YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: Krummel & Hilliard Don’t Want To Hire Outside Lawyer


by turfgrrl


September 14th, 2007 · 18 Comments

Stanley Seligson wants the City of Norwalk to finance infrastructure improvements to his West Ave. redevelopment project. Norwalk’s Corporation Counsel says the financial plan suggested in beyond the staff’s expertise. So they recommended that outside counsel be hired to evaluate the plan. Bill Krummel and Carvin Hilliard don’t want to hire outside counsel because:

“I’m really concerned right now about the West Avenue corridor development and the statements about the amount of money that the city or state is going to have to put in for infrastructure,” Krummel said. “The authorization to have a law firm examine how to do this is, in effect, moving forward on the plan. I want to know how much (money) we’re talking about before we hire a law firm.”

“I would support funding the garage because that’s general public use. But as far as private (development) we just want to ask questions,” Hilliard said. “We have to find out about the public funding and the private stuff.”

Chairman Matt Miklave understood exactly why its a good idea to seek outside expertise:

Matthew T. Miklave, chairman of the Planning Committee, said hiring legal counsel to investigate the financial plan seems to be a “reasonable thing to do.”

“I’m not adverse to the concept of (a special services district),” Miklave said. “In essence, the project developer is paying the cost of the development, albeit it’s over time. That seems to me to make a heckuva a lot of sense as long as the city’s interests are protected. But I need more information.”

One would hope that that our council flunkies will spend the time to fully understand the issue before committing the financial resources of the City of Norwalk to aide one developer of one area of town. Unlike the thinking of Nick Kydes.

Planning Committee member Nicholas D. Kydes said redevelopment projects for the city’s urban core will result in the “resurrection of Norwalk.”

Kydes added that the tightening of the housing and credit markets necessitate that Waypointe move forward quickly.

“We have procrastinated long enough on the West Avenue development,” he said. “Any time we lose now is going to work against us, because we’re working against economic conditions that are beginning to tighten up.”

Kydes seems to forget that its the developer that is supposed to be the one whose market is tightening up. Norwalk will be developed regardless, just like it and every other northeastern corridor town has seen development over the past 300 years.

source: The Hour Officials debate public bonds for West Ave. project, September 14, 2007

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

18 Responses so far “Norwalk: Krummel & Hilliard Don’t Want To Hire Outside Lawyer”



  • 1 MGeake // Sep 14, 2007 at 10:16 am

    My biggest problem with all of this is that I remember the last time it was said that the cost of construction would be paid for out of the future revenue it would produce. Has the Maritime Garage gotten into the black — in aggregate, not for a given year — yet, or are taxpayers still footing the bill for the last parking garage that would pay its own way?

    I am not anxious to put the city $100,000,000.00 at risk!

  • 2 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 10:18 am

    There are alot of questions here that need to be answered and if the planning committee has questions then so do we. Why would Norwalk be expected to pay for this project? I was under the impression that bonding and funding was already in place by Seligson and company when the Council approved them as designated developer. Where did this new figure come in and why? The parking garage is all well and good but is it for general population? meaning who will be allowed to use it? Will it have signs saying “Parking for _____ only” or will the general public really be able to use it? If the infrastructure was figured into the long term plan of the development, why this latest request? Wouldn’t these things be part of the overall development? Committing our finacial resourses for one developer is not a wise move. What happens down the road with other developers who find themselves in a bind? Will we be having this conversation again? No, I think it is wise to allow an outside firm with no agenda’s to look this over very very carefully before we committ to anything.

  • 3 #13 of the Miserable 25 // Sep 14, 2007 at 10:21 am

    I read some of the article in the Hour, but started to get a nervous stomach when they started to mention that bonding will take some of the load off of the property owners, and how another parking garage is going to pay for itself. Why am I getting the feeling that we are going to pay increased taxes towards something that will make someone millions of dollars?

    Maybe I am just getting gun shy, and maybe not.

    Any thoughts?

  • 4 John Leonetti // Sep 14, 2007 at 10:25 am

    Someone on this blog mentioned a month or so ago, that the Maritime Center is still being subsidized by the taxpayer. We just cannot build another tax burden on the folks in this city, by taking the word of the developers that “they will pay for themselves” The problem I have is will any of us still be alive when they are self supporting?

  • 5 MGeake // Sep 14, 2007 at 10:26 am

    A very big issue is who will actually pay to park in that garage. With three major commercial developments going on simultaneously, will there be enough “general public” going down there to support that garage? What happens if the developer becomes insolvent (or otherwise fails to meet his obligations)???

  • 6 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 10:53 am

    Stanley Seligson wants the City of Norwalk to finance infrastructure improvements to his West Ave.redevelopment project.

    Its nice to “want” things.

  • 7 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 11:09 am

    How does it feel to want? You can’t always get what you want unless of course noone is paying attention! Hopefully this is not the case here. I say hire the outside source and stop procrastinating to save a few dollars now to only give away the farm later on.

  • 8 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 11:14 am

    Exactly number 6 and 7!

  • 9 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 11:16 am

    Why do we have Councilmen like Nick Kydes who think they are in office to represent developers instaead of taxpayers.

  • 10 Leon Novac // Sep 14, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    The city has worked hard for a AAA bond rating. I hope we do not jeopardize it with more “they will pay for themselves, bye and bye on the 4th of July” pie in the sky projects.

    For the taxpayer in this city, the slice of pie is getting thinner and thinner, and the developers are getting richer and richer. There is an old saying that a person was “Promoted to his level of incompetence.” That holds true of development, it can grow to it’s level of termination.

  • 11 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    I know no one wants to understand the truth on the bonding, but the money will be paid back by the developer it is a way that the our AAA rating will help get a better rate, the property itself will be the security, just like a mortgage. The developer is putting over 500 million of his own money in addition to the 100 million., Do you think he wants to fail and lose that investment plus the property by not paying the city. Krummel has know about this for years, he never said a word when Alex was Mayor, and he had no trouble voting for 150 million to fix schools, which only the taxpaeyrs would pay for. Look some out there hate developers, think ewveryone is paid off and nothing any city offcial does it right. But this is the future of Norwalk, it is what eveyone wants, neighborhoods, mom and pop stores, no big box store, affordable housing, on and on, or we can leave West Avenue alone, and everyone can lament about the good old days. If you are intellecutally honest get can awway from bashing the developers or claiming they are getting free money then you can objectiviely look at the project.

  • 12 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    And a Donald Trump owned company would never declare bankruptcy and stick creditors.

    Oh wait, they have!

  • 13 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    You are abosultely right, businesses do declare bankruptcy. So lets stop all devlopment, lets not build another building, lets not enter in another contract with anyone because they might declare bankruptcy.In this case is that the city would have first claim over all creditors because of the liens that would be on the property, why do you think we need Robinson and Cole to ensure we are protected. By the way take a ride to West Hartford which was a similar type arrangement and look at their project to how it has revitalized that town. They had the forsight and will to perservere for their project, they looked it as opporunity not a crooked ventuire.
    But again lets just leave West Avenue the way it is and be happy, as no new taxes come in on the new homes and buildings,our Grand Lsit can stagnate and we can continue to raise the taxes on the homeowners and then you will complain you can not afford to live here.

  • 14 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    #13-Perhaps if you read more carefully all anyone wants is that all the I’s are dotted and all the T’s are crossed before the city agrees to this figure. a little precaution goes a long way to taxpayers. We all want to see a vibrant and thriving Norwalk but we want to also see that developers are not the only ones thriving.

  • 15 nwlknative // Sep 14, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    I may be missing something here, but wasn’t the infrastructure cost mentioned in Seligson’s plan? Wasn’t it questioned who would pay for this? Clearly, someone knew that these improvements would be necessary to any redevelopment plan. I would also like to know if the garage would be for residential or retail? If it is residential only - then
    there is no reason why the taxpayers should foot the bill.

  • 16 Anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    #15-EXACTLY! The infrastructure should have been discussed from the very beginning but was not and the 100mil figure was also not discussed and if these garages are to be for residential use then the developer should be footing the bill since they will be making the profit.

  • 17 anonymous // Sep 14, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    Seligson isn’t going bankrupt. Otherwise how would he pay for his generous contributions to Norwalk Republicans every year? ;-)

  • 18 Mr Greenpeace // Sep 15, 2007 at 12:30 am

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_bi_ge/renters__plight

    while we are on the subject of housing ect thought this ap article from the wire service tonight hit home two ap writers thought Fairfielf county needed some attention maybe we will see this in the papers sunday too late I suppose for us to read it in the morning,,great timing for AP and for the blog ..first to be seen online on one of the most newsworthy sites in Norwalk I would dare to say.That ap office in Bridgeport are truly on the ball..

Leave a Reply