New Haven Independent

Posted by: Biagio | June 5, 2007 8:35 PM

Here Yale grows again!

Posted by: Esbe | June 5, 2007 11:01 PM

Biagio -- I'm confused, what's Yale got to do with it? The landlord is William Esposito.

Posted by: jms | June 6, 2007 7:46 AM

They should definately put another totally awesome Starbucks on that corner. It's a huge drag to walk all the way up Chapel to the other one... it's like sooooo far... and crossing Park to get to the yukky Dunkin' Donuts across the street can be a pain with all that traffic. Plus I don't think their coffee is as good as Starbucks... it just tastes "cheaper". Plus... this way when I finish my first awesome latte at Starbucks #1 and send off some emails on the cool wireless internet connection they provide there and then I can run down the block and have another awesome latte and check my email for responses in no less then ten minutes. This is a huge plus.

What were they thinking putting an arts and crafts store there anyway... that's so yesterday.

JMS

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 6, 2007 8:48 AM

Not here goes Yale.......here goes the beginning of the exiting of New Haven. They are the first of many that will be leaving New Haven because of the tax increases. They landlords can not to absorb the increases on property tax they are handing it down to the tenants.

I work right near there and when I seen the sign go up I was heart broken. It is a lose to this part of town. It was one of the business that brought character to this area.

Tisk Tisk .... the repercussions of the mill rate have begun.

Posted by: robn | June 6, 2007 1:00 PM

cedarhill,

The breakdown of the recent tax revaluation shows that commerical property owners have received a significant tax BREAK, so this hike is unlikely related to the tax reval.

Posted by: rp | June 6, 2007 1:42 PM

Assuming I have the right building (1171 Chapel St), the vision appraisal website shows an assessment increase from $493,780 to $749,280.

(The vision appraisal picture shows the building.)

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 6, 2007 4:25 PM

yup right building rp.

robn I don't think so. The only thing that is office is commerical and residental are taxed the same were in some city's commerical is taxes differently

Posted by: wrong | June 6, 2007 5:05 PM

Cedarhill,

You are wrong. In CT all real property either commercial, residential or industrial is taxed the same. Last year a HOuse Bill to allow for taxing commercial different that residential was defeated. Also commercial property is not just office. There is retail, mixed use and apartments which are all commercial uses. There is no indication of what the rent actually was and what it would be. This cold have been an old lease that no longer reflected market rents. For instance, space along that area of Chapel was renting for $8.00 to $15.00 per square foot 11 years ago. Today the rents are closer to $18.00 to $25.00. So the story doesn't really give any information, it's just fodder.

Posted by: charlie | June 6, 2007 5:24 PM

Merchants come and go. You can't make anything out of this. Yes, rents are rising, the new Starbucks exemplifies that. Some merchants may need to relocate. But that's the story. The overall trend is that New Haven has fewer vacant storefronts than at any point since the 1950s. About 100 new stores, restaurants or cafes have opened up just within the past couple of years.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 6, 2007 7:16 PM

wrong

Sorry I did not explain it right. That is what I meant in some places it is different but here it is taxed the same. And I miss typed the word office I meant "different" I was multi tasking when I was typing. Sorry :) But you are right. But as rp pointed out the assest value of that property has almost doubled.
And I did get second had the landlord raised the rent because he thinks he can get more for the space than what they were paying so with that new info...some may be tax but the other is just buissness.

I stand corrected. I still think that there will be an exiting from this city.

Posted by: robn | June 7, 2007 7:27 PM

rp,

Good sleuthing. You're right about this property. I'm kind of right and wrong. Commercial property's percentage of the grand list went down, but the assessed value is up...it really depends upon the particualr property...I've oversimplified and I was wrong about 1171 Chapel.

In 2005 Commercial property comprised 36.1% of the grand list, with $1.4B of assessed value.
In 2006 Commercial property comprises 34.6% of the grand list, with $2.2B of assessed value.

Personal Property and Motor Vehicle also reduced their percentages (relative to Residential) and the result is that...

In 2005 Residential property comprised 45.7% of the grand list, with $1.8B of assessed value.
In 2006 Residential property comprises 53.8% of the grand list, with $3.4B of assessed value.

Posted by: property breakdown | June 8, 2007 8:31 PM

In New Haven approximately 80% of the parcels are residential, 12% commercial/industrial, and 8% exempt (colleges, hospitals, non-profits) So in fact 80% of the parcels only make up 54% of the grandlist. 12% make up 34%, However the 8% exempt is actually approximately 50% of the grand list. The breakdown bundles personal property inder commercial and motor vechical with residential. The State failed to pay the 77% of the lost revenue and only pays about 48% of the lost revenue. So commercial actually pays it's share. The residential market, as we all know boomed between 2000 and 2005. The commercial market especially in New Haven saw only growth due to apartments downtown, and no significant revenue will be seen from these, since tha taxes were deferred. Most note worthy...the State shorts, and has shorted the city over the past five years approximately $12,000,000/yr. People should be asking their state reps why they won't fight for adequate reimbursement. If the city was reimbursed in accordance with the statute, the fiscal health of New Haven would be much better. If the school construction had been doen with a true concern for education and fair tax burden, instead of being used as a menas of collecting donations the mess would be even more managable. I doubt anybody will read this, but if we could get as much comment on this as we do on the ID program, maybe the outrage would be noticed and Hartford would act accordingly. It's too late to solve the scholl crisis and we will be paying for the scholls for many years. The city bond rating, which was downgraded last year, may be downgraded again, whci will only increase thedebt service. This is the result of an absentee mayor, and nobody with any ability left to run the city. or should I say let the city budget run away.