New Haven Independent: The Financial Fallout from Tabor

The Financial Fallout from Tabor

by Marcia Chambers | October 5, 2007 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (22)

The fallout from the multi-million dollar Tabor jury verdict played out before Branford Town officials this week, as soaring legal costs were addressed and a call for law firm accountability failed.

At the Board of Selectmen’s meeting Wednesday Republican Third Selectman John Opie, who is running for First Selectman, continued to press hard for the appointment of an independent counsel to review “the appropriateness of all legal advice to the town” in the Tabor case. The time period would include the current and past two administrations, including his own.

“This is in no way a witch-hunt. This is an opportunity to give the taxpayers a clear, concise, non-political, unbiased report…to find out how we wound up where we are.”

First Selectwoman Cheryl Morris smiled and said she agreed with Opie. But not surprisingly her agreement stopped short of endorsement. “Quite frankly, I think it’s a great idea. It should be done.” But the timing wasn’t right, she said, because Tabor was still in litigation. She said the town was hoping for a new trial or alternatively a reversal from the appellate court. “I don’t want to jeopardize our case,” she said, reading from notes.

Shelley Marcus, town counsel #2 was silent during the 20-minute legal discussion. Republican RTM member Frank Twohill, who is an attorney, noted there is a statute of limitations “if there is going to be any claim against any firm or any attorney. You don’t have forever,” he observed. Without a second, Opie’s motion failed.

The night before Jim Finch, the town’s Finance Director, went before a joint RTM committee to discuss the financial impact of the Tabor case. He told the RTM members that as of last month the $2.5 million Tabor allocation of 2003 had been spent.

He submitted documents that showed the town allocated $1.167 million to pay for the condemned land, and that four law firms had so far received the bulk of the remaining $2.5 million, a combined $1.148 million.

In 2003-04, Wiggin & Dana, then the town’s attorneys, received a total of $422,112 and by last month the Marcus Law Firm, the town’s current counsel, had billed the town a total $137,626. The firm billed $46,338 in January and February, 2007, when a settlement was reached in principle that would have permitted housing on the site. But the RTM rejected the settlement and pressed the Morris-Marcus administration to hire new trial attorneys.

David Reif of McCarter & English, of Hartford, which handled the land valuation trial this summer, was asked to return. His firm has so far received $403,020, with another $18,529 still pending. Morris then hired Kerry Callahan and David Monz of Updike Kelley & Spellacy to handle the recent jury trial. So far Updike Kelley has received $185,853. The town still owes the firm $ 278,381.

“Where we stand now is we are in desperate need of adding to this authorization,” Finch told the committee. He asked for an additional $500,000, and the committees unanimously consented. This was, he noted softly, just the beginning. The full RTM must vote final approval at its Oct 10 meeting next week.

Finch told the joint RTM Administrative Services and Ways and Means committees that he estimated an increase of at least one-half a mill in the debt service alone if the full Tabor costs came to pass.

The legal fees so far for the four law firms are roughly $1.45 million. If the verdicts stand, the town under civil rights statutes must pay the legal fees for Jim Bergenn and Tim Hollister, the developer’s attorneys at Shipman & Goodwin, as well as Steven Humphrey, the owner’s chief attorney at Robinson & Cole. This figure could reach $3.5 million, Finch said. He noted that the town has appealed the two cases, and that will take serious additional funding over the next 18 months.

In the short run are mounting legal fees; in the long run is the reality that if the case is not overturned on appeal, the town will have to pay a $12.8 million jury verdict in lost profit damages, plus the judge’s $4.6 million finding for the value of the 77-acre parcel whose best use, he declared, was for residential housing. Interest on the jury verdict was put at 10 percent.

The judge found in the land valuation case that the Tabor parcel was not contaminated, a finding the jury later agreed with. Bergenn stressed throughout the trial that the impact of the landfill on the parcel was negligible, that the land was not tested prior to the town taking title and that the underlying reason for seizing the land was to prevent a major affordable housing development on the site.

In a motion to set aside the verdict, Callahan, who handled the trial, outlined 21 judicial errors that he termed improper, incorrect or a misstatement of the law. This motion is reviewed by the trial judge who presided over both trials, Superior Court Judge William T. Cremins, Jr. Only then can it be appealed to a higher court. Click here to read the motion.

At the outset, Callahan wrote that New England Estates (NEE), which had an option to buy the land, but which did not own it, was not protected under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it did not own the land. Therefore NEE had no claim, let alone a claim for lost profits.

Callahan said that Cremins erred when he agreed with NEE’s theory that the developer “would have obtained all local and state approvals for the development of a specific 354-unit affordable housing development.” At the time, the developer had no town land approvals and the land was designated industrial, though NEE’s attorneys contested that label.

Throughout the five week trial, the judge continuously wrestled with what evidence the jury should hear. He had to weigh whether the evidence was so prejudicial that it should be suppressed or was so revealing of important issues that it should be admitted. For example, in a case that centered on current or potential contamination of land because the Tabor parcel is adjacent to the town’s landfill, the judge rarely let the town’s attorneys use the word “contamination.”

Many of the town’s claims center on the fact that the judge kept so much evidence out that the town was effectively prevented from putting on its case. Also, Callahan was not told by David Doyle of the Marcus Law firm of the drop dead expert witness deadline date of May 30 and as a result the judge ruled he could not call experts.

Nor would the judge permit Callahan to introduce a 10-page letter sent by David Hurley, vice-president of Fuss & and O’Neill, the town’s outside environmental engineers, to Shirley Rasmussen, the town planner. It is dated November 3, 2003. Hurley outlines the parcel’s contamination issues and recommended that no housing be built on the land.

But the jury didn’t hear that. Bergenn argued it was too inflammatory, too prejudicial, simply hearsay. “Double hearsay,” echoed Attorney Humphrey, who represented the owners, Thomas Santa Barbara, Jr. and Frank Perrotti, Jr. The judge agreed. Click here to read the exhibit that the jury did not see.

As important as it was to have an environmental expert testify for the town, it was equally important for a financial expert to take the stand. In an interview Anthony “Unk” DaRos, who initiated the Tabor taking in 2003 when he was First Selectman and is running for that office again this year, said the town was deeply harmed because it was not allowed to rebut the plaintiff’s financial experts.

There was testimony at the trial that the land was barren. It went down to the bedrock. But there was no testimony about what that meant.

We asked DaRos about that.

“To get it to where you could grow one tree on that property, you would need between 500,000 and 800,000 yards of soil or dirt or fill. Even if you bought it at a discount price, it would be almost $8 million just for dirt.

“You subtract that from the $12.4 million in profits, and now we are down to 4 million. Now you have to take the off-site work. The sewer hook up, the utility hook-up and the expansion of Tabor and Pine Orchard roads. The developer didn’t account for any of this. There would have been no profit; only a loss.”

But the jury was not allowed to hear this.

###

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: dman | October 5, 2007 1:10 PM

More nonsense. The developers and Judge Silbert warned the town. So did the Marcus lawfirm. You're just figuring out what this will cost you! Give me a break. I don't know what Daros is smoking but 500 to 800,000 yards of fill to grow one tree. You people not only print it. You really believe it! He should be elected again. As a matter of fact Tabor should be renamed. Daros Bellamy Park. LOL

Posted by: REGS | October 5, 2007 6:22 PM

DMAN..You are right on about the "dirt" He is talking about spreading 4" of soil over 77 acres. I guess he plans on spreading it over roads, houses, wetlands, ponds......This is like McCarthyism. If you keep repeating the same untruths over and over, throwing out fictitious numbers, perhaps someone will believe you.

Posted by: Pam Fowler RTM-4 | October 7, 2007 4:44 PM

Regardless of what side of the Tabor issue you are on, the decision in this case was not based on a full presentation of facts since the town was effectively prevented from putting on ANY defense. And the fault for that lies squarely at the feet of the Morris administration and the Marcus Law Firm.

By the by, DMAN and REGS, you are both exceedingly easy with your opinions while you have the protection of a user name. An honest discourse would include the ability for readers to evaluate both the ideas and the messenger, whose motives and reputation are no small part in assessing the credibility of the message.

Posted by: dman | October 8, 2007 10:03 AM

I think the credibilty of the message was given by the jury in their verdict. Don't forget the Town NEVER tested the property and an expert witness would only have been able to enumerate "the possibility theory". There is no support for this over DEFINITIVE proof. Either you got it or you don't. Especially to take ALL 77 acres. The problem was with the architects of the action, Unk and Penny. You may think they are great people, maybe they are, they are just incompetent when it come to taking property. Maybe the Marcus team did drop the ball on timing but blame can be placed at the feet of all involved, Opie included. He could have tested the property. One thing is certain. The attorneys are cleaning up and prodding the town to press on when they know the end result. The town has no evidence and could have settled it for ZERO cost a long time ago. "Politics is dirty business". Oh yeah, who is this coming from? It really isn't important what side of the fence I sit. What is important is the fact the jury made an impartial decision based on "THE ADMISSIONS" of the cast of characters involved here. No expert witnesses will be able to change that. The town had the opportunity to settle once maybe it should be tried again. If you can't save face maybe you can still save $$$. Interest on both suits is almost 1.5 million a year.

Posted by: Stan Maclachlan | October 8, 2007 10:30 AM

My concern as a taxpayer of Branford is getting the appeals heard and hopefully the verdict reversed. Getting the verdict reversed is by no means an easy task as all the attorneys in the case will agree. It seems to me that the Town's efforts and finances should be focused here. I realize that it is election time and no one wants any part of the blame for this but don't you think true leaders would rise and say our first concern is preparing hopefully for a new trial?

Posted by: REGS | October 8, 2007 12:09 PM

"Getting the verdict reversed is by no means an easy task as all the attorneys in the case will agree. It seems to me that the Town's efforts and finances should be focused here."

On the surface this might seem good. However, when you consider how disproportionately small the percentage of reversals are, is this not spending good money after bad? It is usually prudent to settle and keep legal costs down. However, it is often the politically motivated, yet ill-conceived course to say lets fight it, than when you lose, blame it on the judge. Haven't we seen this happen before?

Posted by: Stan Maclachlan | October 8, 2007 2:01 PM

I understand your point of view and you are correct that overturning a jury's decision will be difficult and more costly. That being said are you suggesting the town should have settled pre-trial? If you are I agree with you but post trial the town has to fight to mitigate this judgment now.

Posted by: eyeright | October 8, 2007 9:46 PM

DMAN is correct. This will not get reversed on appeal because the town NEVER tested. The old saying "penny wise and pound foolish" should be changed to "Penny stupid and Unk foolish".

Posted by: scjerry | October 11, 2007 11:56 PM

OMG, it's DMAN again. For someone who claims to have a scientific background and claims to be a professional urban planner or whatever, I can't believe your statements.

Here's your latest:
"I think the credibility of the message was given by the jury in their verdict. Don't forget the Town NEVER tested the property and an expert witness would only have been able to enumerate "the possibility theory". There is no support for this over DEFINITIVE proof. "

OMG, "DEFINITIVE PROOF". You must be joking, right? What do you propose, deconstructing a 50-year old time-machine account of everything dumped into the landfill, then showing a 3-D movie of the percolation of wastes into the crevices of the granite rocks underlying the landfill and adjacent properties?

This isn't a video game, this is the application of common sense based on intuition, human experience, and, oh, intelligence.

There are probably 6 or 8 landfills in Connecticut, where the towns complied with all of the existing regulations and yet years later, there were substantial environmental impacts, and huge economic and health impacts on the community.

What "credibility of the message given by the jury". What horse puckey!! They never heard the science. Your are a joke, indeed.

I promised myself to never attack the messenger, only the message, but I can't help myself. You are a joke.

On the testing issue, why don't you spend some time doing the research necessary to form an informed opinion?

I don't think you are motivated because it is clear that you are a mouthpiece for either NEE or Santa Barbara.

You are disingenuous and deceitful, pure and simple.

To those who seek the truth, see http://www.unkdaros.com/Tabor/Fuss&ONeilloverviewNov03.pdf, http://www.unkdaros.com/Tabor/DEPcommunications.pdf , http://www.unkdaros.com/Tabor/tabor-pzmemo.html and, finally, http://www.unkdaros.com/Tabor/tabor.html
http://www.unkdaros.com/Tabor/WeichselSouthingtonCongtest.pdf

Posted by: Gordon | October 12, 2007 8:33 AM

scjerry- For the sake of discussion, let's just say I agree with all of the premises you have outlined from the unkdaros website (which in itself is a self serving sample). IF the landfill is a timebomb waiting to happen, than the Town should have already moved in and acquired the entire Ark Road neighborhood so people would not be living and raising their children in an area where they a likely to experience health issues in future years (your thoughts not mine). None of the three amigos (Daros, Opie & Morris) has ever ventured into that subject.
Also, in acquiring, taking or posessing the Tabor site, the Town can not unjustly benefit from allegedly polluting their adjoiners by now paying a steeply discounted price for the land. Its like an arsonist setting someone's house on fire than buying the house and paying a fraction of its price because of the fire damage. I experienced this in another community where a City failed to perform code enforcement, the area became blighted, and they tried to take property for pennies on the dollar because of the deteriorated condition of the neighborhood. They lost too.

Posted by: PissedCreeker | October 12, 2007 9:56 AM

SCJerry: you seem to have a handle on whats going on with this issue. In the statement listed below, from Unks website, can you explain reason number 3 for the taking of the property? I am a little confused what plans we could have had for "recreation, public works & cemetary space" if this land is contaminated? Reasons 1 & 2 are clear: avoided health risk to fellow residents & financial responsibility for the town. But 3 is a completly different reason???

WHERE UNK STANDS:

â€¢ Acquiring the property was the right course of action. The Town acted prudently and appropriately when it exercised eminent domain to acquire the Tabor property. The acquisition:

anticipated and avoided a threat to the health and safety of people residing so close to a landfill;

reduced the financial risk for the Town that would follow from permitting residential development so close to the municipal landfill;

provided the Town with land that was needed for valid public uses - recreation, public works and cemetery space.

Posted by: PissedCreeker | October 12, 2007 10:14 AM

SCjerry I apologize b/c I missed your previous response about ball fields. But in your response you said "Be reminded, the regulations do not require that athletic fields be tested for radon, which like the (VOCs) volatile organic compounds from the landfill, collect in low lying areas like residential basements and puddles accumulated from rain storms." I think that we would want to test for radon if kids were going to play on it? Wouldnt the kids be playing in these same puddles? Unks statement also states cemetary space? He had said it would take millions of $'s to bring the required fill onto the property to grow a tree, how much fill would we need to bring in if we wanted to start burying people on the site?

Posted by: dman | October 12, 2007 7:01 PM

SCJERRY. Apparently, your emotion has clouded your thought process as well as your manners. David Hurley, from F&O said under oath" the property is suitable for residential use". I have not made this up. I would consider Mr. Hurley an environmental expert. Sorry if the truth was the cause of your loss. PLEASE NOTE. There is NO definitive proof the 77 Acres is contaminated. If you have proof of this please post it. I can't imagine where you would get this from since "THE TOWN NEVER TESTED THE PROPERTY" Fortunately, "possibilities" in not enough to take property. As for UNK. I would be embarrassed to support or vote for someone who made the comment UNK made about needing 500 to 800,000 yards of fill to grow one tree. You must be kidding. And then there is the cemetery issue. It's just too funny for words. I really think it was the 1.5 million per year interest charge that upset you. Look, we could still be friends!LOL

Posted by: scjerry | October 14, 2007 11:37 AM

Unk is making an honest attempt at a reuse proposal for public benefit with the least risks (a cemetery holds dead people!), and doesn't negate the concept of the public use of the parcel as a buffer to protect future residents under eminent domain law. Yes, there may so much expense involved with remediation of existing site-local contamination alone (never mind what flows from the landfill), that the Town will allow the lot to return to a wild state after addressing the major problems. See Hurley's full 10-page report below.

On the potential for this "time bomb" to spread to existing surrounding neighborhoods, as it has in other towns, the Town has already capped nearby wells because of detected contaminants (cross contamination claims aside) and placed these homes on water mains. Why place others in danger?

I agree that the website is self-serving. Isn't that quite obvious in an election year? Any time someone defends their position, it is in their best interest. That doesn't make the points raised in their website wrong. But you know what? I verify those sources and you can do the same. Of course, "self-serving" is in the eyes of the beholder, politically speaking.

That's the great thing about a Democracy with a capital D, and a laymen citizenry armed with the Internet and good judgment.

I freely admit to a sense of outrage that many feel at the rip-off attempt of Branford taxpayers by NEE. So you are quite right, DMAN, I do get emotional. But as to emotion clouding my judgment - I think not. My manners may be faulty, but when outrageous statements are made, don't expect to be handled with kid gloves, particularly since you have supported NEE's position in every posting. According to you, NEE should be absolved of any responsibility for determining the suitability of the property for residential development in their rejected PZC application, and is due the $12M+ awarded by the jury. As to the $1.5M yearly interest, of course it incenses me, but that's NEE's doing (who you clearly support or are you even a Branford resident and your position motivated by other considerations?) and will be thrown out on appeal. See the 20+ judicial errors in http://www.unkdaros.com/Tabor/Taborappeal.pdf

Radon (naturally occurring above granite) and volatile organic contaminants collect in low-lying areas, and if that includes a basement, will percolate up through structure walls, which act as conduits into homes where people spend a lot of time in concentrated contaminants, without the cleansing benefits of winds and open areas. See Hurley (Branford's environmental expert) on VOC (much more dangerous than radon) mitigation risks: http://www1.ctbar.org/files/May%202007_Vapor%20Intrusion.pdf

The idea of providing a barrier above the contaminated soil in an athletic field using clean fill and plastic sheeting gets kids above the stuff, including puddles, and since kids don't spend time breathing in air with high concentrations, only periodic testing is necessary. You can perform your own web search to get up to speed. Note that the 77-acre parcel is probably a significant pollution site itself according to Hurley's full 10-page report (See below) , and will require the Town to spend substantial money to remediate; so much, in fact, as mentioned above, that the Town may abandon these plans entirely by only mitigating the major problems in order to provide a residential buffer.

To those who want other web references:

EPA description of the Branford landfill:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/51dc4f173ceef51d85256adf004c7ec8/41ceeb4d29046bd985256b42006053f9!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,Branford

Full report from Dave Hurley on the Tabor property, a report he was unable to introduce into the jury trial record (DMAN, read this thoroughly in light of your claims about his testimony - also be reminded that his testimony was not reviewed or defended by environmental legal experts at the deposition hearings, but only by Doyle, who wasn't even an authorized agent of the court - see Marcia's latest about Doyle's lack of court standing.):
http://www.unkdaros.com/Tabor/Fuss&ONeilloverviewNov03.pdf

EPA's position on fractured bedrock and the difficulty in predicting the future transport of contaminants (i.e., how can anyone claim that there will not be significant problems in the future? The Town is exercising prudent judgment in its obligation to residents to manage risks to the health of future residents. ).

EPA's introduction: an excerpt from the following website:

"What we have learned and what the future holds.

Fractured rock is arguably the most challenging geologic environment to characterize and remediate. Historically, it has been perceived that these sites are so complex that even after spending considerable dollars, a great deal of uncertainty remains.

As the science and technologies develop we are gaining a better understanding as to the physical and chemical nature of the systems and the fate and transport of contaminants in fractured rock."

http://clu-in.org/products/siteprof/2004fracrockconf/cdr_pdfs/no_index/group1/program.pdf

And for those who might be interested, an explanation of the concept of the 'precautionary principle':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Posted by: dman | October 15, 2007 9:25 AM

Fine Jerry we won't even talk about the fact you would have to blast to bury anyone or the fact that you contradict your argument by stating its okay to remediate the site to put kids on but but so toxic you couldn't do the same for another purpose. What about the residents in the neighborhood? Why not move them? Hurley also stated under oath "same requirements for residential or playing fields" I did read his paper which appears to have been conveniently placed in the magazine just prior to the trial. It is the same hypothetical stuff that has caused much of the towns problem "possibilities" If you are so convicted then just pay the money and you can do what you want with the property. Why hasn't the property been tested to date? What is there to hide? The only error the judge made was to not issue a "directed verdict" in favor of the plantiffs. Instead, he listened to a lot of nonsense from the defendents. Seriously, an appraisal on 77 acres for $700,000 by an appraiser without the proper credentials. The town must think everyone is stupid. PAY the money and move on!!

Posted by: scjerry | October 15, 2007 12:36 PM

DMAN
Since you claim to respect David Hurley, read Hurley's report, which you conveniently refuse to acknowledge: http://www.unkdaros.com/Tabor/Fuss&ONeilloverviewNov03.pdf

This is not Hurley's letter to Rasmussen you libelously claim was doctored by Bellamy. Here's the key passage, in case you missed it:

"Based on these reviews, our experience investigating similar properties, and our knowledge of conditions at the adjacent Town of Branford landfill, we disagree with
Triton's conclusions that the "conditions at the Tabor Drive site are suitable for residential use". On the contrary, we believe that the documented presence of impacted soil and groundwater in the area could cause risk to human health should the property be developed."

The Town has adequate data to determine that there is a substantial risk to residential development without further testing. Even the EPA says there is no science that can predict future problems, no matter how much testing is done.

Why should we pay anything to NEE who's standing in the jury trial is being contested in the appeal?

As to the public use proposals for the parcel, they are just that - the possibility is that the land is environmentally unsuitable or just plain financially impractical even for athletic fields or cemeteries, let alone residential use, as I clearly state. There is no contradiction.

As to your response and legal phrasing, I find it interesting.

So, how much is Jim Bergenn paying you to post your responses?

Posted by: scjerry | October 15, 2007 12:47 PM

DMAN
Since you claim to respect David Hurley, read Hurley's report, which you conveniently refuse to acknowledge: http://www.unkdaros.com/Tabor/Fuss&ONeilloverviewNov03.pdf

This is not Hurley's letter to Rasmussen you libelously claim was doctored by Bellamy. Here's the key passage, in case you missed it:

Why should we pay anything to NEE who's standing in the jury trial is being contested in the appeal?

As to your response and legal phrasing, I find it interesting.

So, how much is Jim Bergenn paying you to post your responses?

Posted by: dman | October 15, 2007 3:58 PM

Jerry! Jerry! Apparently we're beating a dead horse here. Hurley under oath in Aug 0f 07 Stated" the property is suitable for residential use" The letter you reference was done in Nov 03. It is nothing more than a critique of several other reports and bits of information. When put into perspective it is noting more than hearsay. Mr. Hurley, again under oath also played down the methane concern because he knows methane decreases over time and especially when there is NO organic decomposition (dump is closed to organics ). It can be easily mitigated.Oh yeah! Here's a good one.If the town and Mr. Hurley are so concerned about the "what ifs" why didn't the town pay for the investigation that Mr.Hurley suggested(proposal shown in court)and the town rejected? Had he been allowed to do this "definitive" information may have been ascertained in place of the "possibilities" theory. The reason, as Mr. Unk put it" I knew the property was clean. I knew we could go on it. I took it anyway. Incidentally, the "judge" is Bergenns caddy not me!LOL

Posted by: scjerry | October 15, 2007 5:23 PM

DMAN, DMAN
Methane isn't the problem. Future VOC's are. No dead horse. The future is the problem. No dead horse. Hurley's proposal would only have dug more wells and proved nothing, as the EPA confirms. No dead horse. Under oath testimony was not before a jury, nor with a competent environmental defense team. No dead horse.

Posted by: dman | October 15, 2007 9:41 PM

Let's see. Hurley's proposal would only have dug more wells and proved nothing? Hurley's testimony WAS under oath before the jury. The purpose of the taking was 1) to investigate 2) remediate 3)possible playing fields. The fact you don't think the property should have been tested or better still testing is not needed or can not prove anything is in direct opposition to the towns position. It proves what the jury confirmed. There was another reason for the taking. That is pretextural. The reason for taking was NOT the stated reason. That is illegal! You are probably a member of the RTM. In any event, you can blame this dilema on poor legal representation at the start. Penny!
I don't know what the dead horse thing is. Are you claiming there are dead horses buried there?

Posted by: REGS | October 16, 2007 12:01 AM

SCJERRY- Why would you rely on anything Hurley said or wrote. He seems to adjust his view or position according to whoever is asking. He writes letters, position papers, allows the Town Attorney to edit his writings and than testified in a different direction. No wonder the judge said there was no credible evidence. As far as the future, I foresee rising taxes and more rhetoric.....as my old man used to say, if I had a crystal ball, I'd be a chandelier!

Posted by: REGS | October 24, 2007 2:43 PM

For the uninitiated: The entire Tabor Trial record is now online. We get to see the Branford team at its "best"

New Haven Independent

The Financial Fallout from Tabor

Comments

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed