Branford Eagle

Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

CT Supreme Court Throws Out $12.4 Million Tabor Jury Award

by marcia chambers | Feb 8, 2010 2:10 pm

(44) Comments | Commenting has expired | E-mail the Author

UPDATE—In a unanimous decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court today reversed a $12.4 million jury damage award against the Town of Branford. The case stemmed from the town’s decision in 2003 to seize under eminent domain a 77-acre tract of land known as Tabor.

In a major victory for the town, the high court held that New England Estates, the proposed developer of the Tabor site, was not entitled to the jury’s hefty damage award, issued in September, 2007. Nor were lawyers for Shipman & Goodman entitled to nearly $1.5 million in legal fees the judge awarded them.

Had the town lost the New England Estates case, it could have faced a $28 million bill, including interest fees, legal fees and $ 8 million in debt service over twenty years, Jim Finch, the town’s finance director, told the Eagle late today. As it turns out, the town’s costs to the actual property owners, Thomas Santa Barbara, Jr. and Frank Perrotti, Jr. will be about $5.2 million, he said. The town now owns the land.

The controversial case has enveloped Branford politics for nearly seven years. It took the state’s highest court 21 months to render its decision. The town filed its appeal in April, 2008. Oral arguments were held in May, 2009—13 months later—and a decision was rendered today. Click here to read it.

The high court ruled that New England Estates was not entitled to any damages because it did not own the land; it only had an option to build on the land. And that option was clouded to begin with. Justice Ian McLachlan, who was appointed to the high court a year ago this month, wrote the decisions in which four other justices concurred.

The developers claimed that the town took the property to prevent an affordable housing development. New England Estates claimed that they had the right to recover lost business profits as if they had purchased and developed the property as a profitable enterprise. New England Estates never purchased the property.

Town Attorney William T. Clendenen Jr., who gathered a group of the state’s top attorneys to appeal the case and others emanating from it, said in an interview that he has litigated in the area of civil rights law since 1967. “I did not believe they had a legally cognizable cause of action. I did not believe that that an unrecorded ,unexercised option created a protection to property as required. There was no legally compensable right. And that is what the court said today. That was the central issue, the fundamental issue and we kept to that issue.”

He said when Unk DaRos, the town’s First Selectman, hired him to be the town counsel in 2007 “ these cases presented a crisis for the town. His direction to me was to try to extricate the town in the best way I could. I said I would leave no stone unturned to take the burden off the town.”

His strategy was to keep his eye on the big picture. He said he raised key issues before the court, but not all the issues that he could have raised. He said he felt some of these issues “ would detract from core of the case. I am sure I will be criticized by some.”

In fact the town’s case before the Supreme Court was only as good as the trial record below and while he wasn’t saying so, that trial record was extremely problematic for the town, which essentially found itself unable to put on a case because the town’s prior counsel, The Marcus Law Firm failed to meet a key deadline that would have permitted expert witnesses to testify at the trial. The town has since sued the law firm.

The high court’s decisions came down at 11:30 a.m. and by 1 p.m. DaRos had asked his department heads, close associates, RTM members, past and present from both sides of the aisle and Clendenen to come to Town Hall. “I wanted to thank the staff, to say that through all the turmoil they stayed steady and moved the town forward. There were some rough goings out there. But the town hung together,” he told the Eagle .

He said he was deeply grateful to the towns’s Board of Finance and the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) for providing unanimous, bi-partisan support and funding for the set of appeals that led to today’s decision. Click here and here and here to read about it.

State Representative Lonnie Reed joined DaRos to await the decisions. She was involved in the Tabor Drive battle while still a member of the RTM. “Our little town has been fighting for years against the incredible forces arrayed against us. We knew we were right. We refused to give up. We refused to give in. We stood together and we stood our ground. It is an incredible victory for our entire community,” she said later in the day.

DaRos said he had not changed his mind one iota when it came to the risk of contamination on the Tabor site, the key reason why he moved in the first place to take the land by eminent domain.

“We have once and for all put an end to the threat of lawsuits that you know would have generated out of the property over the course of generations. He cited several towns in Connecticut, all facing lawsuits from residents living on or near a contaminated town dump. “Why do you want the risk? It was right then. It is right now. …The biggest thing we never lost sight of was the goal to protect the public. That is our obligation, our moral obligation.” Lawyers for New England Estates have maintained the property with the exception of a small area was not contaminated.

The New England Estates appeal had been consolidated with the Santa Barbara - Perrotti appeals. The trial judge Willliam T. Cremins Jr., valued the Tabor parcel at $4.6 million in 2007. Today’s court decision affirmed his finding, which he based on his belief that the highest and best use of the land was for residential housing. The town said the land was zoned for industrial use and it should pay the owners less. The town had originally set aside $1.167 million for the 77 acres. The high court also remanded the owners’ case to the trial court for a determination “of reasonable attorney’s fees” in their case. Click here to read the Santa Barbara appeal.

The major case centered on New England Estates, the developers. They asserted they were entitled to major damages because the town acted in bad faith. And while the justices at one point said they viewed the town’s actions with suspicion, declaring the town “was dishonest about its reasons for taking the land,” they did not throw out the case based on their conviction that the town acted in bad faith in employing the eminent domain action. They reversed the jury’s verdict on a less complex finding, that Connecticut law does not permit two sets of damages on a piece of property that is owned by an owner who options the land to another party.

New England Estates’ primary argument was that the Fifth Amendment’s “federal takings clause” had been violated. Today’s court ruling removed that argument, making the case strictly a state issue.

The court’s decision stated that New England Estates had an “unrecorded, unexercised option to purchase the property.” That interest, it said, “was not an interest that is compensable under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which provides just compensation to an owner of the land if the land is seized by eminent domain.

“We conclude that because such an interest is not considered a property interest under Connecticut state law, New England Estates’s contractual right is not a property right protected by the federal takings clause.”

By eliminating the federal law question, and ruling in a unanimous way on state law, it may be difficult for attorneys Tim Hollister and Jim Bergenn of Shipman & Goodman, the lawyers who represented New England Estates, to appeal.

The town officially took the land in January, 2004, shortly after John Opie became Branford’s First Selectman. Current and former first selectman DaRos, the architect of the decision to seize the property in 2003, moved to take the land shortly before he left office.

At the time, New England Estates had an option to build, but had no town permits to put up a housing development. The high court in effect said an option is just an option, an argument that the town had made to Superior Court Judge Cremins without success.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will not be come official until it is published in the Connecticut Law Journal on Feb. 16. New England Estates will have the option to have the entire court reconsider the issue. But the remaining two members of the court, including the chief judge, recused themselves from hearing the case last year. It may also seek review from the U.S Supreme Court.

###

Comments

posted by: JNeil on February 8, 2010 4:15pm

This really is a split decision. It will likely cost as much as $6 million for Perrotti and Santa Barbara, plus whatever the Town spent defending the suits. What should also be noted is that the Supreme Court slapped the Town’s hands for the manner in which it acted in taking the property. They agreed with the lower court that the Town acted dishonestly and took the land under false pretext. Branford won on the law, not on any moral highground here. At least the hit on the taxpayers is a bit less than it might have been….

posted by: taxpayers won on February 8, 2010 4:37pm

This is welcome news - glad this litigation is now pretty much over with.

posted by: MarkH on February 8, 2010 4:46pm

The option issue could have a chilling effect on any future development/growth in the State. If you were a developer, would you risk thousands of dollars going through the approval process based upon a purchase option? Especially knowing your investment in time and money could be wiped out if the towm/city decided to take the property from the owner?

posted by: City Hall Watch on February 8, 2010 4:46pm

Unk DaRos should give that lame excuse a rest. Nobody believes it. The decision to take that land was not based on anybody’s health and well-being. If it was, DaRos wouldn’t be talking about building ball fields which the town doesn’t need or locating a new garage out there. In any case, I’m glad it’s over and feel bad for town folks because the financial burden will now attach to every homeowner.

posted by: Mongoose on February 8, 2010 4:52pm

This is no victory for the town. The jury’s finding of civil rights violations, abuse of power, acting in bad faith, and betrayal of the public trust by DaRos, Bellamy, and Co. was upheld. Rather than give $12.8 million to the big, bad developers, however, the Court used some antiquated 1880 bond ruling to take mercy on the town. DaRos has lied to us all, and cost this town $15 million. He should resign immediately.

posted by: Gilbert Kelman on February 8, 2010 5:25pm

It is a relief as a taxpayer for the Town to finally win one, after hearing that Branford was about to lose another legal fight. It apears that the Selectman was correct !

posted by: JNeil on February 8, 2010 5:50pm

What did the Town win, Gil? We get to pay out millions of dollars, have the Town’s reputation besmearched for how it conducted itself (that should attract investors). To top it off, we now own 77 acres that is one day clean, the next day is contaminated, than it’s safe for our children and workers to use.

posted by: Moshe Gai on February 8, 2010 6:08pm

The unanimous ruling of the CT supreme court is a major success for the town of Branford. But it is not yet time to declare victory. The town must now go after the Marcus Law Firm and collect damages from the Marcus Law Firm for misrepresenting us in the Tabor case.

At stake here is not just money (a lot of money) but the very civilized nature of the town we live in. Let the Tabor case be placed on a pedestal to fend off all corrupt politicians who engage in grand illusions of power and ignoble schemes to get rich on the back of the citizens of this town.

Justice not only need to be served it must be seen and we are all watching with the “eyes of the (Branford) Eagle”.

Thus Spake Moshe Gai

posted by: Taxpayer Too on February 8, 2010 6:23pm

Hooray for good, clean justice! Looks like “sour grapes” for the folks who are condemming Unk, crew and the Town. Too bad for you. Perhaps you all should consider moving out of Town and into another who would meet whatever expectations you have.

posted by: Mongoose on February 8, 2010 7:08pm

....The point remains—and will always remain—DaRos lied to the RTM and the people of Branford and cost this town a MINIMUM of $15,000,000.
...

posted by: MarkH on February 8, 2010 9:01pm

“The town must now go after the Marcus Law Firm and collect damages from the Marcus Law Firm for misrepresenting us in the Tabor case.”
Moshe-

Actually Marcus missed a filing deadline, I believe it was Attorney Bellamy’s edited version of the Fuss & O’Neil letter to the RTM that was viewed by the lower and Supreme Courts as the genesis of the misrepresentation….

posted by: susan barnes on February 8, 2010 9:19pm

http://www.BranfordSeven.com gives the facts and the links that will show the Eagle, Gil, Moshe & Taxpayer Too that this is anything but a clear victory for the town. Read the court’s quote and you decide…........

posted by: Mongoose on February 8, 2010 11:40pm

A better headline for your article would be:

“Former Tabor Owners Win, Town Loses, Developers Get Screwed”

posted by: ChiefJustice on February 9, 2010 12:36am

Chalk one up for the good guys. Courage. Guts.
Integrity inthe face of evil. Put me in the fox hole with Unk anytime. ...

posted by: JNeil on February 9, 2010 1:15pm

<<The Supreme Court’s ruling will not be come official until it is published in the Connecticut Law Journal on Feb. 16. New England Estates will have the option to have the entire court reconsider the issue. It may also seek review from the U.S Supreme Court.>>

The US Supreme Court could well accept this case as a follow up to Kelo vs. New London. It could be a good opportunity for the high court to clarify its position on property rights. Right now, everything is in disarray.

posted by: Pam on February 9, 2010 4:56pm

With respect to Branford’s state representative how can anyone claim this is an “incredible victory”. The town or shall we say, the taxpayers, still have to pay $6,000,000 and the town won only on a technicality not on the substantive issues. There is no mention on how the taxpayers will be paying for the 1st selectman’s and town attorney’s errors, probably through bonding!

posted by: Mongoose on February 9, 2010 7:30pm

Pam….Let’s call them what they were…DaRos and Bellamy did not commit errors as much as they told lies…

posted by: scjerry on February 9, 2010 8:03pm

Well, maybe not an “incredible victory”. I agree with the criticism of Lonnie’s hyperbole, perhaps a product of her love of her town and her attempt to paint the best face on a complex issue.

But, you know, I’d rather be paying debt service on $6M rather than $20M.

There are some in this response list (amateur constitutional lawyers with questionable credentials and even more questionable ulterior motives), who seem to want the town to have lost.
This sentiment clearly is politically motivated.

Why don’t we move on to minimize the impact of some choices made(for all of us) by people we voted into office (humans, indeed) using our best democratic processes.

posted by: Retired Teacher on February 9, 2010 8:09pm

Pam, 1st Selectman’s lies not errors. Branford has had a string of 1st Selectmen that lie and cost taxpayers a great deal of money and Unk is just the most recent. You can judge his character by the friends that he keeps and his commitment to education by his own educational efforts.

posted by: Pat Santoro on February 9, 2010 8:17pm

Are foxholes subject to eminent domain?? Unk dodged the bullet on Granite Gate and NE Estates, but did he? THIS IS LIKE A BANK ROBBER WHO HAS 10 SUCCESSFUL ROBBERIES and his arrogance propels him to commit the 11th and he gets caught. The end game is near.

posted by: susan barnes on February 9, 2010 10:31pm

Six million is not the bottom line, is it? There are still undetermined fees out there, are there not? WHY does everyone choose to ignore the STAGGERING fees of the multiple attorneys that have represented Branford? Is it not amazing and insulting to realize how stupid and dull the taxpayer is actually considered? When tallying the final cost of this debacle do not fail to include that number - which must be in the $5 million dollar neighborhood. It will be interesting to see those numbers - that have been requested by Mr. Cooke under FOI. The taxpayer is still on the hook for a chunk of change.

posted by: MarkH on February 10, 2010 1:28am

Hey Jerry,
I would rather not having to pay ANY debt service for these testosterone driven decisions.

What really offends me is Town leadership which has been found by the courts to be dishonest, only to be patted on the back for a “job well done” by their apologists. What message are we sending to future generations in this town? It doesn’t matter whether or not you are honorable, as long as you get the outcome you want. When that becomes the case, we all lose…

posted by: Mongoose on February 10, 2010 6:36am

<<Why don’t we move on to minimize the impact of some choices made(for all of us) by people we voted into office (humans, indeed) using our best democratic processes.>>

scjerry…Maybe if these elected officials would actually admit what they did—and apologize—it would be a lot easier to move on. As long as DaRos keeps blaming Cheryl Morris for Tabor—which he is doing—and Reed whoops it up like a naive party girl, don’t expect the citizens of Branford to just forget about all this.

posted by: Tyrone Speaks on February 10, 2010 11:00am

I will not refute any of the statements posted thus far, however I don’t recall reading any blame yet levied against the Morris administration. We all know that Marcus pulled the strings during Cheryl’s rein of Tierney however it was in fact her administration and her selected legal council that aided in this debacle. For the record; Tyrone Speaks, T.E.

posted by: scjerry on February 10, 2010 11:34am

I generally agree with a number of the criticisms of the decisions of the past several town administrations, but not all of them.

The biggest mistake was not having the property tested properly. We had a proposal for spending $40K and we didn’t do it. I know there were all sorts of excuses for not doing it, but barring a scientific reason for the testing being inconclusive, they were all wrong.
I refuse to be an apologist for Unk, but I think I understand his dilemma.
Until the state revamps the way we fund the education of our kids, low income housing will be a millstone around the necks of all towns. Without extensive state involvement in educational funding, or paying teacher’s salaries, or doing a lot more than they do now, towns who accommodate low income housing are left with a shortfall between real estate tax income and per student educational cost outflow. It’s a shame and a disgrace that this is the status of our society.
So I assume that this is the elephant in the room that everyone knows about and the pretext that is so often referred to.

If so, is the $6M+ we are talking about, offset by not having a huge increase in school student population?

Could we have solved this issue a different way and admitted that this was the real reason we didn’t want Tabor developed from the beginning?

Or is there really a significant risk to allowing a high density low income housing development on or near a former city dump?
VOCs creeping into the basements and below-grade walls of such structures, thus affecting people of modest means is a moral issue and one for which I have great sympathy.

So there is my view of Unk’s dilemma, and one we may never get to the bottom of.

posted by: Mongoose on February 10, 2010 11:51am

You should change your headline to “Branford Guilty of All Tabor Wrongdoing” instead of focusing on just an ancillary—albeit financially significant—part of the entire case.

posted by: JGordon on February 10, 2010 12:08pm

Having spent extensive time in the project development field, I am disturbed by this decision on multiple levels. I think using a 100 year old bond case as precedent to decide a 21st Century property rights issue is archaic in present day realities. Does this decision mean that any person or entity that takes out an option to purchase a property lacks standing to litigate an unfavorable decision? Does this mean you cannot appeal a land use agency decision unless you actually own the property in question? Are you forced to actually close on a purchase without knowing if you will be able to use the property for the purpose you are acquiring it? Will a lending institution lend torwards such a purchase without the guarantee that the purported use that would generate the funds to pay the mortgage will be granted? I see this decision having far reaching ramifications to the economic growth of this state. Since a State Supreme Court decision has a ripple effect as precedent setting to other districts, it could have a far reaching impact economincally. When you throw a pebble into a pond, the ripples generate to the entire pond perimeter…..the effect here could be a tsunami like chill on economic growth.

posted by: Mongoose on February 10, 2010 12:12pm

<<Or is there really a significant risk to allowing a high density low income housing development on or near a former city dump?

VOCs creeping into the basements and below-grade walls of such structures, thus affecting people of modest means is a moral issue and one for which I have great sympathy.>>

Then DaRos should not be putting ANYTHING on Tabor…including a Public Works facility, ball fields, a cemetery, or hiking trails….all of which he is still aggressively pushing. The hypocrisy in all this is staggering.

posted by: JNeil on February 10, 2010 12:16pm

Jerry-
If you ever looked at the proposed plans, you would clearly see it was not a LOW INCOME housing development. This is the political scare tactic that is often used against such projects. The affordable component were second floor two bedroom condos overlooking either a golf course, pond or open space. They were far removed from the land fill. In fact the Ark Road homes are closer to the land fill than the proposed project was. You are correct, it was the specter of school children that sent hivers up and down the spines of the politicians. But such a development would hardly have been conducive to an influx of such kids. You would get some, but nothing earth shattering as Avalon Bay and Lincoln Properties developments have proven through the years. If pollution was really the issue, why didn’t the Town buy up the Ark Road homes, why did the town allow the MIF site to be developed? This has proven to be a very costly political shell game.

posted by: Mongoose on February 10, 2010 12:22pm

Tyrone….In its decision, the Supreme Court, in effect, exonerated Morris and Marcus by stating that other factors—which would include M & M’s alleged wrongdoing—would not have changed the impact of the “dishonesty” and “bad faith” characterizing the actions of DaRos.

For all intents and purposes, Morris & Marcus are off the hook.

posted by: Mongoose on February 10, 2010 2:16pm

JGordon….Brilliantly expressed. We have not seen the last of this decision. While we may have “saved” $12.5 million, we may have all lost much more.

posted by: scjerry on February 10, 2010 2:23pm

Mongoose

“Then DaRos should not be putting ANYTHING on Tabor…including a Public Works facility, ball fields, a cemetery, or hiking trails….all of which he is still aggressively pushing. The hypocrisy in all this is staggering.”

Doesn’t a contaminated closed living space that people sleep and live in for extended periods of time pose a much higher likelihood of deleterious health effects than an open ball field with a composite cap over extended fill?

I don’t really want to get into the nuts and bolts of environmental mitigation (the MIF site was extensively mitigated, as I remember)and mitigation by a prospective Tabor developer reputedly would have been so expensive as to inflate project costs beyond reason. The central dump site was not the only place, with drums, machinery, etc. in extended untested areas.

But as to Unk’s alleged hypocrisy, what’s his motive? Personal gain, pride, obstinacy? I’m skeptical. I don’t want to defend the guy, but what’s the reasoning behind this criticism.

posted by: poffe99 on February 10, 2010 4:17pm

If Lonnie thinks her “little” town was right I’d like to get some of what she’s smoking. The Court said the Town acted improperly. Get it! You won on a nonsense case issue. NEE won 6 of the 7 points. Get it Lonnie!

posted by: Mongoose on February 10, 2010 4:37pm

scjerry…All I know is that a 77-acre parcel that was deemed potentially lethal for affordable housing 7 years ago by DaRos, & Co. is now just fine for public workers, people hiking, and children playing.

As for what motivates DaRos, I am no psychologist and won’t pretend to be. However, as a citizen of Branford, I will say I am very saddened by his behavior and the embarrassment he has brought to our town.

posted by: Pat Santoro on February 10, 2010 6:24pm

Cheryl Morris was not named as a defendant in this case. Unk keeps using her as a scapegoat for his failures. We had no tax increases during her administration. Maybe we are so used to deceit and corruption that we think what Unk is doing is the norm…

posted by: Mongoose on February 10, 2010 7:46pm

Mrs. Santoro…Excellent point…..In addition to apologizing to the town, DaRos owes Mrs. Morris a public apology. He and his followers were miserable to her, and all the while—as the Supreme Court ruling has confirmed—they were just hiding (knowingly or not) his lies and deception. Shame on all of them.

posted by: JournalismStudent on February 11, 2010 11:06am

With all respect to your online newspaper, and the vital service it provides to the community, in this article you “buried the lead.”

The Supreme Court ruled that First Selectman DaRos and the town were “dishonest” and acted in “bad faith”. That is the main story here.

The fact that damages were reduced—even by a significant amount—does not make the laws they broke and deception they engaged in any better..or worthy of your headline and lead paragraph.

posted by: jl pottenger, jr. on February 11, 2010 1:21pm

Congratulations to the Town leadership and legal team. This is indeed an important, and hard-earned, victory.

Permit me to add one point: the sharp criticism of the Town’s conduct in the various courts’ opinions is at least partially attributable to the way the case was tried, and so to o what did—AND DID NOT—make it into the record on appeal. Much of the Town’s evidence, including expert and officials’ testimony, was excluded by the trial judge. So the “black-eye” on Branford is deeply unfair. Perhaps the malpractice suit pending against the lawyer(s) who may have mishandled
the trial will both help pay for the higher cost of taking the Tabor property AND help restore the Town’s good name.

posted by: MarkH on February 11, 2010 1:45pm

RE: jl pottenger, jr.
In what way can you excuse the fact that the record, the Town Counsel’s Billing record shows that she edited the consultant’s letter that SHE presented to the RTM as the “Smoking Gun” as to why the land should be taken? Only at trial to have the consultant (a Town expert who WAS permitted to testify) contradict her saying that there was no evidence after 16 years of monitoring that the property was unsuitable for residential use…This revisionist history shows no lessons have been learned.

posted by: David Goclowski on February 15, 2010 3:36pm

Some might say that Branford prevailed with the recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision regarding the Tabor Drive eminent domain case. The Court selectively cited an obscure 1904 mortgage bond option ruling; the Court merely took mercy on all taxpayers of Branford. This was by no means a “victory” for the Town. It became apparent through the Court’s decision the people we elected and trusted acted illegally and dishonestly in taking land to stop affordable housing.

The Court ruled that the developers had no ownership interest in the property despite holding a valid, legally binding option, investing $1.5 million and more than 3 years into the project. The Court sent a dangerous message to future developers and placed Connecticut in deeper economic peril than we currently experience.

Land Options have been a critical aspect of doing business in this country. No developer that I am familiar with would pay full value for a property prior to obtaining all necessary approvals. Securing an option with the property owner provides the only means available for a developer to protect the proposed project. These projects not only take valuable time, but the investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In light of this recent ruling, developers and investors will look elsewhere before taking a chance in a state or a community that effectively removed the most well established and fairest means to undertake a development project.

The Court’s short-sighted decision will cost this community and state future economic growth. We as a Community should be outraged, after spending millions of dollars in a legal defense, the outcome remained the same, and our elected officials acted illegally, dishonestly and betrayed public trust.

posted by: jl pottenger, jr on February 15, 2010 4:38pm

I am reluctant to get into a never-ending debating contest—particularly about a judicial opinion which, like most of the genre, is subject to a variety of possible interpretations.

Nonetheless, I would like to take issue with some of the preceding assertions about the conduct of the Town’s lawyer regarding an “expert’s letter”. All litigators with whom I am familiar make sure that they are closely involved in “their” expert’s work on the case. They help “prepare” the expert, and are quite clear—and careful—in how they guide and direct the expert’s research and investigation. Most of all, the lawyer plays a key role in the shaping (and drafting)—including debating and discussing precise words and phrases—of an expert’s opinion.

So I, for one, am neither troubled nor surprised that the lawyer may have played a role in the preparation of an expert opinion letter. Indeed, for a lawyer to have failed to oversee that process could have been malpractice !

posted by: MarkH on February 15, 2010 8:16pm

To the issue of the Attorney “prepping” her witness. Ms. Bellamy’s version of the Fuss & O’Neill letter purported the risks of development next to the landfill. The same expert’s testimony at trial said it was conjecture and that their actual data did not indicate the property was unsuitable for residential use.

As you may imagine, that testimony, coupled with her billing record indicating she edited the letter to the RTM, did not sit well with the Superior Court Judge, the jury or the Supremes…

posted by: susan barnes on February 16, 2010 8:00pm

Tomorrow night’s BOS meeting promises to be quite interesting. Hopefully, it WILL be attended by more than the half dozen regulars that normally show up to keep informed and comment on town business.

posted by: susan barnes on February 21, 2010 12:44am

posted by: Tyrone Speaks on February 10, 2010 10:00am
I will not refute any of the statements posted thus far, however I don’t recall reading any blame yet levied against the Morris administration. We all know that Marcus pulled the strings during Cheryl’s rein of Tierney however it was in fact her administration and her selected legal council that aided in this debacle. For the record; Tyrone Speaks, T.E.

Obviously, Tyrone Speaks, another lacking the conviction to stand behind that of which he speaks, is another with thoughts worthy of great consideration. Here is a person who “speaks”, yet knows not the usage of rein and reign. Then there is the use of the word Tierney. Is it Jean, Gene, or any of the other multitude of Tierneys who people the globe? OR does poor illiterate “Tyrone Speaks” mean tyranny? All in all, MANY would find it far better if Tyrone spoke not at all and stopped embarassing himself!

New Haven Independent Login Form