When Mayor Anthony Staffieri took office in December 2005, he was handed a state lawsuit appealing the city’s decision on “supportive housing” apartments downtown.
How Staffieri reacted to that appeal was vastly different than the previous administration, a city attorney testified Thursday.
“This administration had a completely different attitude,” Corporation Counsel Joseph Coppola said during a federal housing discrimination trial Thursday. “It’s not an aggressive administration. It’s very open.”
Background
It’s a complex case — the initial application under discussion was first proposed in 2004, when Home Inc. and Valley Housing teamed up to renovate three apartment houses in downtown Derby.
The apartments are to be leased to clients of the Birmingham Group, a non-profit, social service agency in Ansonia. The tenants in the apartments could have a variety of issues, ranging from mental health problems to being HIV positive, according to the lawsuit.
A state court has already ruled Derby was wrong to deny the application based on the reasons given by the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals in 2005. The renovation of the apartment houses on Caroline Street and Fourth Street is underway.
The trial will determine if Derby acted in a discriminatory way when it denied zoning certificates for three apartments downtown.
The current federal lawsuit claims that Derby violated fair housing laws because the city didn’t want people with HIV, substance abuse problems or mental health issues moving into the apartments.
City officials have said they didn’t oppose the tenants — they opposed the way the project was proposed and maintain the renovation project didn’t conform to zoning rules.
The trial — which started last July in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport — gives insight into what the administrations of former Mayor Marc Garofalo and current Mayor Anthony Staffieri were thinking during the proposal and during the subsequent appeal at Superior Court.
Coppola
Public officials who have been called to testify in the case so far included Garofalo, a Democrat and Sam Rizzitelli, a prominent Democrat who was an elected official alongside Garofalo.
The page turned Thursday to actions done under Staffieri’s administration.
Coppola’s testimony Thursday described — in chronological detail — what Staffieri’s administration did with the housing case after Staffieri became mayor in December 2005.
Specifically, Coppola said Staffieri wanted to open a dialogue with the groups suing him.
First, they sat down with Dominick Thomas, the attorney for Home Inc.
Coppola testified Thursday that he had several phone discussions with Thomas about the appeal, and conducted research into the case. Then he held a meeting with Thomas, Staffieri and representatives from Home Inc. on April 5, 2006.
“I clearly overemphasized that this administration was supporting David Kopjanski’s decision (to deny the zoning certificate),” Coppola testified.
But, Coppola said, the city was hoping to work out a settlement with Thomas and Home Inc.
No deal was achieved, in part Coppola testified, because Thomas had an “all-or-nothing” attitude about the group’s desires for development.
The city at least tried, Coppola testified.
Coppola said any other administration likely would have “steamrolled” through the case — not meeting with the other parties like Staffieri’s administration did.
Appeal?
And when a state court ruled in favor of Home Inc., Derby didn’t appeal that decision. The city just moved on.
Some witnesses called to testify have questioned Staffieri’s motives, U.S. District Judge Tucker L. Melancon said to Coppola Thursday.
“Is there any reason Derby did not appeal the decision?” Melancon asked.
Coppola said it had to do with the city’s downtown redevelopment plan.
Derby didn’t want any court decision to disrupt the city’s zoning regulations because it was working on a downtown revitalization at the time.
When the Home Inc. decision came out, Coppola said the judge left alone technical regulations dealing with density and parking — to the relief of the city.
“We didn’t want to go through with this appeal or any other appeals that would have affected the downtown revitalization,” Coppola said. “Because of the way the decision came down, we decided not to appeal.”
Garofalo
Former Mayor Marc Garofalo concluded his testimony Thursday morning.
During the last bit of Garofalo’s testimony, Home Inc. attorney Shelley White continued questioning Garofalo on his intentions when he opposed the supportive housing proposal.
She and city attorney John Blazi had questioned Garofalo on Monday and Tuesday as well.
Thursday’s questions centered around press coverage of the proposal — questioning similar to that directed at then-Zoning Board of Appeals chairman Sam Rizzitelli.
Reading from a Connecticut Post article, White said Derby officials objected to the proposal because they say it would concentrate people needing social services in a small area.
“Is (the reporter) referring to you?” White asked, referencing the vague word “officials.”
Garofalo said no, to which White asked if it’s possible he talked to the reporter about the issue.
“I talked to the press every day, so it would be hard to say,” Garofalo said. “(But) I didn’t get into this with anybody.”
“Is that an accurate reflection of your position?” White asked.
“No,” Garofalo answered.
Blazi countered the questioning by reminding Garofalo that is was an election year, and asking if it was probable that he would say something to a reporter right before the election that would make him look bad.
“Is it more probable than not that you would have done that in an election year?” Blazi asked.
“Less probable,” Garofalo answered.
Previous Derby Housing Lawsuit Stories
Listed from oldest to newest:
Derby Denies Housing Discrimination Claim
Trial Underway In Derby Housing Discrimination Case
Rizzitelli’s Testimony Continues
