The statue of John Harvard, outside University Hall in Harvard Yard is a prefect example of the old adage that you can’t believe everything you read. It’s something that history scholars learn early, which is why source materials are always the preferred starting point for academic studies, rather than the stuff that follows. It comes in handy in programming too, although with a bit of geeky humour, the declaration, “use the force, read the source” will make you too, a jedi master. Naturally, after my usual WTF moments after reading the Hour this morning, I thought of the statue, more commonly known as the statue of three lies, because the article about the latest in the battle of 93 East Ave is so …. mind boggling.
It begins innocently enough …
Court orders being sought by the state’s attorney general are the latest turns in the five-year-old battle involving the proposed demolition of Grumman-St. John House at 93 East Ave. by the owners of the Norwalk Inn & Conference Center.
And the court orders raise the question of whether the property is actually considered historical.
And we quickly arrive at whopper numero uno. Which is casually contradicted by the next grafs.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced Wednes-day he is seeking court orders to stop Chris Handrinos and George Katsaros, the owners of the inn, from tearing down the Grumman-St. John House, which they own under the name 93 East Avenue, LLC., on the basis of the property’s alleged historical stature.
Blumenthal filed the court orders on behalf of the Norwalk Preservation Trust, Inc. and the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism.
“We are open to any reasonable proposal that will accomplish the objective of preserving the property,” said Blumenthal.
The court order would require the owners of the house to take restorative measures to prevent the property from decaying, Blumenthal said. The attorney general said the house has weathered severe water damage and a deteriorating porch and windows.
A contempt order is also being sought against the inn, as the attorney general claims the owners are allowing the home to fall into disrepair.
A temporary injunction disallowing the demolition of the Grumman-St. John House was issued in February. Blumenthal said by not maintaining the property to the level of quality at which it was purchased, the owners are “essentially enabling demolition by neglect.”
Lou Ciccarello, the attorney for Handrinos and Katsaros, said his clients are abiding by the injunction by not demolishing the Grumman-St. John House. There was no order in the injunction instructing the owners of the Grumman-St. John House to maintain or restore the property, he said.
“It cannot, in good faith, be said that the defendants are violating any order,” Ciccarello said.
Ciccarello said the building is in an advanced state of dilapidation and repairing it would be a “financial disaster for the owners.”
“The problems that the owners of the inn and 93 East Avenue, LLC face is a tremendous cost in terms of legal fees and time and effort to try to save a building which is falling apart on its own,” he said.
Then whopper number two. Here I’ve highlighted the salient points.
Tod Bryant, president of the Preservation Trust, said the house was inhabitable when Handrinos and Katsaros purchased it.
“When they brought it, it was fully occupied,” he said. “And it continued to be occupied until December 2006, when they applied for demolition.”
I suppose that third story windows just naturally opened by themselves too, fulfilling the deteriorating on its own claim, but I digress. In 2006 people lived there, so the word, young fact checking grasshoppers would be habitable.
Blumenthal, Assistant Attorney General Alan Ponaski and members of the Norwalk Preservation Trust, Inc. met with Handrinos on April 16.
Handrinos said he was told to make between $500 and $1,000 repairs on the allegedly historical house. Handrinos offered to sell the house for $1 to the Norwalk Preservation Trust if it helped the Norwalk Inn gain a third floor to the inn.
“If they prevail, they can have it,” Handrinos said. “What they are doing
now is wasting taxpayers’ money and our money.”Ciccarello said his clients never heard back from Blumenthal in regard to the offer, and the lawsuit is the only communication his clients received from the attorney general’s office since the April meeting. The attorney questioned Blumenthal’s intentions with regard to the lawsuit.
“Unfortunately, the attorney general and the preservation society have decided to take this matter to the press and to the media,” he said. “Why are they doing this? Is this part of a political campaign?”
Blumenthal confirmed that the April meeting took place but would not respond to the comments made by Ciccarello and Handrinos.
For more than five years, the inn has sought to raze the Grumman-St. John House to build a 40-room expansion to its existing facility at 99 East Ave.
Handrinos said the constant litigation has cost him “hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Preservationists, including the Norwalk Preser-vation Trust, maintain that the core of the house survived the British burning of Norwalk during the Revolutionary War. They have fought to save the house or have it incorporated into the expansion.
“We’re not against the expansion of the inn,” said Bryant. “We just don’t want the house torn down.”
Blumenthal is seeking the court orders to protect the Grumman-St. John house on the grounds that the Connecticut Environ-mental Protection Act protects historical structures from demolition unless “no feasible or prudent alternatives” exist.
And voila, we have whopper number three. Gee, what is the criteria for even being considered historic?
There is some question, however, as to whether the Grumman-St. John house could even be considered a historical property. The property has been listed on the National Registry of Historic Places since 1987 under the jurisdiction of the Norwalk Green Historic District.
“No agency of government can simply claim that a particular house or structure has historic value,” said Blumenthal. “It has to be substantiated and it was.”
However, a 1985 state Supreme Court case voided the creation of the district, according to Peter M. Nolin, who headed the city’s law department during Mayor Richard A. Moccia’s first term.
“There is some questionable aspects of the historical value of this building,” said Ciccarello. “The historic nature of this property has been disputed. George Washington didn’t sleep here or anything like that.”
Oh right, the general criteria for anyone from Norwalk to determine if something is historic is whether George Washington slept in/on it. Meanwhile up in Cambridge, a statue that says John Harvard, Founder, 1638 is a celebrated tourist attraction despite being the likeness of the University’s 3rd President instead of John Harvard, that John Harvard was not a founder of the University and that the University was founded two years earlier in 1636.
source: The Hour, Blumenthal seeks stay of demolition, By STEVE KOBAK
