Mayor-elect Daryl Finizio did not make many campaign promises as clear and simple as the one to abolish the New London Development Corp.

That one was also, I believe, based on hearing Finizio's own pre-election assessment of voter attitudes, a promise that certainly helped him get elected.

And yet fulfilling it will not be all that easy.

The NLDC, the designated villain in the taking of a city neighborhood by eminent domain, is a private nonprofit, and while the new mayor may be able to unwind some of the authority the city has granted the agency, he certainly doesn't have the power to eliminate it.

Even as the mayor is preparing to be sworn in, the developer who has an agreement with the NLDC to build 99 units of rental housing at Fort Trumbull - on land the developer will be given for $1 - is preparing for a Dec. 14 public hearing on the plans before the city's Planning and Zoning Commission.

Generous tax abatements for the project are also securely in place.

Not only is the city a signing party to the agreement, but there is a clause in it that assures the developer that "all provisions of this agreement shall remain in effect" should the NLDC convey the land to the city before it can give it to the developer.

Still, the big player in Fort Trumbull remains the state, which holds mortgages on the Fort Trumbull properties, reflecting its investment of more than $50 million in purchases, by eminent domain and other means, and other development costs.

The state is also a party to the current development agreement, which would seem to guarantee the apartment project is built, as long as the developer gets financing and all the necessary permits from the city.

The NLDC is already sucking from the balance of a $150,000 fee the developer put in escrow at the time of the signing of the development agreement.

But even if everyone is obligated to let the proposed apartment project go forward, could the state help the new mayor keep, in some fashion, his abolish-the-NLDC promise, and sever the agency from the rest of the Fort Trumbull property?

Sure.

Why not?

After all, the state, it seems, is getting good these days at making forgivable loans. Why not forgive all the money spent in New London and let the city do what it wants.

I asked the governor's office to comment on this, and in response I got a statement that should please the mayor-elect. Surely the Democratic governor would like to oblige the mayor, who is breathing new life into the party here in New London.

"This really is a local issue," read the statement I got from the governor's office. "The governor is obviously supportive of helping the city promote economic development and looks forward to working with the incoming mayor in the months ahead."

Columnist's translation: We'll help him sever the NLDC from Fort Trumbull, if that's what he wants.

Of course, the NLDC is dead in the water without state cooperation in whatever it does.

Another complication for the NLDC in continuing its role in Fort Trumbull, in addition to its having virtually no money or full-time staff, is that it legally shouldn't hold title to the property.

Connecticut general statute 8-199 could not be more clear on this: "... title to land taken or acquired pursuant to a (Municipal Development Plan) shall be solely in the name of the municipality."

And yet the former law director and his firm have dithered over the years on this point.

"There is a clear understanding - so clear I recall putting it in writing (to the NLDC) - that the title to this land is to be in the name of the City of New London ..." Law Director Thomas Londregan wrote in an email to city councilors in February 2007.

I once asked U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, when he was attorney general, about the deed question, and he agreed the city should have title.

He said the city needs to move to take possession, a move the law director and his firm did not take.

Clearly, there seems to be legal standing and political will to take the land away from the NLDC, even if the city might remain bound to the apartment project. And the NLDC would be free to soldier on doing whatever it wants, anything except determine the direction of new development at Fort Trumbull.

If I were a board member of the NLDC, I would be reading some of the clear writing on the wall and begin to roll out Plan B.

What if Michael Joplin, the NLDC president who presided over the final neighborhood evictions in Fort Trumbull, were to resign? After all, he lives in Chester and his main development project in the city, the Crocker House apartments, was lost to foreclosure.

Shouldn't he be ready to leave, especially as a way to save the agency? After all, the head of the power company had to step down after only a week of power outages.

And what if members of the City Council were given a voting majority on the board of the NLDC?

Those two moves could help finish a break with the troubled past and make the agency accountable to city voters.

For Finizio, I think it would legitimately count as fulfilling a campaign promise.

And I have one more suggestion: nominate Alan Plattus, director of the Yale Urban Design Workshop, to be the new NLDC president.

Plattus has literally written the book, "Fort Trumbull Vision," a development outline for the peninsula done recently by the Yale workshop, on what should happen next.

The most promising palette for a new New London couldn't be in a better painter's hands.

This is the opinion of David Collins.