In 2009, Pfizer, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, announced that it would be closing its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut. This decision shocked many people, especially those who lived in the region and had relied on Pfizer for jobs and economic stability.
What led to Pfizer’s departure from New London?
The story begins in the early 2000s when the city of New London decided to redevelop a run-down part of town known as Fort Trumbull. The plan was to create a new district that would include residential, retail, and office space. The city used its power of eminent domain to acquire the land from private property owners who were unwilling to sell.
Pfizer was one of the major players behind this redevelopment effort. In 2000, the company announced that it would be building a $270 million global research center in New London that would employ over 1,500 people. This was seen as a huge win for the city and state.
However, things started to go awry when some of the property owners refused to sell their land and took legal action against the city. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of New London.
The decision proved unpopular with many residents who felt that their property rights had been violated by an overzealous government. As a result, there was a backlash against both the city and Pfizer for their role in promoting this redevelopment project.
What were the consequences of Pfizer’s departure?
Pfizer’s decision to leave New London had significant economic consequences for the region. Over 1,000 people lost their jobs when Pfizer closed its R&D headquarters. The closure also had a ripple effect on other businesses that relied on Pfizer for contracts or customers.
In addition to job losses, there were also concerns about what would happen to the newly developed Fort Trumbull district. Without Pfizer as an anchor tenant, there were fears that the area would become a ghost town.
Fortunately, these fears proved unfounded. Other companies eventually moved into the area, and the Fort Trumbull district is now a thriving part of New London.
What lessons can we learn from this experience?
The story of Pfizer’s departure from New London highlights some important lessons about the role of government in economic development.
First, it shows that using eminent domain to acquire private property can be a risky proposition. While it may be necessary in some cases, it should be done with caution and only after all other options have been exhausted.
Second, it underscores the importance of having a diversified economy. When a single company or industry dominates a region, as Pfizer did in New London, there is always a risk that its departure will have catastrophic consequences.
Finally, it shows that economic development projects should be undertaken with transparency and with input from all stakeholders. The Fort Trumbull project was controversial from the start because many residents felt they had been left out of the decision-making process.
In conclusion, Pfizer’s departure from New London was a painful experience for many people in the region. However, it also provides valuable lessons about how to approach economic development projects in a responsible and sustainable way.