New Haven Independent

Posted by: Frank Iezzi | June 26, 2007 1:50 PM

I'd like to know where Bob Solomon lives. As long as he's gonna decide who my neighbors are, I think we deserve the right to know how "racially impacted" his block is, formerly or currently.

Posted by: charlie | June 26, 2007 2:20 PM

How about we think about just shutting down all this housing. The private market can provide it much more effectively. Also, New Haven has way more than its fair share of subsidized housing, and therefore, poverty. Keep Monterey, Quinnipiac Terrace and the three or four large elderly complexes; sell the rest of it off to the private market. West Haven, Hamden, Woodbridge, etc., should pick up some of the slack.

Posted by: pedro | June 26, 2007 2:55 PM

This is a poor choice for a low-income family home. As an owner of an antique home in new haven, I know from experience that older homes require a tremendous amount of upkeep.

If the housing authority were to purchase the house, they would likely (and rightly so) make renovations with an eye on cost and maintanance, that would destroy the historic character of the house.

A picture of the house can be found here:
ttp://www.visionappraisal.com/photos/NewHavenCTPhotos//00/01/65/29.JPG

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2007 9:45 PM

The Housing Authority voted not to purchase this home. This home is truly unique and gracious but really needs the love and care of a historically minded homeowner. Fair Haven Heights will surely absorb many of the scattered site houses that are required by a lawsuit from legal Aid and CCA. Other truly non- impacted The Housing Authority voted not to purchase this home. This home is truly unique and gracious but really needs the love and care of a historically minded homeowner. Fair Haven Heights will surely absorb many of the scattered site houses that are required by a lawsuit from legal Aid and CCA. Other truly non- impacted neighborhoods have failed to integrate scattered site housing. If you believe in ladders of opportunity and rungs of access you need to examine the potential of such a program.
That being said: The housing authority and its agents need to do a better job on multiple fronts. Public housing should be a contributing asset to a community. Attention to aesthetics, environmentals, and stewardship will benefit all. Through the granting of section 8, the housing authority could leverage the multitude of slumlords to do better too.

Posted by: Ned | June 26, 2007 10:10 PM

Were any studies done on the effect of the relocated Elm Haven tenants on the neighborhoods into which they were relocated, e.g. crime, property values, neighborhood school test scores, etc.? Along the same lines, were any studies done on the effects of the relocation on former Elm Haven tenants themselves, i.e. did they benefit in any way: increased earnings, employment, educational attainment, social integration, happiness, etc. Also, if there are no "non- racially impacted" neighborhoods, in New Haven, then the city should be looking to other Connecticut towns, or partner with a private builder, to construct low income housing in towns that have not met the %10 affordable housing statute. How did housing authority Chairman Bob Solomon get the power to create new criteria for sititing public housing? Where does his authority come from? Why is New Haven forced to remedy all of the social inequities of the region?

Posted by: Grammar Stickler | June 26, 2007 10:41 PM

Please, no more references to "an historic house." You wouldn't call it "an house", would you? (Or for that matter, "an history"?) See this helpful discussion for more information. Thank you!

Posted by: on whalley | June 27, 2007 8:57 AM

I've seen entire streets and blocks of beautiful houses fall apart over the years as any proper owners/tenants passed away or moved on and the respective buildings front porches fill with two dozen or more people who apparently lack the burdens of employment and awareness as the destruction of the property continues around the clock. Perhaps they throw garbage on the lawn and graffiti their own buildings in shifts occasionally using soap and water to wash the thirty thousand dollar car parked in front of the home losing shingles faster than I am losing hair.

Let this property get destroyed. This is what the city wants. The destruction of homes in the city makes the property less expensive to purchase and build the sterile concrete flats that we will all soon be living in. Then we wont have to worry about the new neighbors or where they move the school or the sober houses or the halfway homes or the clinics or the soup kitchens. There wont be any more "nice" areas to protect.

Oh the joy.

I say it again; move out or move up to the wealthy class because the lowest class is growing and it will drag everyone who thinks they are working or middle class right down with them. It's not just a possible outcome anymore. Unless the entire power structure of the city is reset this is the future. I guarantee it.

Perhaps if we notify these people of New York's plan to pay people for going to work and brushing their teeth we can export some of this. I'll charter a bus or twenty.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 27, 2007 9:12 AM

First, Wow that is my dream house! Glad they backed out!

Ned Thank YOU!! Your comment was great.

Second and I know I am going to sound like a bad person but I am going to put it anyway....

Even Elm Haven Residents can be intergraded into communities but they need to be re-educated on how to respect the community they live in. We do not have a maintaince crew picking up trash on the street so they can not litter. Teach there children that people that live on these streets have to pay out of there pockets to fix damage that they do, the government does not do it (they cost the communitys and we do not get money back from section 8 when one of there tenants do damage to our property!! and it is not even the ones they live in!!). That the only people that should be living in the home are the people that are on the lease. Houses have back yards for a reason!!! And when a neibor comes up to them and says your kid is a terror to the community they need to get that kid under control, don't threaten the person that told them they just want to live in quit and enjoyment. I can go on with the list but those of us that have disrespectful community members in our areas fight it every day.
You have a chance to be part of a community NOT DESTROY IT!!

Posted by: Frank Iezzi | June 27, 2007 10:00 AM

The city ought to look to Boston as a model for low income and senior housing. All owned and managed privately. All maintained better than most people would their own properties. All scattered within the broader neighborhoods without impacting the quality of life for most citizens.

Posted by: Carole | June 27, 2007 11:43 AM

Ned asks a really good question: "Why is New Haven forced to remedy all of the social inequities of the region?" The short answer: Because Connecticut is dominated, politically, by suburbs and small towns, which are happy to let the cities bear the burdens of poverty. Those towns take Charlie's attitude: Simply refuse to help poor people, and they'll leave.

As for Ned's other questions, it's a great idea to study the effects of tearing down Elm Haven and scattering its former tenants. The truth is, nobody even knows where most of those folks are. And who would pay for those studies, Ned -- the government that you think spends too much money already?

As Chris pointed out, this scattered-site housing program is not voluntary. It's required by a court settlement from the 1990s -- long past time to meet our obligations, in my view. And just to clarify Ned's comment about state law, it does not require 10 percent affordable housing in each town. That 10 percent is just a threshold that exempts towns from a special appeals process if they turn down a proposed affordable housing development.

Ned, as a libertarian, do you really want New Haven to spend your tax money building apartments in Woodbridge? If so, I might agree with you. If not, how do you propose New Haven should go about getting other towns to share the responsibility of housing poor people?

Posted by: Walt | June 27, 2007 12:19 PM

In answer to the query above the only Robert Solomon listed in the phone book lives at 61 Huntington Street, an old Yalie neighborhood.

If that is the Housing Authoprity honcho, it is not surprising that he would like spend our tax money to promote more ghetto housing on far away Quinnipiack Avenue.

Better than on Huntington Street of course.

Right guy???

Posted by: Melissa Bailey | June 27, 2007 12:33 PM

Just to clarify, in response to Chris: HANH didn't vote on the matter. "It was tabled to examine the financial issues raised at the public
hearing," according to Bob Solomon.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 27, 2007 6:19 PM

Carole

I can guess that some of them were relocated in my area and I can give you the house numbers.

But a question you seem to know alot... What about the %10 affordable housing statute that Ned mentioned? Does that not require those town to use there tax dollars to provide this housing???

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 27, 2007 6:23 PM

ps But I do know someone from there in another communiy that lived in fear and has taken advantage of living in a decent community and has improved her life alot. so I do have to admit that it works in some cases. But I do feel when taken people out of a war zone they need some kind of help fitting in. And I do feel that with out that kind of help this program will not work.

Posted by: Ned | June 27, 2007 10:33 PM

Carole, despite your attempt to put me into an ideological straight jacket; yes, tax money should be spent on examining the outcomes and effects of social and economic policies - unless one is into the whole "faith based" bullsh*t and guilt tripping currently in vogue. The government is spending too much money: Iraq - need I say more? Reginald Mayo's 100+k salary. Crooked cops getting retirement benefits. Shady loans to BOA members. The extent of the waste seems to defy comprehension or accounting.
"this scattered-site housing program is not voluntary. It's required by a court settlement from the 1990s -- long past time to meet our obligations" Our obligations. Who is the implied we? How am I obligated to rectify a situation in which I had zero part in creating? Are 45 year old Germans being held responsible for the Holocaust? As far as I'm concerned, it's not my obligation at all. If it's an issue for you, you pay for it; I'm not part of your collective guilt trip and only marginally a part of the fictional "community". Better yet, how about seizing the property of all the racist old geezers who got a property tax deferral, since they were around and voted for the government that discriminated against Black people, prevented them from voting, etc... Then we can move on to the homophobes, starting with church properties (tax exempt I'll add). On the other hand, I don't mind paying taxes so that I'm not stepping over people living in the street and dying from treatable disease. And I realize that not everyone has the capacity to care for themselves, but if the city can go up against the Federal government, than I'm sure it can take on the state to find a more equitable solution to the costs of living in a somewhat organized, marginally equitable state. The issues are so byzantine as to defy reasonable treatment in anything less than a few hundred pages.

Posted by: Carole | June 27, 2007 11:03 PM

Cedar Hill Resident,

I agree with you. Many people (but not all!) who resort to public housing need help, besides the break on their rent, to succeed in a more independent setting like the scattered-site program. I think that if we (New Haven/the larger community) provide that help, rather than just giving up, we are all better off.

About the 10% law: When a town denies permission for a developer to build any kind of project, the developer can appeal in court. Normally, the court defers to the town -- as long as it claims a rational reason for denying the project, like traffic or crowding, the court will uphold the town's decision. But if the developer is proposing a project with a certain amount of "affordable" housing, then the burden of proof is reversed. The town has to prove that it had a good reason for denying the project, and not just some pretext to keep out poor people. That's where the 10% comes in. If a town already has at least 10% affordable housing, then it's exempt from that special appeals process. In those cases -- if, say, New Haven turns down an affordable housing proposal -- the court gives the town the same deference as if it rejected a new Dunkin' Donuts store or McMansion or used car lot.