.

Mayor Candidate Profile: Lori Hopkins-Cavanagh

Real estate broker hopes to shake things up

If one didn’t know of ’s career as a real estate broker, a read through her “Four Year Resurrection Plan” might offer a few hints about her profession.

Several of the proposals in Hopkins-Cavanagh’s 10-point plan involve significant changes to the city’s infrastructure. The first suggestion involves the into and the , with vacated city properties appraised and sold to “tax generating buyers.” Other initiatives include the relocation of residents of the high-rise Thames River Apartments and the razing of those structures; the development of a duty-free port and an “International Shops” commerce destination; the construction of a new, green technology police station at the corner of Bank Street and Howard Street; and the establishment of a vistor’s center in the , with an increased tourism focus including a trolley line between and .

The remaining initiatives in Hopkins-Cavanagh’s plan call for incentives to increase the number of owner-occupied dwellings in the city, the preservation of historic areas and encouragement of mixed use neighborhoods, the dissolution of the , an opposition to land value tax, and an improved relationship between the Board of Education and city. She says she is the only one of six declared mayoral candidates with the experience to take New London through such a transition.

“I’m the only candidate that’s been a CEO,” she said. “I have started two different companies. I understand what a CEO does.”

According to her website, Hopkins-Cavanagh established her first company, Hopkins Advertising & Public Relations, at the age of 25. After representing clients such as Pfizer, Mohegan Sun, Lime Rock Raceway, and General Motors, she turned her focus to real estate, becoming a licensed realtor in 2004 and a broker in 2008, forming in the latter year.

Hopkins-Cavanagh said she would work with to support their efforts to increase-owner occupied housing, as well as mixed-use development at Fort Trumbull. On the issue of those without homes, Hopkins-Cavanah said she supports providing the homeless with services but wants to see other towns in the area do more for their own homeless.

“I’m going to be the lobbyist mayor who says, ‘Stonington, let us help you provide homeless programs in your town. But please don’t send your homeless to our town,’” she said.

She also believes the city’s payroll should be kept at its current level, with no new hirings or layoffs, and that municipal services need to be made more efficient, especially in the . She said there should be immediate training for employees on fair assessment practices, as well as online access to property records to allow residents to understand how the city arrived at their assessment.

“We’re doing business the way we were in 1900…We can’t afford to do business like this,” she said.

Hopkins-Cavanagh said the issue she is most concerned with regarding the is reducing the number of serious incidents, including violence. She said the mayor should work with the public, private, and magnet schools in New London to create strong relationships and encourage business training for students who will not attend college.

“I can change that from the outside in,” she said. “My intent is from the outside in, to support the superintendent and the Board of Ed to make our schools safe.”

Hopkins-Cavanagh said she does not support the , and would like to look at other options. She said the educational model is moving more toward regionalism, with several magnet schools already located in New London, and that could potentially run as a career-based school instead of a traditional one. Education is also one of the seats Hopkins-Cavanagh would establish in a 10-member unpaid advisory committee she would create if elected.

“I want the best and brightest brains around me,” she said.

Regarding the mayor’s relationship with the City Council, Hopkins-Cavanagh said the mayor and councilors should put political agendas aside to work together. She said inconsistencies in the City Charter must also be corrected to prevent problems in areas such as disaster response. Hopkins-Cavanagh said she would do a nationwide search to select her chief administrative officer.

“It’s not a political job for me. A lot of politicians are going to give that to their buddy,” she said. “I don’t want that. I want the best person for the job.”

Hopkins-Cavanagh has opposed the sale of a portion of to the , and proposed an alternative which she says will lead to numerous benefits for the city. This plan would relocate residents of the Thames River Apartments, demolish these high-rise public housing structures, and retain the park while having the academy . Hopkins-Cavanagh says this plan will allow for improved housing for those living in the high-rises, revitalize Hodges Square, and reconnect northern New London with downtown. She says she has been talking with the academy superintendent about the proposal.

“This is not a pipe dream, this is a reality,” she said.

Sue Shontell, executive director of the New London Public Housing Authority, has . Shontell says the high-rises are on federal property, and that Hopkins-Cavanagh would be unable to determine policy related to them. She said a proposal is currently in the planning stage to remove some of the high-rises and put in a low-income neighborhood on the site. Hopkins-Cavanagh in turn criticized Shontell, saying that concentrating public housing at the site will lead to continued crime and neighborhood degradation.

“I have no personal stake in this other than to save a whole section of New London,” she said. “I don’t have any financial benefit to this.”

Hopkins-Cavanagh has also weathered criticism over her residency. According to an article on the Waterford Patch, Hopkins-Cavanagh proved she had moved herself and her children into a Waterford home after the school district began investigating whether she was living in New London and sending her children to the Waterford schools.

Hopkins-Cavanagh that her son attended through second grade, at which point she moved him into the Waterford system. She said her husband has a residence in Waterford and his daughter attended the schools there, and that they did not want to separate her from the school's support services after the death of her mother. Lori said she and her husband made the decision to send her son to the Waterford school as well to keep the children together.

“I have been a resident of New London for more years than any other candidate,” she said. “Fifty-one years to be exact.”

Hopkins-Cavanagh attended the and St. Bernard High School and graduated from the University of Connecticut in 1983. She also attended the University of New Haven but left to start her advertising company. Hopkins-Cavanagh was also a founding board member of and served on the boards of several non-profits, including Better Business Bureau, Children’s Museum of Southeastern Connecticut, , , and the YWCA.

A new profile on each mayoral candidate will post every weekday through Oct. 17. Tomorrow, the profile will be on Andrew Lockwood.

loves animals October 12, 2011 at 12:23 AM
Lori I wish you the best and glad that you are pointing out the lack of homeownership in new london . Mr. Finizio may attack you but at least you have worked hard had careers here and did not jump all over the place and copy any towns 40 page ideas for change. Good luck Ann
--Robert October 12, 2011 at 04:21 AM
I did read through just about everything on your site, Loriformayor.org. It's a well done website, by the way, and it was easy to find the information about your plans. (There are more than a few typos, but we all make mistakes...) There are some really good ideas included there, and there are a few things that I have to call pie-in-the-sky but mostly I agree that these things would benefit our city if implemented. I just have one question. What does it all cost? There's a plan to acquire the Post Office. I could see that becoming available. What would it cost to buy that from the USPS and remodel it so it could become city offices? As well as reconfiguring entrances so that the large parking lot actually gets used by people coming to do business with the city- you know everyone would still be scrambling for the 9 parking spaces on Masonic St otherwise. The City could use a new Police Station for sure. I think Ledyard just spent $10 mill on theirs. What's the price tag for that? The old PD kind of looks like a good spot for a visitor center until you realize that the only traffic that can enter it is traffic LEAVING the city. But I'm sure you've priced the road improvements needed to correct that while still allowing access to Ferry St. Right? Didn't see any mention of what that area really needs, a pedestrian walkway along Water St. from State to Crystal. But that's mainly for those undesirables in the high rises. Good luck!
Eric B October 12, 2011 at 07:49 AM
I sent this to all my friends. In these dark days, who doesn't need a good laugh?
Lori Hopkins Cavanagh October 12, 2011 at 11:40 AM
Robert: Thank you for reading the plan. Concepts are never etched in stone but our municipal service are spread out all over town and are so expensive to run that a cost/savings analysis needs to be performed to determine the end investment. The Federal Government is selling off property and the post office has sent all of it's sorting to Rhode Island. Perfect timing to consider acquiring this historic, handicapped accessible building. The building also has a large parking lot in the rear, one of the reasons it will help the public. Have you ever tried to pay your water bill? Parking is a major issue. Even more important is the implementation of lean six sigma and Just Culture training to eliminate waste, improve efficiency and provide the best customer service to the Public that New London has ever had! The visitors center and demolition of the high rises and addition of the trolley system will allow us to plan for better traffic and road configurations, as well. Thank you again for reading my four year plan.
Lori Hopkins Cavanagh October 12, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Eric B - you must be a Fiz fan! His Land Value Tax, the only idea he does have, will destroy New London business and target the elderly and poor property owners. Government's hostile and immoral seizure of real property by tax levy foreclosures instead of eminent domain are bad news. Say no Fiz and save New London!
Lori Hopkins Cavanagh October 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM
That's kind of catchy! NO FIZ! NO LAND VALUE TAX! NO EXPERIENCE! Save New London.
MEB October 12, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Once again she fights back the only way she knows how...by trying to demean another candidates campaign. Why don't you stay focused on your own Lori and stop stooping down to the level of some of these bloggers. Coming up with nicknames now? That's just not very professional for someone campaigning to be our next mayor!
David Irons October 12, 2011 at 02:05 PM
Being a Waterford resident, I have no voice in this contest. But I would have to question just how much follow through she would have if elected? I wonder this since she also has a blog on this site in which one of her blogs was in reference to the state fishing licenses for salt water. I posed a serious question for her to that blog and have yet to see a response. It would appear that she wrote the piece and moved on to other matters, ignoring her readers.
David Irons October 12, 2011 at 04:55 PM
More like some kid running for kindergarten class president.
Michael Casteel October 12, 2011 at 05:10 PM
Be happy Lori did not respond to you Mr. Irons. Her response to my comments on the profile of Mr. Finizio bordered on rabid. How was I being dishonest Ms. Hopkins? I stated - and you acknowledged - that the property you own at 253 State Street is being offered in a short sale. Your argument that this is a healthy business practice is ridiculous. It is the action of a bank and a borrower who are both desperate...and who have both made mistakes. The cost of the short sale is ultimately passed onto responsible borrowers in the form of higher interest rates. I did not state you are in foreclosure, though if you cannot sell the building and I doubt you will, that is where this situation will end up. What part of your building was occupied three years ago? It has sat largely empty for 13 years. While I agree with many of your ideas Lori, I disagree that you are remotely qualified to be Mayor. Your abuse of the term CEO is laughable. How many employees have you supervised? What were you revenues? Maybe $500K a year? New London is a $80 million year operation with nearly 1000 employees. But it is your psychological make-up that is your real disqualification. To refer to Mr. Finizio as a “Facist” is unconscionable. You can disagree with someone without calling them names or dishonest. The only landlords who would lose their property under LVT would be those who cannot pay their taxes because they refuse to improve their buildings to generate revenue (Like you).
Matt Covey October 12, 2011 at 05:12 PM
Haha, Ann he certainly DOES own property in NL. He's not a secret Muslim, and he also has a US birth certificate. Lori, does this mean Hopkins-Cavanaugh camp is attacking Daryl Finizio and his family? How scandalous!
Michael Casteel October 12, 2011 at 05:22 PM
And Lori - please visit .finizioformayor.com/bio.htm - Since you seem to be unaware of Mr. Finizio's extensive qualifications to be Mayor.
Matt Covey October 12, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Btw, what Finizio supports is the EXPLORATION of an LVT TRIAL. Lori, I too like several of your ideas. As with any new idea there are lots of details to iron out, and LVT has to pass thru so many more layers of official scrutiny than most proposed measures do. Why, because it is a very complex issue with lots of important details. But LVT has had major success in dramatically revitalizing multiple cities across the country when implemented correctly on a case by case basis. The fact is that most people do not understand what LVT really is (including myself until recently). Hell, The Day can't even explain it well enough for people with no municipal experience to understand it. So would you take the opportunity to explain in greater detail (and without the "death panel"-type rhetoric please) why you oppose LVT so strongly? It's an idea with proven merit and we deserve to understand the details of your opposition. Take us through it. Provide us with some real clarity.
David Irons October 12, 2011 at 05:32 PM
Michael, it would seem that she never learned that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. The more often she opens her mouth, the deeper she digs her hole.
James Dixon October 12, 2011 at 08:42 PM
This article was really working in your favor till you planted these two comments here. Of all the intelligent comments on this page to respond to, you chose the most veiled meaningless jab. First you assume this virtually anonymous "Eric B" is a supporter of a particular candidate out of the many running against you, and then use that baseless assumption as a venue to attack that candidate. You make a series of baseless bombastic claims about that candidate's ideas and experience. Then the second comment comes. Is it a response to a different more intelligent question? Nope. Is it at least challenging another more specific claim against you? Nope. Still responding to the Eric B's comment barely worthy of a crappy youtube video's comment section. Is it clarifying your baseless claims? Is it explaining how LVT could destroy a business or hurt an elderly property owner or result in a hostile foreclosure? Nope. It's a catch phrase, and your extensive use of exclamation points indicates you're really excited about it. I think I can actually hear you yelling. Try and come up with a response that can bring as much clarity to your position on LVT as this article, and maybe someone will actually believe your random catch phrases, but I'd prefer it if you stopped yelling. http://www.theday.com/article/20111009/OP05/310099833
Maria Madole Bareiss October 12, 2011 at 09:00 PM
@Ann Stewart -- I have not heard anything about Finizio or his crew putting up signs where they were not wanted. Where did you hear that? Please cite a source, or it's just hearsay. I do know that at least four ex-mayors of New London support Mr. Finizio, and I saw pictures of signs being placed in the yard of Lloyd Beachy quite voluntarily. Another question for anyone : If one of my tenants were to run for council or mayor, would not owning property be a problem? (I'll research this one myself, since it's a matter of public record.) Renting is a better lifestyle for some people. To Ms. Hopkins-Cavanagh, I hope you do stick around and help out after the elections (not to be negative, but I think Mr Finizio or possibly Mr Pero will win). I do agree that a trolley system is something to be explored further, and that Riverside Park should be kept as New London property. (can't the Coast Guard bug Waterford for more land??) I am a Finizio supporter, primarily - as he's the one who has had the ... boldness ... to call for the dissolution of the NLDC. It's about damn time.
--Robert October 12, 2011 at 09:11 PM
Yeah, that's really mature. That's more the kind of response I'd expect from a Buscetto. Don't ruin your credibility like that, LoHo.
loves animals October 12, 2011 at 10:22 PM
The family of the deceased told me no permission also why 2-3 signs per property? Also can you prove he owns property in New London ? I was also told he has relatives in town hall and in the old boy net work too , so he really is no different then all the others except for the mispoken credit he takes.
Allyn de Vars October 12, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Lori, I've paid my water bill in person, even though the very expensive 44 cent stamp would get it there quite easily. When I was on crutches from a hockey injury, I entered the complex from the ample parking lot at the senior center, entered from the handicapped accessible entrance of the senior center and rode up the elevator from the senior center. Perhaps it pays to know city facilities before suggesting millions upon millions of upgrades and wholesale replacement of facilities.
Allyn de Vars October 12, 2011 at 10:53 PM
Scare tactics may work in marketing and advertisement, but once a reader actually does some research on Land Value Tax, they will realize that your claims are a crock Lori. Your claims of hostile and immoral seizure make me wonder what conspiracy you buy into for the assassination of JFK. The reality is that Land Value Taxation focuses purely on the value of the land, and not the improvements upon the land. This would cause people who either choose not to maintain their properties, or use their vacant downtown structures as a tax write-off to either improve the utilization of their properties or to sell the properties since they would face the same taxation as a fully utilized property of equal land mass in their zone. Your attempt to scare readers using threats of eminent domain and the elderly and the poor only prove that you are not the leadership New London needs.
Allyn de Vars October 12, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Pointing out the low level of home ownership in New London is hardly a new concept. I was a member of the committee responsible for the periodic revisions to the New London Plan for Conservation and Development a few years ago, and while that plan has largely been ignored by the likes of currently elected leaders like Rob Pero, and Marty Olsen, the document clearly states the value in retaining our open spaces and parks, as well as considering additional rental residential properties in town as undesirable as we would prefer to encourage individual homeownership. As to the remainder of you comment Ms. Stewart, your ignorance is deafening. Relocating for educational pursuits when someone is in their 20's is hardly jumping around, and his last two moves were when he moved to Waterford to live with his spouse, and then to New London, when they bought a larger home together. Further, your slanderous accusation of copying shows you've not only not read the document "A Vision for New London", but that you're likely just following the advice of your pal Lori.
Allyn de Vars October 12, 2011 at 11:31 PM
Ann, I know Daryl and his partner Todd personally. Their residence is 777 Ocean Avenue, and it is owned in the name of Daryl's partner, Todd Ledbetter. It is all public record, and as a couple, they chose to put the property in his partner's sole name--no different than many other married couples. As to what you've "heard", the facts are that Daryl does not have any family member who is on the payroll of the City of New London, has one cousin by marriage through his father's family who is on the Democratic Town Committee. My advice to you is to fact check before speaking publicly.
--Robert October 12, 2011 at 11:58 PM
I'm absolutely certain that if a property owner found unwanted signs on their property, they could easily correct that. Throw the signs away, call or email the campaign that produced them so they could be picked up, give them away to a neighbor. It's silly season for politics, and not just in this race. People put signs where they do not belong (public property) and pranksters move signs around. I've heard of unwanted signs for a certain write-in candidate being placed as well. Easily fixed without offense. Support who you want, I'll support who I want, and enjoy watching democracy in action. Thin-skinned hostile people should chill out.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something