Working with a new mayor perhaps too desperate to see some progress in the Fort Trumbull area, Rep. Ernest Hewett introduced complex state legislation ostensibly for the purpose of giving the city new taxing and bonding authority that could provide added incentives to attract development.

The process was rushed. The legislation was flawed. And none of the officials closely involved with the development efforts in Fort Trumbull could well explain to us how it would work.

“You need five Philadelphia lawyers to figure it out,” commented one such official, speaking on background.

Electric Boat, which occupies the twin office buildings originally built by Pfizer as the only new construction that has yet come out of the redevelopment efforts, learned of the legislation only after it was introduced in the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee and presented at public hearing. This is not how to treat a major taxpayer, employer and potential future partner in development at Fort Trumbull.

In other words, this was a debacle, an unforced error by Mayor Michael Passero and a rookie mistake by a veteran legislator. Withdraw it, discuss it with all the local players and, in a manner that is transparent to the public, decide whether it is worthy of being reintroduced in 2017.

At best it was a well-intentioned but rushed effort to provide the city with another development tool. At worst, there was a hidden agenda, perhaps not even clear to some of the parties involved.

Lobbyist Jay Levin, a city resident, former ceremonial mayor under the old city manager system, and longtime mover and shaker in the local Democratic Party, pushed the proposal in a couple of meetings with Passero. Levin explains that based on his work with a Bridgeport developer, he felt New London could benefit from legislation that has helped drive the redevelopment of a former industrial site at Steel Point in Bridgeport. Bass Pro Shops — Steel Point’s anchor tenant — opened last year.

Levin said he has no developer in mind for Fort Trumbull who could benefit from the legislation if passed. His only intent, he said, was to help his city and the man he backed for mayor.

The legislative paperwork rushed to committee by Hewett was largely a cut-and-paste job; geography references were changed from Bridgeport to New London, but a reference to raising $190 million for infrastructure needs — the old Bridgeport number — remained in the text. A mistake, said Levin.

In essence, the legislation would allow New London to create a special taxing district that could issue bonds to cover infrastructure costs necessary for a development project. The bonds would be the responsibility of the developer to pay off and backed by the future value of the buildings to be constructed.

In reality, it’s a whole lot more complicated. Linda Mariani, president of the Renaissance City Development Association, said she did not fully understand its applicability to Fort Trumbull. Neither does Peter Davis, the former Norwich planner recently hired as the full-time executive director of the RCDA, at Passero’s initiative. Both said they did not know in advance that Hewett had introduced legislation.

For his part, Hewett, who also could not well explain the legislation’s intent aside from “helping attract development,” said he wanted to act fast in a short session to get something introduced, knowing he could later amend it. Hewett expressed surprise how quickly it got on the committee’s agenda.

It appears everyone is surprised.

The idea seems an odd fit for Fort Trumbull, because the environmental cleanup and infrastructure installation are nearly complete there, thanks to an $85 million state investment. Something doesn’t add up, but no one seems able to do the math.

The RCDA should work with the Passero administration to fully develop this development tool. If it makes sense, seek council support. Then ask local lawmakers to introduce it in Hartford.

It may take more time, but it will be done right and raise a lot less suspicion.