YourCT.com header image 2
← Norwalk: Common Council Tee Vee Norwalk: Diesel Fule Approaching $5 A Gallon →

Norwalk: First Taxing District Rally


by turfgrrl


April 13th, 2008 · 32 Comments

I have a different perspective on the rally held yesterday. Sure, vandalism, is a terrible thing. But holding a rally to decry it doesn’t exactly reach out to the people who did it. Midnight on a Sunday night might be the more opportune time methinks. But more importantly, the First Taxing District managed to wrest over $250k in legal fees, purportedly mostly about the sliver of land called Klondike Park. Add to that the unknown amount that the First Taxing District spent in legal fees the year before in its quixotic quest to keep water consumption usage out of the hands of the Water Pollution Authority. Another $25ok there? I bet its close.

So here’s the perspective, 25 people showed up on the green to decry vandalism, that were we to generously attach a cost to it would hit maybe $25k. While nothing but crickets chirping in the sound over an assumed half a million dollars in spending by legal vandals.

Too bad it wasn’t the First Taxing District commissioners who went on a drunken binge and knocked out spindles on the gazebo. It seems that would have garnered more public outrage doesn’t it?

Tags: Norwalk

32 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: First Taxing District Rally”


Pages: [1] 2 » Show All



  • 1 old timer // Apr 13, 2008 at 10:23 am

    I don’t understand. Are you questioning the judgement of the district commissioners, or the bills from their lawyers.?
    I think the commissioners believed, with good reasons, they needed to defend the district position on Klondike Park and on sharing customer billing information with the City. Wether they were correct or not could be argued. On the other hand, the legal bills do seem excessive. They should have negotiated their legal expenses into the settlement with the City over Klondike park. It was the City’s agent, Harold “I’m never wrong” Alvord who told the contractor to cut a padlock because he was too lazy or stupid to call the district office and get permission to use the property before the job started.

  • 2 Not so fast... // Apr 13, 2008 at 10:27 am

    Your beef should be with the city for saber-rattling about the legality of the 1st Taxing District’s ownership of their parks — including the Green. The City saying one thing in private meetings and another to the press simply added to the public’s confusion. Of course, the 1st District went to Court to settle the issue of ownership once and for all. What else could they do? None of it would have been needed if the City had not tried to twist the facts. Your finger-wagging at the 1st District ignores the real source of the problem — Corporation Counsel and the Mayor forcing the District to take legal action to protect the rights of the District and its citizens. As a resident of the District, I fully suport their actions.

  • 3 turfgrrl // Apr 13, 2008 at 10:49 am

    oldtimer and Not so fast: Actually I posted, earlier, the public works minutes that Hal Alvord specifically stated that the area under the bridge was going to be used for a staging area. The fact that, after the fact, during an election, one First Taxing District Commissioner chose to make this an issue, is the real story. And it turns out that the City did in fact, own part of the park, making the First Taxing District claim ridiculous. The First Taxing District initiated the legal challenge, all nicely documented in real time here.

    And yes, I’m questioning the legal bills. Excessive is an understatement. Why no line items for the legal work? If you are a resident of the First Taxing District you should demand accountability. Why is there no cooperation between the First Taxing District and the City of Norwalk?

  • 4 Not so fast... // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:09 am

    Did or did not the Corp Counsel respond to the 1st District’s complaint that the locks were cut and DPW did not get permision to use 1st District property by questioning the 1st taxing District’s ownership of not only tiny Klondike Park but ALL its parks including the Green? Wouldn’t that make you a tad nervous?

  • 5 Anonymous // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:24 am

    this is what we all payed for wasn’t it?

    FIRST TAXING DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NORWALK 01 P . . .
    Attorney: WHITMAN BREED ABBOTT & MORGAN LLC (Juris No. 411131)
    500 WEST PUTNAM AVENUE
    PO BOX 2250
    GREENWICH , CT 06830 2250

    HAROLD F ALVORD 50 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100858)
    POSITION NUMBER 1
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    THE CITY OF NORWALK 51 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100858)
    POSITION NUMBER 1
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    RICHARD A MOCCIA 52 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100858)
    POSITION NUMBER 1
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    PJF CONSTRUCTION CORP. 53 D . . .
    Attorney: ORENSTEIN SCOTT S. ATTY (Juris No. 424138)

    Aug 14 2007 MOT FOR DFLT-APPEARANCE P No Denied Aug 30 2007 BY THE CLERK
    102.00 Sep 04 2007 MOTION TO DISMISS D Yes Denied Sep 24 2007 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    102.10 Sep 04 2007 BRIEF D No
    103.00 Sep 04 2007 MOT PROTECTIVE ORDER D No
    104.00 Sep 04 2007 MOTION TO QUASH D No
    105.00 Sep 06 2007 OBJECTION TO MOTION P No Sustained Sep 24 2007 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    106.00 Sep 06 2007 MOTION TO DISMISS D Yes
    107.00 Sep 12 2007 MOTION FOR DEFAULT P No Denied Oct 15 2007 Hon. THOMAS NADEAU
    108.00 Sep 12 2007 BRIEF P No
    109.10 Sep 12 2007 BRIEF P No
    110.10 Sep 14 2007 BRIEF P No
    111.00 Sep 24 2007 REPLY D No
    112.10 Sep 21 2007 BRIEF D No
    113.00 Oct 03 2007 OBJECTION TO DEFAULT D No
    114.10 Oct 11 2007 BRIEF P No
    115.10 Oct 09 2007 REQUEST TO REVISE D No
    116.10 Oct 09 2007 REQUEST TO REVISE D No
    117.00 Nov 08 2007 OBJ REQUEST TO REVISE P No Overruled Dec 10 2007 Hon. KEVIN TIERNEY
    118.00 Nov 08 2007 OBJ REQUEST TO REVISE P No Denied Dec 10 2007 Hon. KEVIN TIERNEY
    119.10 Dec 11 2007 ORDER Court No
    120.00 Jan 22 2008 REQUEST D No
    121.00 Jan 22 2008 MOT PROTECTIVE ORDER D No
    122.10 Jan 22 2008 COUNTERCLAIM D No
    123.10 Jan 22 2008 NOTICE D No
    124.00 Jan 22 2008 REQ EXTND DISCOVERY TIME D No
    125.00 Jan 22 2008 MOTION FOR ORDER D No
    126.00 Feb 19 2008 REQ EXTND DISCOVERY TIME

    Did we end up paying for pjf constructions legal bills as well?

  • 6 turfgrrl // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:46 am

    Not so fast: Links here. It took a year for the repair project to work its way through the common council, where, presumably, the district A representatives, read the packets. But more importantly, since it was Mr. Slapin and first Taxing District Commissioner advising Mr. Poruban, the chair of the public works common council committee, you;d think that they would have owned up to the fact that the committee approved the work, under the bridge. I guess paying for the replacement of a $20 lock was too simple.

  • 7 Not so fast... // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:53 am

    You’re still not adressing the City’s challenge to ownership of all the District parks. Had the CIty simply retracted it’s “threat”, no one would have gone to court. And wouldn’t it be DPW’s resposnibility to get officel permission from 1st District rather than assuming that it has happened thorugh some committee or council process? If DPW were planning on using, say, Mike DiScala’s property would they contact the DiScala organizaion to get permission or assume that since it have been discussed in council and committee that DiScala would “know”?

    Seems that the fault lies sqaurely with DPW not following proper procedure and the City not being truthful.

  • 8 turfgrrl // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:58 am

    Not so fast: If you look at the contemporaneous accounts, it was the First Taxing District that first leveled the legal challenge, not the City. The City responded to the claim. I think there’s a paper trail of correspondence that will bear this out. Corp counsel responded to the challenge put forth, not the other way around.

  • 9 turfgrrl // Apr 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Not so fast: Naturally getitng permission for access first is desired, but in reality doesn’t always happen. Once the construction company had begun work, the First Taxing District should have just asked that the park be restored to its condition once the work was completed, after all this was supposed to be about a bridge repair, and the park was used for a staging area to accomplish that repair. At no time was this about permanent use of the park. That’s the critical point here. Common sense over legal wrangling. It’s common sense to say, go ahead DPW and use the park to fix the bridge.

  • 10 Not so fast... // Apr 13, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    What was the 1st Taxing District challenging if not the City’s “land grab”? If you can’t get redress in any other way and the other party keeps threatening to take your proprty, you go to the courts to decide ownership. The City was not budging on its stance that the 1st District had no legal claim to the properties.

  • 11 turfgrrl // Apr 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    Not so fast: The First Taxing District challenged the use of the land for making the repair and called the police to have the construction company arrested. The First Taxing District then said that the City was making a land grab.

  • 12 turfgrrl // Apr 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Not so fast: Okay here’s the August 11th link too.

  • 13 Not so fast... // Apr 13, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Ah yes…the Hour. That paragon of unbiased reporting, especially when it comse to protecting the mayor’s butt.

  • 14 turfgrrl // Apr 13, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    Not so fast: [smirk] The Hour gets accused of favoring the occupant of the office no matter who’s there, I suppose it just goes with the territory. But that aside, the conversations during the various meetings that I covered were all along the same lines, particularly the fall out from the police call. And let’s not forget the escalation on the green, of making this a political election issue, courtesy of the same crack legal minds that gave us the ethics complaint against Kydes. Nothing worthy of a Thomas Paine argument in this, by people who should know better.

  • 15 Not so fast... // Apr 13, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    This is not about personalites. It’s about a simple principle: property ownership and the City’s refusal to acknowledge the 1st Taxing District’s ownership of their parks.

  • 16 turfgrrl // Apr 13, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Not so fast: I can name three bridges in Norwalk that have required repairs and the staging of all sorts of contractor equipment nearby that did not engender any sort of response as this did.

    In fact the only bigger bridge issue is the dispute over which town has the right to close off access to a bridge between Darien and Norwalk off route 136 in Rowayton. And that one, Darien erected a white picket fence on their side seems to be more of a pissing contest between DPWs than any concern over property rights. Norwalk maintains that the bride is unsafe and needs to be taken down. Darien disagrees. They periodically have meetings about it, and thus far, I don’t think any lawyers have been involved.

  • 17 Anonymous // Apr 13, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    These taxing districts are anachronistic remnants of early 20th century political fiefdoms and do not serve the best interests of Norwalk residents today. What was the point of the First District Commissioners getting a har*on for the construction company because they staged on District property equipment FOR WORK THAT BENEFITED EVERY NORWALK CITIZEN INCLUDING THEMSELVES? What was the point of hiring Whitman Breed instead of a local firm at half the hourly rate that could have pursued a settlement for local benefit and perspective? Then there’s the Sixth Taxing district that’s buying up real estate because they want to play Martha Stewart. I have great empathy for the residents of these districts because they are and will be taxed into oblivion to pay for political egocentric stupidity.

    It’s time for state legislative and charter revision to eliminate these districts.

  • 18 old timer // Apr 13, 2008 at 10:47 pm

    First, Harold “I’m never wrong” Alvord told the contractor to cut the padlock and use Klondike Park, When the district complained, somebody in the law dept took a quick look at the old incorporation paperwork and decided, mistakenly, that the City was the actual owner of the various parks maintained by the district and said so. That started the battle. The district then had to defend the ownership of all their parks. All the district wanted at first was an agreement that held the district harmless for use of the property, until the City claimed ownership. After lawsuits were filed and a more reasoned study of the documents, it was discovered that the district had been identified in them as the City of Norwalk, which was being incorporated with other districts into the new, present day, City of Norwalk. The use of the same name with two different definitions, before and after incorporation led to confusion and dispute. If Harold “I’m never wrong” Alvord had made some effort, or had somebody make the effort for him, before the contractor arrived, to get an agreement with the district that allowed the desired use and held the district harmless, nobody would have wasted all that time and money and the district ownership would not have been challenged, Even smart lawyers make mistakes when they are in a hurry trying to cover Harold “I’m never wrong” Alvord’s mistakes. We will never hear how much time and effort the City wasted, and we paid for. The district should have gotten the City to pay their legal bills.

  • 19 Anonymous // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    No way the City pays District bills unless there’s an agreement or law that says so. The “Firsties” eat this one big. Thank your commissioners.

  • 20 old timer // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    The City turned out to be wrong and the case was settled before it went to court. For that kind of legal fees, I would expect the district lawyers to have gotten their fees included in the settlement. They didn’t, and the district has to pay for the City’s mistake. Next time, I would hope they find smarter lawyers,

  • 21 Not so fast... // Apr 14, 2008 at 6:32 am

    19…wouldn’t the same principle apply as the one that had the City pay for Nick Kydes legal fees?

  • 22 turfgrrl // Apr 14, 2008 at 7:17 am

    old timer and Not So Fast: Am I reading the settlement wrong then? It says that 270 sq. ft. is owned by the “City of Norwalk” meaning the First Taxing District, and the rest of the area is owned by the City of Norwalk meaning the City of Norwalk. Not exactly a case of the City being wrong the way I see it.

  • 23 Not so fast... // Apr 14, 2008 at 7:22 am

    Unless I read it wrong…the First Taxing District never claimed the whole area; the City, however, did — including the 1st Taxing District area. The settlement affirmed what the First Taxing District said in the first place…and showed the City’s claim to be erroneous.

  • 24 Read the news // Apr 14, 2008 at 10:39 am

    FTD apologists are really working overtime here to cover for commissioner Slapin’s follies. The City never claimed to own anything. Alvord said he first got permission to use the land under the bridge as a staging area, orally from the District manager. After that permission was revoked by Slapin, Alvord noted that there was a dispute about who owned what and proceeded to move ahead with the bridge repairs. Not doing so would have cost the City (taxpayers!) a fortune in delay charges from the contractor who was already on site. The real question is not Alvord’s arrogance, but why wouldn’t Slapin let the City use this useless parcel to fix a bridge that his own constituents use every day?

    After the dispute was started did’t the Law Department acknowledge that there was dispute on ownership but still offered to use the area under the bridge subject to a full indemnity to hold the FTD harmless? Given that the FTD had never used or maintained this area and it certainly had never been used as a park, it was a more than fair offer and the parties could then have worked out the ownership issue peacefully and for no cost to the FTD. It was then that FTD’s high priced lawyer rushed to court with a lawsuit that raised the issue of other parks and asserted that the FTD did own the whole parcel under the bridge. Read the complaint its all in blacka nd whiteat the Court. According to the Hour, the City through the Mayor and the Law Department repeatedly said the City was not making claims on any other parcel, but it looks like Slapin and his lawyer pressed the issue in some vain hope they could embarrass Moccia before the election. The Mayor repeated his offer to hold the FTD harmless several times but was ignored even after he said in the Hour he was making no claim on any other FTD lands.

    All of the legal maneuvering documents here were thereafter instigated by the FTD’s lawyers. It was reported that the City repeatedly asked for a standstill while the title history was researched and the boundary of the areas were determined by a survey. The FTD refused those efforts and tried to force Moccia to testify before the election. Sure smells like Slapin politics. In the end, the City acknowledged that the FTD owned a 19’ by 19’ by 19’ triangle of land under the bridge that is accessible only through a gate owned by the City. If someone asked the FTD to buy a parcel of that small size, with no easy access and of such little use to anyone, the FTD would not have paid $250,000 and probably would not have paid $250. Slapin just does not care. He thinks he can spend the FTD’s money anyway he wants for his own political vendettas.

    Turf, why not interview Corpration Counsel Maslan who settled this mess and get the full facts so the FTD spin will end? Maslan at least is not political so he could give the straight story.

  • 25 Anonymous // Apr 14, 2008 at 11:40 am

    First District taxpayers will pay through the nose for Slap-pinhead’s foibles! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha a ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  • 26 Anonymous // Apr 14, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Sounds like someone needs a good bitch-slapin…

  • 27 Not so fast... // Apr 14, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    I see the wackos are back. There goes the neighborhood…and any chance at reasoned discussion.

  • 28 Anonymous // Apr 14, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Consider yourself luck your not talking crime in the First Taxing District.Its considered profane by the upper crust of Norwalk.

    The lawyer bill was the crime wasn’t it?

  • 29 old timer // Apr 14, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    It wasn’t an emergency, there were months to prepare and do the paperwork so the district would allow the use and the City, or the contractor, would asume any liability. How did it possibly not get done months ahead, before Harold “I’m never wrong” Alvord told the contractor to cut the padlock ? What happened after that was politics as usual. The Mayor had no good reason to avoid a deposition(not the same as court testimony). The district had no good reason to be in such a rush to go to court. It played out like kids in a playground, showing off, at our expense. Since when is the corporation council not political? Maslan may be a good lawyer, but not political? No more than the Mayor, I guess, or Slapin. I suppose you believe all mayors appoint corporation counsel with no thought of the politics.

  • 30 anonymous // Apr 14, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Campaign issue for the next election: get rid of the districts.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply