New Haven Independent

Posted by: NewHavener | March 28, 2007 1:36 PM

I was pretty upset when I learned about this. I didn't think public housing belonged in East Rock and I called Alderman Lemar to tell him how wrong this was and see if he could stop it. I was more upset when he said that he didn't think he could stop it and, as a matter of principal, that he didn't think we should stop it. After I just about screamed my lungs out at him, I finally decided to hear him out and listened to his reasoning about what our neighborhood should represent, what it should stand for and what a welcoming place it should be. He was right. As a homeowner on Foster Street, I 'll admit that I'm worried about public housing and those types of people moving in to my neighborhood. But I appreciated my Alderman's response and I think he was right that the issue is mostly about ensuring that the Housing Authority is able to maintain these properties as well as a homeowner would and that should be our concern.
I encourage other people in the neighborhood who are concerned about this to email him and let him know that we will be watching - and that if he beleives we should support this kind of thing, he should help us if it starts to go wrong.

Posted by: Esbe | March 28, 2007 2:37 PM

I support these scattered-site housing programs, but at these prices -- $200,000 to $300,000 per unit -- you could buy folks small, decent single-family homes in Hamden or East Haven. Seriously, do these units have to be within the political borders of New Haven?

Posted by: Paul Wessel | March 28, 2007 4:45 PM

As a Nicoll Street resident, I look forward to welcoming our new neighbors. And I appreciate NEWHAVENER's comments above.

Posted by: Hipcircle | March 28, 2007 4:52 PM

Hmmm......too bad we will loose a large portion of the residential taxes on those properties thus shrinking the tax base in New Haven even more.
And by the way...refering to the three small houses that Quinnipiac Avenue. If you want to blend people into the neighbor, do you really think putting a big sign in their front yard is going to work saying it's owned by the Housing Authority....and maybe you could put some screen doors on the front doors, so you don't have to look into people's livingrooms when you drive by in the summer.

Posted by: Kevin McCarthy | March 28, 2007 4:57 PM

Although East Rock is usually considered a middle class neighborhood, 16% of its residents had incomes below the poverty level in 2000, according to the Census, and there were more households with incomes below $35,000 than above $100,000. A fair number of "those people" are already our neighbors.

With regard to ESBE's question, the housing authority has very limited powers outside of the city limits.

Posted by: Ned | March 28, 2007 4:57 PM

Given the housing authority's lousy track record at maintaining its properties I don't see any reason why spreading the blight to East Rock is going to be any more successful. The guilt tripping about what the neighborhood "should" represent, as if a "neighborhood" has some kind of autonomous, symbolic, representative ability, sounds like collectivist blather to me. Who has the right to tell anyone what feelings or thoughts one "should" have about anything? People make or break a place; Elm Haven didn't spontaneously disintegrate on its own, some of the residents destroyed it. In addition, if you can't afford to house yourself, why are you having children, and why should I pay for your lack of family planning?

Posted by: charlie | March 28, 2007 8:14 PM

The Housing Authority's influence needs to be seriously cut back and units closed. The land produced from closed units should be sold off to the highest bidder, units demolished, and the money used to pay down the City's debt service. New Haven already has more than its share of public housing, by a very large margin. Additional subsidized and public housing units should not be built in New Haven until Hamden, Woodbrige and other towns (which have perfectly fine bus service provided by CT Transit) build an equal amount of it.

In New Haven's case, if the City is to create or allow additional subsidized units, they should be placed in the areas where land is cheapest (e.g., empty lots in Newhallville) so as not to reduce the City's tax base. While the example in this article is a very small case of this happening, I hope that the City will reconsider prevent like this from happening again. Instead of becoming tax-sinkholes, these properties in East Rock could have been sold to a developer and the City could have generated upwards of a million dollars in sales revenue, and more than that in incremental tax revenues over the next 30 years.

Posted by: westvillecharlie | March 28, 2007 8:49 PM

i'm going to say what i mean, so deal with it. there is a reason i (white guy, 38years old with a girlfriend and a dog) don't live in, oh say...dwight, dixwell, the hill, highwood even allingtown. i don't feel safe there. these are all areas with an overwhelmingly large population of good people. they are also home to much more crime, poverty and folks with a different system of manners than i am comfortable with. this is why i have moved myself to a "white" neighborhood. i feel safer. if the apartment building next to mine turned to public housing, i have to tell you, i'd be looking to move. i have to put the safety of my family first, and living near public housing in a city that cannot control what goes on in it's public housing untis, is not something i'm willing to do.
the reason housing prices in east rock are so high is that there is a very low percentage of public housing there. what if the city bought houses on st. ronan street, oliver road or morris cove. there's be hell to pay.

Posted by: In the Hood | March 28, 2007 9:46 PM

Even though I live in Newhallville I could somewhat relate to westville Charlie and I am NOT white. I believe in the potential of integrated housing. When I fixed up the outside of my old Victorian, three neighbors across the street fixed up their own. When I painted my front porch and the entire house, several neighbors followed suit. When I put rocking chairs on front porch my friends who live in the subhood (Westville and Beaverhills) said I should chain the chain down. I didn't, and instead neighbors put nice chairs on their porches as well.

Here's the problem. Too many of my neighbors still do not have basic neighborly literacy. For instance, don't throw your trash on the street, pick up the trash in front of your house even though you didn't throw it there; do not blast your music (in your car or apartment) all hours of the day and night. Be considerate with your parties and cookouts, warn friends not to park in driveways or park in handicap parking zones also, the entire block does not need to hear your music.

The housing authority should not just place people in ANY community--including Newhallville with out considering if these new residents have been taught and understand what good basic neighborly behavior is all about. Otherwise,some of these people will frustrate and eventually driveout existing neighbors...let's be real!! After all, it doesn't matter how welcoming the neighbors are and plan to be if the authority doesn't ensure neighborly literacy, ANYONE, not just white people, who want a better quality of life will pack up and move-out leaving lots more houses for the housing authority to purchase.

Posted by: j.b.r. | March 29, 2007 12:00 AM

We can debate the merits of neigbhorhood diversity all we want, but here's the core problem with the purchase of the two houses in East Rock for low income housing- the price was $869,000 for two houses (with more than $400,00 allocated for renovation). What a waste! The Housing Authority could have used that money to purchase and build or rehab many more units of housing outside of the East Rock neighborhood (which is the highest priced neighborhood in New Haven). Diversity is fine, but is it such a central goal that it's worth spending more than a million to house a handful of families? Surely the money could have been better spent??

Posted by: David Cameron | March 29, 2007 7:53 AM

Scattered-site public housing is a fine, even noble, idea. And it is, of course, politically correct. But the decision to buy two houses in the East Rock area for more than $850,000 -- houses that will need an additional $400,000 in repairs -- is fiscally irresponsible. For one thing, think of how many units of public housing are being obtained with the approximately $1.3 million being invested in the two properties. Not many. Strictly from an efficiency point of view -- getting as many units as possible with the $1.3 million -- this is bad policy.
In addition, the effect is to remove a house (on Avon St.) with a market value of $440,000, and a house (on Foster St.) with a market value of $429,000, from the grand list, thereby depriving the city of badly-needed property tax revenue at a time when the city's budget is, as usual, in deficit and property taxes are about to increase dramatically. The city should be doing everything it can to attract tax-paying homeowners to the city -- especially to areas with expensive homes on which owners will pay substantial taxes. Instead, it appears to be doing everything it can to increase the already very high portion of property in the city that's tax-exempt, thereby adding further upward pressure on the high and increasing property taxes of homeowners.
Politically correct? Yes. Good policy? No.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 29, 2007 8:15 AM

I with j.b.r. over a mill to house 4-5 families??? The city has knock down how many houses, sold how many for pennies why did they not take that mill and renovate them?? Because they wanted to have some affordable housing in East Rock??
They could of have:
double the housing for the same price
Renovated blighted areas by fixing said properties
and revitalized a street or two.

Just does not make sense?

Posted by: robn | March 29, 2007 8:42 AM

Back in the roaring 90's, New Haven proposed scattered site housing with some units in Morris Cove. In a despicable moment that will live in infamy, sombody in that neighborhood burned down the proposed house rather than let a family of color move in. I hope that East Rock reacts differently.

That being said, shouldn't the long term goal of the housing authority be to encourage private ownership? Without a sense of ownership, what is the incentive for residents to care for a property? Good people stuck in clustered low-income housing have the bad behavior of others inflicted upon them. Thats a disincentive to care for their rented property. However, in a scatterred site situation...whats the incentive?

Posted by: Dwightknight | March 29, 2007 9:06 AM

Hey Westville Charlie, I once lived in Westville and now I live in Dwight. Guess what...it's safer here.

Posted by: i heart east rock | March 29, 2007 9:20 AM

Many of the commenters appear to have overlooked the fact that HANH has not chosen to locate housing in East Rock -- it has been forced to by a court-mandated settlement agreement. Actually, more information on this settlement agreement and the lawsuit that resulted in it would be a worthwhile addition to this article if the Independent or an intrepid reader were willing to dig it up and post it.

Another basic fact that has been ignored by commenters is the distinction between HANH and the City of New Haven. As I understand it, the Board of Aldermen cannot control HANH's policy-making and it certainly cannot do so if to do so would violate a federal court mandate (see the case of the City of Yonkers, NY which, when it refused to implement a federal court mandate to create scattered-site housing incurred daily fines that ended up costing millions of dollars).

New Haven's segregation and the massive gap in housing prices in, say, the Hill versus East Rock, is in some measure a result of decades fo faulty housing policies that concentrated poverty in a few unlucky neighborhoods. We shouldn't now use that dysfunctional housing market as an excuse not to remedy our past failures.

Posted by: i heart east rock | March 29, 2007 9:26 AM

ROBN,

I appreciate your comment and, a few years ago, would have absolutely agreed with you. Unfortunately, though, I think the housing bubble and the soar in foreclosure rates is a warning that home ownership is not, in and of itself, a sufficient affordable housing program. Home ownership programs can too often become "lose your life savings" programs. The Center for Responsible Lending has estimated that as many as 22% of subprime mortgage loans, largely made to low-income people hoping that homeownership will help lift them into the middle class, will result in foreclosure. This is largely the result of predatory lending practices -- but these practices are encouraged by government policies that prioritize home ownership, as an end unto itself, over self-sufficiency. Not everyone has the accrued wealth, financial know-how or desire to become a homeowner. Affordable rental housing must be part of this country's solution to the building affordable housing crisis.

Posted by: Ned | March 29, 2007 12:06 PM

In response to I Heart East Rock: "Our past failures"? More guilt tripping. Why should I take any blame, or suffering any punishment, for something I had no part in initiating, in sustaining, in practicing, or, in promoting? - racial and housing discrimination. Even the Geneva convention outlaws collective punishment! Tellingly, Judge Leonard Sand, who was the presiding judge in the Yonker's case, lived in Pound Ridge, NY, an all white, extremely wealthy Westchester suburb with no public housing. Social engineering is great, when you don't have to experience any of the economic and social consequences. As far as "predatory lending" goes - it cuts two ways. Some borrowers play the banks too, signing contracts for money they know they cannot repay, falsifying income, and gambling on the housing market and then crying foul, when the dice don't role their way. How does "affordable (subsidized) rental housing" promote "self sufficiency" rather than stasis, dependence, expanding government and higher taxes? The house on Avon St. will probably be physically improved (initially), but how are resident property owners supposed to feel about their new neighbors getting a free (or reduced cost ride)? If integration and low cost housing are important to you, why not sell your house, for less than market value and move to Dixwell or to the Hill? You could divide your house into as many legal units as possible and rent the units at a loss and cover the rents out of your own earnings. Here's an idea, "we" can use the coercive power of the state to make you do it - you'll feel wonderful about yourself and sleep better at night.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-10709726.html

Posted by: robn | March 29, 2007 1:30 PM

IHEARTEASTROCK,

You make good points about subrpime lending, but thats predatory free-market lending and its not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a wisely structured way to help families break the cycle of poverty and build some equity. Certainly the city would benefit in the long run by getting a family off of city assistance. To do so they could possibly structure loans that a free-market lender would never give... but that the city could give (and profit from in the long run by getting a family on its feet).

I'm not neccesarily disagreeing with your point about affordable rental housing for the working class, but the New Haven Housing Authority doesn't seem to be serving the working class. It seems to be serving a population that is deeply stricken by poverty. Isn't it true that their business isn't really affordable housing but subsidized housing? Will non-equity subsidies really give fortune to the unfortunate? If my preconceptions are wrong about those served by the Housing Authority, please show me the light.

Posted by: westvillecharlie | March 29, 2007 4:18 PM

so do i have the right to petitiion the nh housing authority to set me up with a five bedroom house on st. ronan street, or the state of connecticut to put me into a cottage on one of the thimble islands? i can't afford to live there, who's looking out for me? i am, just me.
and dwightknight, i lived on dwight street (179) and was broken into twice. which was o.k. because i was gettingdrunk at rudy's evey other night and didn't much care for my safety. dwight st. sucks, central ave (home to this fine paper's editor - humm, wonder why) rules.

Posted by: pinkbicycle | March 29, 2007 6:41 PM

Oh the dance around race and economics. Nobody wants poor Blacks living near them...not even Blacks. So how does HANH move forward. Well if the republicans have their way, HUD will be dismantled and the poor will have to seek housing on their own. NYC is already moving toward ending "The housing of last resort" now they want to cater to the working classes. Not the neediest--the uneducated and the unskilled. So what does HANH do, well the Feds have said you must do this.

Posted by: d.wright | March 29, 2007 7:06 PM

This may be controversial, but here goes: in this city moderate to upper income people are the minority, but an underappreciated and important minority. The bulk of the taxes are paid by the people who live in E.Rock, Westville, Wooster & 9th SQ & a part of Beaver Hills. Taxes for those big E.Rock homes are $20,000+ A YEAR. I would argue that this same group benefits the least from city services (hello, private school....) These neighborhoods are thriving in large part BECAUSE of the absence of low income & public housing. Income segregation has allowed certain neighborhoods to flourish. You may say that it's at the expense of the poorer neighborhoods and you may be right. However, people with moderate to high incomes have many choices of where to live. They can choose to live in good New Haven neighborhoods, without public housing next door, or they can choose to leave the city.

City officials shouldn't take it for granted that the city's upswing is here to stay. 15-20 years ago E. Rock was a buyer's bargain. The moderate & wealthy tax base could walk right out of this city and into other communities for a variety of reasons and then who will pay for city hall salaries? So, while the housing authority is busy creating public housing in E.Rock, taxes are rising, New Haven's finest are being indicted, crime is rising, many of us are meeting with our real estate agents. New Haven has many things to offer, but I can enjoy all those same things while being a resident in another community.

Posted by: MRSK | March 29, 2007 7:57 PM

Dear In The Hood,
I thought your post was stated just perfectly. The issue is learning to respect and take pride in the place you reside. And, the fact is, skin color does not determine if you have those skills. People fall on hard times, things happen. I get that. Sometimes it's a function of their own poor choices, I get that too. It's not for us to judge. But, if the new neighbors came into the neighboorhood with intent to respect the propery and people, it sounds as though the respect would be returned.

Posted by: Dwightknight | March 29, 2007 8:01 PM

WC, I've got friends on Fountain that were broken into more than twice and mugged at gunpoint as well. Unfortunately they can't sell their condo for what they paid and have no choice but to stay there. Times changed while you weren't looking.

Posted by: In the Hood | March 29, 2007 10:30 PM

WestvilleCharlie,

If you were dirt poor you probably could petition. But I don't think you get to choose which address.
I understand that there is usually a waiting list and a take-what-you-get system.

Or if folks like you were dirt poor and really scared of living in the hood, you could move to Branford, Milford, Hamden, West Haven, East Haven and apply for Housing Authority and section 8 assistance in those towns.

That's what most poor white people do.
g-

Posted by: In the Hood | March 29, 2007 10:30 PM

WestvilleCharlie,

If you were dirt poor you probably could petition. But I don't think you get to choose which address.
I understand that there is usually a waiting list and a take-what-you-get system.

Or if folks like you were dirt poor and really scared of living in the hood, you could move to Branford, Milford, Hamden, West Haven, East Haven and apply for Housing Authority and section 8 assistance in those towns.

That's what most poor white people do.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 30, 2007 9:54 AM

I was out this past summer planting with my greenspace group and this kid (about 10-11 years old) from one of those houses we are talking about (the ones with garbare piled and the dirt lawn)came up to me and asked if we got payed to do this everyweek. My answer was...No we do it to make the area nice...we all live here and just because we live in a poorer part of town does not mean we can not live in a nice place. I went on to say when your friend come over here do you want them to see a clean niegbhood with no trash and flowers or one with dirty streets. He then road away on his bike but...........about 5 minutes later he came back with a friend and started to help us.
He came from a home that did not care about the area but by our example in the community maybe he will care.
Well my point is that some people were never taught the right way and if a community shows them they, at the most will follow by example.

Posted by: bob solomon | March 30, 2007 3:42 PM

First, a few facts. The Housing Authority in under court order to provide 183 units of rental housing within non-impacted census tracts within the City of New Haven. Under federal and state law, the Housing Authority can not own property in other towns. New Haven has over 2000 dedicated public housing units. Hamden has none, although Hamden has other subsidized housing. In fact, the total numbewr of public housing units has been reduced by 1/3 over the past 10 years, but the number of subsidized units is fairly constant at 33% or so. Compare that to, say, Guilford, with 2% subsidized housing, most of which is elderly. (It's always great when Guilford residents support more subsidized units in New Haven, but that's another story.) In response to the court order, The Housing Auhtority allocated $850,000 for five units, not two. In order to stay within an upside of $300,000 per unit for all costs, the Housing Authority set an upside of $1.3 million, but it is unlikely the total will go that high. In fact, the Housing Authority refused to enter into a contract for a total of $318,000. Recently, housing advocates brought the Housing Authority back to court, as the completion of the 183 units is taking so long. We would love to find a way to provide cheaper housing, so feel free to contact me with ideas. Just remember that the units must be in non-impacted census tract, must meet all code requirements, must be for families and not individuals, and must meet all federal and local requirements. By the way, after you locate these units, please feel free to attend the public hearings at which the neighbors will come to tell you why this is bad policy (not to mention why you are an idiot).
It is quite true that the Housing Authority has not done a good job at managing units. That's the challenge, and the Housing Authority's feet should be held to the fire. That said, the prospective residents want the same things as you and I want - good schools, decent housing and a safe neighborhood.

Posted by: Esbe | March 30, 2007 5:22 PM

To Bob Solomon -- thanks for the factual update and for all your good work in New Haven.

The law that prevents you from buying houses in the suburbs is really cynical -- the houses have to be in so-called "non-impacted" neighborhoods, but are prevented by law from being in "non-impacted towns."

I think the best thing for the immediate neighbors is to welcome the new families with a warm heart, and then really help those families to be sure that the houses are maintained -- via direct calls to HAHN and the local alder if necessary.

Posted by: pinkbicycle | March 30, 2007 6:53 PM

Again this is a race and class issue. So why shouldn't the Housing Authority buy properties in East Rock. Sure the Housing Authority is a horrible landlord, so are a lot of other private developers in New Haven--albeit HANH is the worst and I wouldn't say they are getting better, nor do I think Mr. Solomon is any good at what he does. But at the end of the day they are saddled with the responsiblity to house poor people. But there is a bigger moral obligation here, one that transcends race, glass and economics. Who is worthy to live anywhere? This community is better suited than most, because it is active and thriving and engaged and that combination trumps, disenfranchized, apathetic and depressed everyday of the week. I have no love for HANH, but if this community with all is intellectual capital can't help HANH be better with fulfilling its federal obligation, then the world is a ghetto my friends.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 31, 2007 9:11 AM

ps
In the Hood

Ok this is why I have a pet pev about people abusing section 8 Many many years ago when I left my husband with 2 bags of clothes and my kids. (I gave him the house the whole lot I just wanted my kids trust me there is a lot more to the story but I am truley a survivor) I applyed for section 8 and houseing i was told in so many words I was a white woman and there fore employable so it would be a long time before I was going to make it up on that list to get housing help. I had walked in there with many broken bones and I was a house wife for seven years with no clue were to begin! And that was there answer to me!! I was told maybe if I moved to one of those towns that you just listed I would get help alot faster. That is why white people do that because we can not get it in New Haven! I found 3 crappy jobs and manager to raise 2 great kids without there help!! but I stayed on the list to see what would happen after 5 years I gave up!!

Dispite all the bad things said about New Haven Schools I thought that my kids would get a better education here. It is available if you look for it and are involved in your childs education. I but my kids in out of district schools and did all the work to make sure they got what the city has out there. Trust that it self was a full time job.

Posted by: steve | April 2, 2007 1:40 PM

Oh? you dont like minority working poor families moving to YOUR east rock commuity? instead of complaining about it, why dont you join your white flight friends and move to branford, guilford, madison? maybe you didn't realize , but you Do live in a city(a city with a large number of minorities), and unlike the towns i just mentioned , new haven prides itself on diversity. what? you didnt know that buying a house in new haven might one day subject you to the horrors of having a minority neighbor? well, surprise!! surprise!! before you go running your mouth about how YOUR neighborhood is "going down the drain" with HANH buying houses near you maybe you should learn about the cycle of poverty and how it traps young kids who grow up in such settings. Do you know how much these families and their kids can benefit by moving to YOUR east rock instead of some crap housing project(are we not a product of our environment?). Embrace the people moving into your neighborhood, and be happy that they, (like you), now have the chance to live in a safe neighborhood away from the drugs gangs and everyday violence. I could go on but there really is no point. sell your house to HANH and move out of the city if you dont like it, you POS!.

Posted by: Avon Know It All | April 2, 2007 3:02 PM

News Flash! Reporter does not check the facts.
Multiple sources are often necessary to get a story correct. The HANH is just one of the bidders that made an offer to buy the 3 family house at 21 Avon. They do not have an agreement with the seller to buy it. Another bidder does.

Posted by: Edward_H | April 7, 2007 1:16 PM

Is there really any neighborhhod in New Haven that would overwhelmingly welcome anything under HANH management? At minumum there would be some concern from the existing homeowners and/or renters. Deserved or not the HANH has a horrible reputation when dealing with Property Management/tenant issues.