I appreciate the note, but as I indicated previously, Pfizer benefited since the nearby property was improved. And the connection between Pfizer and the New London Development Corp, which pushed eminent domain for that area, was noted in the old WSJ story to which I provided a link.

Once again, any property owner recognizes a benefit when adjacent property is improved and the overall surrounding area is deemed more desirable for any number of reasons or purposes. One doesn’t have to receive an actual payment or other tangible goods to bask in the warm sunlight of a potential increase in real estate value. For anyone to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

I realize this is a touchy subject for Pfizer. My post simply tried to point to the irony that the use of eminent domain in New London did offer a benefit to the company. And now the threatened use of eminent domain in Brooklyn could stand in its way.

Thanks for stopping by,

ed

This is Chris from Pfizer in New York. We think it’s important to set the record straight regarding Pfizer and its New London, Conn., site.

Eminent domain played no part in the development by Pfizer of its Global Research and Development Headquarters in New London. In fact, Pfizer’s R&D headquarters was not built in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Pfizer built on property that was a “brownfield” that had been unused for years. The land that the Pfizer headquarters sits on in New London was purchased from the state. Pfizer built several other facilities nearby, including a day care center and visitor’s center and parking lot, on land that was bought from private parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court considered the appeal of homeowners of property located in a neighborhood nearby the Pfizer facility that were objecting to the use of eminent domain by the City of New London as part of its redevelopment plan for that neighborhood. Pfizer was not a party to that litigation and had no requirements or interest in the development of the land that was the subject of the case. Claims that Pfizer intended somehow to benefit from the project and the land takings were rejected by the judge who heard the trial of the case, because there was no evidence to support such an assertion. The judge’s rejection of that claim was affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court and was not challenged in the matters before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pfizer continues to be a good neighbor in Southeastern Connecticut, as it has for more than 50 years, and kept every promise it made to the city and state. Our decision to expand there and help revitalize an industrial site was motivated by our desire to share the benefits of our economic success with the community where we work and live. In New London and elsewhere, our actions are guided by strict adherence to the law, by strong ethical standards and by civic responsibility.

For an industry that is trying to accomplish the task of helping people, while yes being profitable. Somehow the industry is portrayed right alongside big tobacco.

If you look at where most of the negative rhetoric has come from on the industry over the past 8 years, it is from politicians trying to score points with their electorate. Take John Edwards on the national stage for example, or the local politician in Brooklyn in this case. Their message resonates with a broad electorate because everyone identifies with the issue, and their message can be delivered in 30 seconds because it is usually shallow and unchallenged.

I appreciate your blog because I think you get it right, you hit it down the middle. In the case of this thread, I just felt there was more to the story than your post. My goal was to inform you and your readers there was another side of the story.

If people like me, who are inside the industry, don’t start to speak up when we feel like the industry side isn’t fairly represented, then we will continue to let the vacuum be dominated by often one sided reporting.

Thanks again for the dialog and keep up the good work.

Look at it this way - If property B is improved, then property A next door receives a benefit, whatever the improvements may be. The value may rise because others want to live or work there, for instance. The old WSJ story discusses those efforts and goals in New London a bit, which is why I included the link. That’s what I was referring to in my earlier comments. I’m simply making an observation.

And if you read my earlier responses to you and Brian, I’d tried to explain that I didn’t quarrel with the general notion of improving an area or adding jobs. I contrasted how, in one location, eminent domain worked to benefit Pfizer while, in this other instance in Brooklyn, eminent domain may get in its way. And I tried to do while avoiding any discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of eminent domain.

I’m sorry to say that you’re belief that no one wants to read a post about adding jobs is off the mark. Many of my readers - who work in pharma - would like to see such news. And I’d be happy to accommodate them. Why? That would bolster readership. You may not realize it, but a large percentage of my readers/viewers I’m able to identify actually work in or with pharma (by ‘with pharma,’ I mean ad agencies, various types of attorneys, academics, regulatory consultants, the list goes on).

And you may not have caught comments I’ve made on other posts here, but I wouldn’t mind seeing additional investment in my own region, for instance - I can be as Machevellian as the next guy and appreciate a stronger local economy bolstered by a large corporate taxpayer or two. When it happens, I’ll be glad to write about it. (For the record, this site launched in Jan. 07, after the big expansions in the greater Boston area already were announced or under way, so I missed that opportunity).

Overall, I think you’ve misread me, despite my best efforts to explain my attempt to draw a contrast. Instead, you’ve attempted to peg me as biased simply because I drew a contrast with which you disagreed. As I indicated to Brian, I think it’s time we agree to disagree, and move on.

Cheers
ed

Seems pretty simple - a better surrounding environment for its facility, as the old WSJ story noted. I didn’t suggest there’s something wrong with desiring a better environment, but that would qualify as a benefit. But again, I’m not making a judgement about eminent domain, in general, or in this instance. Nor am I suggesting the company didn’t see such a solution as a so-called win-win (whether it really was a win-win is another conversation, which I haven’t attempted to initiate). But eminent domain was involved, so to me, there’s some irony. However, I agree we should disagree. Time to move on.

Thanks for the chat, though,

ed

Once again, I’m not missing the point, nor am I cynical. I understand that jobs were created and an area of New London was transformed, adjacent to the site Pfizer was interested in for its own purposes (there was a connection there, as the old WSJ story noted).

I am simply pointing out an irony - the company benefited from a legal concept that helped it achieve a goal. As an aside, there was no dispute, however, that the effort created a dispute. If not, the issue would not have landed before the Supreme Court.

In any event, the same legal concept may now be used against it by a Brooklyn politican. Again, I am simply pointing out an irony. The irony itself is a different issue than whether one believes the company’s undertaking in New London was correct or incorrect in regard to jobs or an attempt to transform a section of a town.

Hope this helps,

ed

I think you’re missing my point, which is that there is irony in the fact that Pfizer benefited from eminent domain in one location, and now a politician wants to use eminent domain to derail its plans for another property elsewhere.

That’s the only point I was trying to make. There’s no bias in pointing out the irony. (And as I noted, it was an old story in the WSJ - the newspaper, not the blog - that noted Pfizer’s involvement in redeveloping New London. The story mentioned the company and its connections to the New London Development Corporation.)

But again, I took no position in my post on the use of eminent domain in New London - whether in regards to the residents who were affected or the jobs that were created. You seem to suggest that simply by pointing out the irony that I am biased against the creation of jobs that took place, when I didn’t comment on that aspect of the issue at all. Meanwhile, the issue in Brooklyn, as far as the local politician is concerned, is affordable housing, not jobs. And I didn’t comment on affordable housing, either.

I’m sorry you think my post is biased, but I wasn’t commenting on jobs or job creation. I was pointing out how the company benefited from a legal concept that may now be used against it.

Does this help?

ed