull roundtable to write some of their own thoughts about the discussion and what they would like to see happen next. Read the full package here.

The people of New London have for decades been hearing about how much potential the city has.

Over that time many things have been tried to reach that potential. Clearly the most significant attempt in recent years was the effort to attract Pfizer Inc. to the city and revitalize the adjacent Fort Trumbull and environs. That project, by just about all accounts, was only partially successful.

Pfizer did come to New London and, between its efforts and those of the state of Connecticut, the city was provided with approximately $2.25 million annually in tax revenue in each of the last eight years. In 2012, this figure will grow to an estimated $5 million annually (paid entirely by Pfizer).

In addition, Fort Trumbull State Park has been established and made available to the public for the first time in over half a century. Over $100 million has also been invested in the Fort Trumbull area in the form of environmental remediation, new roads, pedestrian walkways, substantial infrastructure, and the new state park. A revitalized office complex is also now occupied.

Today, however, the realities of the Fort Trumbull effort overshadow the benefits. Pfizer has announced its intention to leave New London and, despite its obligation to continue to pay full taxes as they come due, the specter of uncertainty looms regarding how the property will be used in the future. At the same time, an economic downturn has just about stopped development progress on the peninsula. Coupling this with the fact that the former residents were required to leave their homes promotes a perception that this grand experiment has been a failure.

The future of Fort Trumbull is unwritten, but currently there exists a stigma about it, of which the entire country is aware. New London has become synonymous with eminent domain. That reputation may never change. But from this point forward, an opportunity exists to show ourselves, the state, and the nation that New London can pull together as a community and learn from its mistakes.

The recent forum held to discuss Fort Trumbull was both educational and inspiring because it provided insight into the flexibility of the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and brought together individuals from both sides of the eminent domain fight.

The atmosphere suggested that all parties are looking toward the future and the possibility of developing the former neighborhood into something hopefully everyone can support. Among the participants was Alan Plattus from the Yale Urban Design Workshop. When I invited him I wanted to know if his experience with similar, controversial development projects could be leveraged in New London. At the forum, Plattus said "design can be used as a form of community organizing." This is exactly the idea that is needed if New London's wounds are to be healed; if even partially.

With the right project, the amount of energy which both sides have spent fighting each other could now be combined and refocused toward a common goal.

The history of the Fort Trumbull fight will never be forgotten, but the opportunity exists to add to that history a final chapter describing how a divided community ultimately came together.

The current state of the economy is a blessing in disguise. The delay in MDP completion is giving New London a chance to re-evaluate what is to be done in Fort Trumbull and to define a vision with which most everyone might agree. Developing, and more importantly implementing, a common vision at this late stage won't be easy, but given the reported flexibility of the MDP, and the evident resilience of the people of New London, it can be accomplished.