YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: Preservation Trust Headed In A New Direction


by turfgrrl


November 23rd, 2007 · 48 Comments

Helen Higgens, executive director of the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, got it right when she said that the Norwalk Preservation Trust needed to move in a different direction. For much of its recent history the NPT has spent more time focused on a handful of issues rather than expanding its ranks through educational resources. Having a sense of what is historic architecture in Norwalk would be a good start. That’s exactly what the NPT plans to do. Even Mayor Moccia agrees its a good thing to do. Tim Stelloh reports in the Norwlak Advocate:

On Wednesday, the organization announced it is developing a $10,000 Web site featuring historic preservation education, information on tax credits and a historic property inventory. The state is covering $3,000 of that bill.

For homeowners in state historic districts around the city - such as Camp Street and Golden Hill - the Norwalk Preservation Trust recently began offering help in applying for tax credits.

And last month, the trust held a fund-raiser to help launch it into a position of playing a role not just as an advocate, but as a resource, according to Tod Bryant, its president.

“We don’t want to be the anti-demolition society. That has a relatively narrow appeal,” Bryant said. “Right now, the organization runs entirely on passion, but that has its limits.”

Since the group’s inception in 2001 as the Norwalk Green Historic Alliance - and its subsequent 2003 rebranding as the Norwalk Preservation Trust - its primary purpose has been advocacy, Bryant said.

The majority of funds the trust has received through donations and from its 100 members has gone toward fighting court battles, he said.

To continue, the organization needs operating funds, Bryant said. It needs full-time staff, an office and a phone number.

“We need to become more professional - to pay out of a real budget, instead of out of everybody’s pocket,” he said.

While not always a model for preservation groups, Helen Higgins, executive director of the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, said the trust’s trajectory is fairly common.

“The crisis event is the wake-up call,” she said, referring to 93 East Ave., which spawned the organization. “A good example of this was 24 years ago in New London, the great Union Station by H.H. Richardson was going to be demolished.

“This galvanized residents in New London, who then created New London Landmarks,” she said. “Over the years, it’s become an institution in the city.”

The Norwalk Preservation Trust needs to do the same thing if it wants to stay viable, she said.

source:Advocate, Preservation trust moves from agitating to educating by Tim Stelloh, November 23, 2007

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

48 Responses so far “Norwalk: Preservation Trust Headed In A New Direction”


Pages: [1] 2 » Show All



  • 1 publius // Nov 23, 2007 at 9:33 am

    It is good to see the Trust finally switch gears. Their old approach of opposing things after-the-fact in a shrill, it’s-the-end-of-world way, just does not work. A recent issues poll revealed that only 3% of Norwalker voters feel historic preservation is an important issue. The Trust should drop their scorched- earth oppostion to the Norwalk Inn, cut a pragmatic deal with Handrinos, and move on.

  • 2 Vet Park Junkie // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:12 am

    publius, was the poll results that you mentioned from the questionaire available outside the election polling site(s)? When I wandered over to Nathan Hale during the election, there was a most pleasant woman looking for opinions.

  • 3 The \ // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:26 am

    That structure on the Norwalk Inn property is a blight on the neighborhood, a death and fire trap and it should be torn down. If anyone gets hurt on that property, I hope that each individual trust member gets sued out of their own homes.

    Bob Duff, you support Trust? You support death and fire traps that pose a grave risk to our children? You don’t have my vote in 2008 and I’ll make sure you don’t have a lot of other votes, as well.

  • 4 anonymous // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:54 am

    And to think #3, the city allowed people to live at 93 East Avenue just a year ago in “that death trap”…Amazing how a property can go from a maintained, lived in multi-family building to “fire-hazard death trap” in a year, all by itself…

    The republicans must be launching their anti-Duff attack machine today….I’m sure he is really worried about your threat…wwooooo!!!

    And number 1, a recent city election determined that the voters of Norwalk are completely apathetic and don’t care about any issues in Norwalk with almost 3/4’s of registered voters staying home and not participating - no one cares about your poll numbers.

  • 5 The / // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:56 am

    Isn’t it disingenuous for Duff to be in favor of preservation yet he thinks nothing of studying the feasibility of razing half of Wilton to build Super 7?

  • 6 Anonymous // Nov 23, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    should read the real estate agent Duff

    it would of made more sense

    I have seen him work a crowd its disgusting.

  • 7 anonymous // Nov 23, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    Yes, #5. I think that the land that has been acquired for super 7 in Wilton should be used to build lots of low income housing, since Wilton only has 2% affordable housing (8% under the state mandate). Wilton forces all of their low-income workers to live in Norwalk or Bridgeport.

  • 8 #13 of the Miserable 25 // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    Re post #7

    BINGO

  • 9 anonymous // Nov 23, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    #5 - saw your letter to the editor today in both papers, Sherman…

  • 10 anonymous // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:24 pm

    2 and 4 say it all. The majority of people don’t care about preservation. So be it. I think the preservationists should work on raising money from private donations, and purchase the properties they wish to preserve, and leave my tax dollars out of it.

  • 11 anonymous // Nov 23, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    Imagine a world without historic preservation. Imagine Athens without the Acropolis. Imagine Sono without Washington St. Imagine NYC without Greenwich Village. Imagine the Norwalk Motor Inn with a tacky new addition and paving where a pre-Revolutionary national landmark is now standing. The Handrinos family should be ashamed of themselves.

  • 12 The \\ // Nov 24, 2007 at 12:45 am

    Imagine Wilton without Bob Duff.

  • 13 anonymous // Nov 24, 2007 at 7:32 am

    Imagine being able to do what you want with property you own. Imagine people worrying about their own property and not what someone else does with theirs. Imagine if people put their money where their mouth is and got together and bought the property they wanted to preserve instead of complaining and wasting other peoples tax dollars.

  • 14 anonymous // Nov 24, 2007 at 8:04 am

    I am a Wilton democrat. Robert Duff has some nerve on this Super 7 proposal. I spoke with one of my elected reps. and they told me he has no clout (weak committee assignments) and failed on several leadership grabs by backing non winners in Hartford. That is good, because if he had any power, we would be scared by his stupid proposal. This proposal shouldn’t have been resurrected after us residents scuttled it in the past. I only wish that he was my senator so I could vote against him next year. Worry about your own district and leave Wilton alone.

  • 15 anonymous // Nov 24, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Widen existing rt 7 to 2 lanes each way. Eliminate most of the intersections in wiltom and ridgefield by creating parallel roads similar to local access roads and create only one or two intersections in those towns that they can reach from the parallel roads. This would end the need for super 7 and preserve those lands while drastically reducing the time it takes to get from 95 to 84.

  • 16 Right On! // Nov 24, 2007 at 9:44 am

    # 14 I agree with you!

    Duff does not have the right stuff- this guy is a clown and it is time for change!

  • 17 anonymous // Nov 24, 2007 at 10:21 am

    Duff proved what he really is after he took the box quote opportunity in the Hour with that silly, “Moccia came sheepishly into my office” crap. I always thought Duff was high road. Apparently, you can’t trust him with a secret, or let down your guard.

  • 18 Indiga // Nov 24, 2007 at 10:45 am

    I’m surprised that some think their tax dollars in any way support the Norwalk Preservation Trust. It is a non-profit much like United Way, PAWS, Norwalk River Watershed, or similar organizations — funded through donations by individuals or businesses and the very infrequent State or Federal Grant. I suppose you could see grants as tax dollars. But the “burden” of the grants is spread over the entire State or Nation, so I think anon 10 and 13 have no worries that any measurable portion of their taxes are being used to support historic preservation here in Norwalk.

  • 19 anonymous // Nov 24, 2007 at 11:42 am

    Indiga- if I am wrong, I stand corrected, but tax credits come from tax payer dollars. On top of that, if a person preserves a 500k piece of property and gets tax credits vs tearing it down and building a 1.5 mil structure, wouldn’t you also lose the taxes based on the assessed value of the new structure? Multiply this by just 10 properties and ypu are losing property taxes on 10 million dollars of assessed prioperty on top of the tax credits for 10 properties.

  • 20 Indiga // Nov 24, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    anon 19, I don’t pretend to be an expert, but it seems to me that the proportion of lost tax revenue opportunities for the town for historic preservation would be considerably smaller than the lost tax revenue opportunities for environmental, conservation, and zoning-related issues.

    Or are you saying “no” to any gov’t, state or municipal role in private development? If that’s the case, hey, good luck with that Ron Paul campaign.

    As far as State tax credits for historic rehabilitation, these are for indiviudal owner-occupied homes (in low to moderate income areas), tend to improve the property, and thus raise its value (and related tax revenue for the City). You could ask the NPT about this.

    For National Register properties, tax credits are available ONLY for income producing property. Owners decide whether the credits make sense based on the cost of rehabilitation, the credits, and the return on the investment. On a national level, the historic rehabilitaton tax credit program has generated far MORE tax revenue than has been “paid out” in the credits.

  • 21 anonymous // Nov 24, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    I guess what I am saying those who care about preservation issues should contribute and form a pool of funds to purchase properties they wish to preserve. If only two thousand people who cared contributed 1 or 2 grand each year, they could purchase properties like 93 East Av and do what they want with them without trying to infringe on the proiperty rights of the owner. I am reminded of a man in the 80’s who lived in rural Virginia outside DC. He lived in a trailer and ran a auto junkyard. As DC sprawled int VA, this man’s town became one of the rich suburbs and his junkyard became surrounded by mansions and resorts and golf courses. They considered his place an eyesore and wanted something done about it but he refused. Finally, one of the newer residents on the abutting property finally bought his little trailer and junkyard for almost 5 million and reclaimed it as woodlands. The moral of the story is if you don’t like what is there, buy it and do what you want with it.

  • 22 Indiga // Nov 24, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Reality is that no one in Norwalk can “do what he likes” with his property without considering the local and State laws put in place to serve the community as a whole.

    Since I assume 93 East Ave and the Norwalk Inn is the focus of your argument, the situation is quite different. The Norwalk Inn bought a National Register listed property that was (and is) protected under CT EPA from unreasonable demolition. They considered NO option to demolition - including selling it to a more preservation minded buyer. That is not property rights; that is a property owner using the platform of “property rights” to skirt his responsibility to the law and the community.

  • 23 anonymous // Nov 24, 2007 at 5:56 pm

    I am sure if someone more preservation minded offered the right price, he would have sold it.

  • 24 anonymous // Nov 24, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Can’t help but feel that handrinos will pay a lot more in property tax to the city on the new building than he would have if he restored the old building

  • 25 Indiga // Nov 25, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    Since the alternative plans gave him the same number of rooms, the taxes to the City would be roughly the same. The VALUE to the area would be much higher. THink about it…being able to market the Norwalk Inn as a historic inn, in a National Register District, walking distance to Mill Hill as well as restaurants on Wall Street…instead of another “could be anyplace” motel. Where would you rather stay?

    For inspiration on how a restored historic inn can be modern and have character, take a look at “The Porches” in North Adams. No vacancies at the historic inn even in November in North Adams, MA. Plenty of space at the standard issue Holiday Inn up the road.

    Charm and character sell …and it could sell here if Handrinos were a more visionary and enterprising businessman.

  • 26 anonymous // Nov 26, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    Historic preservation has a proven track record. So does the “anything goes” property rights model. Compare:
    Boston versus Atlanta. Chicago versus Dallas. San Francisco versus Los Angeles. Vermont versus Long Island.
    Quality of life may be hard to quantify, but it has been done. And the communities that have embraced their history, and preserved it, are ALWAYS rated better places to live across the board, from higher property values, lower crime rates, lower tax
    rates, not to mention more community involvement, the arts, and better education.
    A genuine concern for the community is even more an American tradition than the often-selfish “I’ll do whatever I want and screw everybody else” attitude of the so called “property rights” proponents. Greed is not a value to celebrate.

  • 27 anonymous // Nov 26, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    And, Handrinos did buy 93 East Ave. knowing it was a registered National Historic site. If he didn’t, he needs to get a better real estate lawyer.
    Sounds like the clown who bought Maritime Motors 10 years ago knowing it was in a redevelopment zone, then cried fowl when the city wanted to move ahead with Reed Putnam. He held the city hostage for 8 years, cashed out for millions, lost his weak court case shortly after, moved his
    money out of the city, and then had the nerve to write an editorial claiming his “patriotic duty” to hold up the project. Yeah, laughing all the way to the bank, and norwalk got screwed. Kydes family will do the same with Wall Street. Watch out for this one.

  • 28 Anonymous // Nov 26, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    I guess no one should buy any property in town because it might be needed to be redeveloped. Better criticize the business owners in case they start thinking they can make a profit. #2 you are just a developer shill.

  • 29 anonymous // Nov 26, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    I don’t think the issue with maritime motors was as much that they had to move, it was fair market value. The gas station next door was only given 400,000 for the property and business. Tell me he could replace his business anywhere in norwalk for that amount.

  • 30 anonymous // Nov 26, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Maritime motors was bought 10 years ago for what, a million? Previous owner knew it would be redeveloped, and so did the new owner. And what did he end up getting? Wasn’t it 8 million? And he took the money and ran. Haven’t seen or heard of him since. So much for community concern. And Reed Putnam was held up for so long that millions more in tax revenue was lost, as well as hundreds of local jobs that would have resulted. This is NOT the same as long-standing property owners who pre-dated redevevelopment plans.
    But the redevelopment zones are well established, and opportunistic greedy people will always take advantage of this, buy property in these zones, and then try to hide behind the property rights banner to squeeze as much as they can out of the city before moving down to Florida. Watch Kydes….

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply