Help me.

It seems as if all that now stands in the way of Mayor Michael Passero's plans to abandon downtown and move city employees to a suburban-style business park are two votes on the City Council.

Councilors have voted 5-2 to empower the mayor's administration to enter into lease negotiations for office space on the outskirts of downtown, a soulless modern office building surrounded by parking lots.

My new heroes, Councilors John Satti and Martin Olsen, voted against negotiations, at least trying to slow down the crazy plan.

So we just need two more councilors, when the lease comes back to the council for approval, to say no and stop the madness of spending $19 million in rent over the next 25 years while emptying more buildings downtown. A 4-3 no vote would save historic City Hall as the seat of city government.

I would urge anyone who cares about New London to add their voices to those who already are complaining about this abandonment. Maybe two more councilors could be convinced to listen to voters who will be stuck with the bill for years instead of city officials whining about the quality of their office space.

It's important to note here, too, that there is no crisis and no need to hurry. I toured the two buildings to be abandoned, and workers seem to be coping just fine. I saw lots of space and very little of the deplorable conditions the administration has been decrying.

The three buildings are a short walk apart. Many city workers need not talk to others in different departments. Is there really a need to have the tax assessor next door to the zoning officer? Why is consolidation the holy grail? Lots of towns around here have satellite government offices.

I can only think the mayor has a wonderful gift in which he doesn't see the empty buildings downtown. It doesn't seem to bother him that most of northern Bank Street, near the most important intersection in the city, now looks like a bombed out-war zone.

He seems determined to wring even more life out of the downtown, emptying two buildings and moving dozens of workers out of the heart of the city.

The job of filling empty buildings downtown is a tall order for the city. The notion that the city itself would empty some more is just crazy.

I know my two new heroes are looking at the money, recognizing that the $19 million the city would spend on rent could make vast improvements to the downtown buildings the city owns, including an impeccable restoration of the magnificent City Hall, which could become a showpiece to make the city proud.

Think how some of that money could be used to improve the education of city students, instead of lining the pockets of developers.

Using that money to renovate the buildings the city already owns, instead of just writing rent checks, money you'll never get back, is, of course, harder than just calling in the moving vans.

There's a lot of vacant office space in the post office building across from City Hall, and I expect U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney would certainly help the city negotiate an inexpensive short-term lease to accommodate city employees while the buildings are being renovated.

But that would require some work.

I was in City Hall the other day and saw a woman there with her elderly mother to obtain a copy of her birth certificate. They were there to retrieve a record from the distant past, where it has been safely protected all these years.

I think it is fair to say that the city's records vault is the heart of city government, its historical record. Make it bigger if that's necessary, in a renovation, but don't move it to a suburban-style office park.

Respect for the historic City Hall, which has been passed down by generations of city leaders, a lasting symbol of the city's rich glory years, should include not just a renovation at some unspecified time in the future — maybe never, is my guess — for some ceremonial City Council meetings.

It should remain the principal seat of government in the heart of the center of the city, its historic use preserved, not just the structure, for future generations.

There hasn't been much public discussion of this plan by the council. I hope they give the public plenty of time, before the next vote on the issue, to be heard.

How about a full public hearing? This is a decision of enormous and long-lasting consequence.

Doesn't a plan to empty a big swath of downtown at least deserve that? What's the rush?

Help me convince those two other councilors, whoever they may be.

This is the opinion of David Collins.

d.collins@theday.com