New Haven Independent

Posted by: Wjay | July 19, 2007 3:09 PM

Last week I had the foolish notion to support this venture in the name of new housing opportunities, However, at each step of the process Becker & Becker is pecking away at their own creditbility, as to the design features and the cost of the project. Each time I look up, Becker or Kelly Murphy is appearing in front of another city group or department, modifying it's original proposal downward, and the the cash requirement upward.
(note): by the time this project goes to construction, the price will increase.
It is now abundantly clear that Becker is not ponying up a dime of it's own money, but rather conniving the taxpayer in order to improve it's margins and to hold on to their pension cash and back door investors.
Remember, if it sounds to good to be true........... yep that's it.
With this latest change, I now say it's time to look at other proposal, including perhaps the city sponsoring this project.

Posted by: Taxed To Death | July 19, 2007 3:16 PM

wow..that was fast. hmmm...let's add it up; $2.5 million in free property; 175 fewer parking spaces for residents who will then be forced to park on the street which impacts all of us; HANH subsidies for $5 million; plus another $4 million in HANH cash; phase in for property taxes; 30 amortization schedule for building permits...Where is Becker's payment to the city for environmental monitoring? CORD payments? $200K to Gateway for construction trades education? Gee, bet Yale's feeling like the red headed step child -- and what they bring to the table is a hell of a lot more than Becker who will just pocket millions of "thin cash" in his pocket. lol...gotta love New Haven leadership - term used loosely.

Posted by: charlie | July 19, 2007 3:19 PM

Wjay, where in the world do you propose that the city gets money to "sponsor" this project? The public funds being committed to this are all earmarked for public housing (which we all want a bit more of downtown). The fact the site is selling for $1 is only because they are being forced to accommodate 175 spaces for the nearby Financial Center, and because the city is not paying for cleanup. You can propose charging the developer more than $1, but then what are you going to do about the other stuff? Have the 175 cars park in your front yard? Pay for the cleanup yourself? Let's be realistic. This is a great deal for the city and will spark development throughout the surrounding area. The city should be actually paying something to ensure that it happens, not trying to squeeze more money out of the developer, which will only ensure that the site remains as a contaminated parking lot.

Posted by: Our Town | July 19, 2007 4:19 PM

Charlie...did you read the above...now they are NOT really going to provide the full 175 parking spaces...plus...they are getting the site for $1...plus the millions from the Housing Authority...plus the deferred payments. The measly $1 million for cleanup that B & B pays somehow makes up for that?.

Posted by: charlie | July 19, 2007 4:30 PM

Our Town, I don't think you understand the parking situation here. Read it again. The 175 spaces are for the CTFS and will be incorporated in the development no matter what.

For comparison sake, look at the new development in Jersey City announced in today's news. Despite the fact it is DIRECTLY across the river from the financial capital of the world, GS is getting $4 MILLION PER YEAR in tax breaks to build a $500M development there. That makes a $2M land "givaway" for the $200M development, which isn't even really a "giveaway" because the guy is going to spend enormous amounts of money cleaning it and then another few million accommodating those 175 CTFS parking spaces, in this case look like we're robbing him.

Want a parking lot? Fine. Keep arguing and eventually the whole city will be a parking lot. We can even tear down your house, accommodate the 175 spaces of CTFS parking in your yard, and then maybe someone will finally pay to set up a hot dog cart on the Shartenberg site, because it will no longer require the cleaning or the 175 CTFS spaces!

Posted by: Our Town | July 19, 2007 5:08 PM

Charlie...They have to build 167 FEWER spaces than called for in the original plan...that saves them the cost of the replacement parking, the six million or so brandied about by KM as being part of the developer's expenses.

Posted by: Bruce | July 19, 2007 5:11 PM

We try way too hard to accommodate more and more cars in this city. You cannot live in a downtown high rise and expect to keep a car on the street. You'd have to go out 10 times each day to feed the meters. I say good riddance to those parking spaces and look forward seeing an uptick in mass transit.

Posted by: Wjay | July 19, 2007 6:18 PM

Charlie, Charlie, can't u see it... The city of New Haven can receive state of CT. bonding, can sell more city bonds, they can also propose to HUD, as well as going to the private market. Most of all the city can tap it's own pension fund. There are numerous sources if the city wants to be the fiduciary, then sell it on the private market. The problem is they would have to get many more approvals,which is probably a route they do not prefer to do. Can you imagin 333 more cars on state and chapel, then intersect orange, up chapel to church, to Temple. Enough... and we haven't even added in the Gateway traffic. Cough...cough..sneeze!

Nevertheless, it appears that you are blindly approving this project without knowing the details, as you know the devil is in the details, so hold off.

Posted by: robn | July 19, 2007 6:34 PM

Charlie,

You seem to be very fond of accusing others of being anti-development and then using the absurd rhetorical twist of demanding that they turn their front lawn into a parking lot. Very droll sir, but its not distracting NHI readers from the essential point. Almost all NHI readers agree that lessening traffic downtown would be great but thats really not the point and you know it.

The point is that the city had a competition and there were many submissions by qualified development groups. By selecting a developer early and then later changing the rules by diminishing the developers cost, how do we know that citizens aren't being shortchanged? How do we know that the other submissions wouldn't have gracefully absorbed all of the requirements and not asked for tax abatements? We can't really know what might have been, but we do know what is...and that is tax abatement, govt subsidies, zero land cost, and reduced infrastructure requirement...ALL for the benefit of a single developer.

This is NOT a level playing field and the corruption of the process is not good for the residents of New Haven.

Posted by: Esbe | July 19, 2007 6:54 PM

First, the HANH payments are not a subsidy -- quite the opposite as they pay for only a portion of the low-income units being demanded by the city. The remaining units are being provided by Becker & Becker.

Second, the 175-car parking obligation remains with Becker. Those spots are to be occupied by Financial Center employees, not apartment tenants. Becker is asking to reduce the number of spots it provides to its own tenants and that, as Bruce says, is a good thing. They would have saved a lot more money if they could dump the 175 space requirement (because they could then offer those spaces to tenants and therefore raise rents.)

Further, the city is still demanding the use of high-cost union labor, the use of expensive "green" construction standards, a low-return grocery store on the 1st floor, and also height and design standards that are costing the developer money.

Personally, I would give up some of the city's demands & in return ask for more money. You could then use that money to provide low cost housing units in less expensive locations, still even in walking distance of downtown.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | July 19, 2007 8:07 PM

Union Money? Greedy Developers? Spineless BZA members granting illegal variances under political pressure? Politicians accepting bids & changing the rules?

Paraphrasing the words of Captain Renault in the film, Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked!"

Posted by: Tgunn | July 19, 2007 8:09 PM

Sory but you all don't get it. I have tried in this forum to present relevent questions, but nobody offers an answer. I left my city post due to the high level of misrepresentation pumped out of ciy hall. I have documents, infact emails to show the level of undue influence put on department heads. The city is run my threat, menaing do what he administartion says or be left out to dry. Been there.

Those that favor this project over the many neglected needs over the entire city are basically uninformed fools. I was at every budget and finance meeting, which we held weekly, and know this is a give away. Stop commenting and get some facts. This has become a useless forum and no request for factual investogation is even considered. NHI does't have the time or staff, sounds like a city department doesn't it. They let the Register be the voice.

This project will fail. Ninthe Square failed, In fact after the fifteen year abatement. Economic devel made deals in the final two years giving an additional 15 year to retail tenats. No BOA approval. The administartaion carefully worded conditions to xclude asking the BOA. Howvere, now that the mayor owns the BOA he could care less about any opinion. No revenue will be realized, and the city will fall lower and deeper into debt. Did anyone see CNN last night? New Haven is now a national joke. By the way...what environmental clean up are they talking about? Who did it? Just excavating for a building this large will remove and contaminated soil. You are all being feed a line of bull. Remember the city was ready to buy the lot next to the old Union Trust building for $3,000,000. Thanks to the people that cared and stoped it. But the person who made the crap deal left the economic develpoment department and now works for a favored developer. No names since NHI might be held liable for libel. New Haveners, you are being lied to. Our bond ratinig is about to downgraded again. We are in a fiscal mess. Let's get a new administartion just to show how bad our condition is. Look at what came out when West Haven got a new mayor, fiscal corruption that is now subject to law suits. Does anyone think this administration is clean? If so you know nothing and I dare anyone to say they were at te weekly meeting I was at for three years before leaving due to disgust and my penchant for speaking the truth. I didn't realize department heads were suppose to be puppets. Once told what to do, and threatened I resigned. I have emails in my home files to support what I say/ Please people Vote not for nay perosn, but only to get new peole in power. They will not fix the city ini two years, but you may get a clear view of the impact this administration has oppessed us with. We are no longer considered a model city of success, we are now the national laughing stock, but the Mayor could care less. He calls all of you stupid at every weekly meeting. Latinos and blacks are being soo palyed it's a shame. When the city could have helped Q-house, the mayor said no. But he let a pharmacy company off the hook for thousands. At the same time Da Hood cuold even get a break for $100 in MV tax, although they were a non-profit. Vote the current administartion out!!!!!!!!!!! Only then will we start on the long road to fixiing what permeates this city.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | July 19, 2007 8:32 PM

So when is this BZA hearing??

I find it interesting that the initial RFP was asking for a twelve story mixed-use structure.

http://www.businessnewhaven.com:443/businessnewhaven/text_retreival/FMPro?-db=howto.fp3&-format=generaltext.htm&-sortfield=Publication%20Date&-sortorder=descend&-max=300&-recid=40025&-findall=

With a development of that scale, parking could be easily accomodated within existing zoning regs,and without 'special exceptions' or attempting variances based on a self-imposed hardship.

The only demand that the Destefatti have made of Becker & Becker, is that their proposed apartment tower not exeed 300 feet.(after B&B proposed a massive 32 story tower) The offshoot of that tireless negotiation was that B&B significantly scaled down its new proposal to a mere 31 stories.

But as they say, that's another story.....

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20744

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | July 19, 2007 9:24 PM

We Should Check To See If Any One Of These Politician Got A Hot Tub And We Know About What Happens When Politician Get Hot Tubs!!!!

Posted by: Taxed To Death | July 19, 2007 9:40 PM

Correction, ESBE....Becker is not providing any subsidized units that are not already part of the housing authority giveaway. In addition to HA cash down, they will also get another 5 years of project based rent subsidy to the tune of another $5million.

The issue of parking spaces is important because the preponderance of tenants will have at least one car. There is not so much to do in New Haven, that people are going to satisfied hanging out on the green or the bars every day. They may want to shop at a different store -- Trader Joe's doesn't have everything. Perhaps they'd like to see the rest of the sites in CT -- which are not on the bus line.

Thirdly..for Charlie...why compare us to Jersey City? That is a blighted city in transition. It needs help and they desperately need housing and rehab or new construction. We are not blighted and have a valuable piece of real estate. Why give it away or provide subsidies we are not offering to others? Development on this site will happen sooner or later. It's past time for Kelly Murphy to quit focusing on what she can give away, and start selling the city for its intrinsic value. I've said it before, but any nitwit can give something away, especially if it involves free money, free value and free equity in a project that will make a ton of money for the developers.

Posted by: TGunn | July 20, 2007 12:04 AM

will the parking be availalabe for free to the resisdents in the evening hours, say 6:00pm to 7:00am. CTFC is pretty much empty then. If so what are the fees for parking? 227 Church St has many residential units and was supposed to provide parking...never happened. And this speces thatthey do have the tenants has to pay for ant then are leased in the day by pro-park.

The project is a bad idea. If I am not mistaken tons of dirt will be removed for the foundation, contaminated or not, so just what is the contamination we are talking about here. I belive it was a former retail and office use, but maybe they manufactured there once. Can anyone elaborate on the contaminatnts? If the ground floor is retail, can it be capped? Could pilings support the foundation? Has anyone even seen the pahse 3 environmental that would specify the degree and cost to clean up. This is not a brownfield.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | July 20, 2007 6:39 AM

C'mon, don't be so hard on Charlie....

He's just envious that New Jersey has 15 of the 20 tallest buildings in the greater New York area.

What do they call that affliction??

Posted by: meetoo | July 20, 2007 8:24 AM

Wasn't one of the reasons they choose this bid was the fact that had offered the 500 parking spaces.

I am sorry but this project has changed so much that it does not come close to the original bid!! I wish the city would look back at what they did not choose and see that the other bid that came in second was a heck of alot better for this city!!

Posted by: Bill Saunders | July 20, 2007 8:47 AM

For whatever reason, my original post didn't make it -- so.......

I came across an old article(2006) from businessnewhaven.com , and I must say I am perplexed. It seems that the original RFP was for a 12 story, mixed-use development. Under those design restraints, it doesn't seem likely a developer would require a 'special exception', or need to seek a variance based on self-imposed hardship.

The only demand I have heard the DeStefanatti make of B&B, was to force them to scale down their massive 32 story apartment tower, to a mere 300 feet.

B&B obviously felt the hardship of these tough negotiations with the fair dealers at city hall. They came back with a proposal for a 31 story tower.

And that might not be the tallest story yet told.

Posted by: JPE | July 20, 2007 10:15 AM

Hey Charlie,
Don't listen to these idiots your dead on. If they want to provide less parking to there own tenants who cares. As long as there is plenty of parking for the retail its fine. The only thing that matters in this city right now is getting people to move downtown so that we can build a critical mass of people. That's the only way we can grow the number of shops downtown and turn it in to a real livable city. That is what all these "give aways" are about. Getting residence downtown by any means possible.

To Bruce
I don't know if you live downtown but i do and you can park at a meter after work and leave by 9 with very little chance of getting a ticket so keeping a car on the street is really no problem.

To Robn,
While there were other submissions for this development. I think the city made it clear that this company was the only one that could afford to actually build the building. Most of the other firms were small architectural firms with lots of design and little construction experience. For example the Christy Wareck group.

I would also like to point out that every single residential downtown building has to have variances granted in order to be approved. For example 116 crown the new condos next to gothem needed these 2 variances the second one being exactly the same as the shatenburgh site will need.

Application of Cutting Edge Concepts II, LLC, 116-120 Crown Street, seeking Special Exception to approve 8 off-site parking space lease agreement within 1,000 ft. of site in a BD-1 zone.
Appeal of Cutting Edge Concepts II, LLC, 116-120 Crown Street, seeking Usable Open Space Variance to permit 250 sq. ft. where 2000 sq. ft. is required to convert existing structure to 8 dwelling units in a BD-1 zone.
Just read a planning and zoning agenda this stuff happens all time its normal and customary
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/CityPlan/Agendas_BOZAppeals/2004/BOZoningSep04.asp

Posted by: robn | July 20, 2007 10:48 AM

Its unheard of in both the public and the private sectors to award large projects without real competition in which the details are ironed out BEFORE the contract award. The cardinal sin in this Shartenberg process is that the city chose a developer when they should have instead chosen a shortlist keeping competititon alive until the details are resolved.

Atthis moment, there is NO incenive for B+B to deal fairly since (I assume) all of the other competitors have been sent away.
BOA beware of non-competitive bids. Even with our troubles, New Haven is a nice place to live. Show your worth and reissue a truly competitve RFP.

Posted by: Taxed To Death | July 20, 2007 11:30 AM

That's how it goes...put out an RFP people can't really build to; eliminate anybody you don't want to do business with, and then negotiate what they can build, and then slater the developer with all kinds of perks and benefits at taxpayers' expense. That's kind of stright forward isn't it? That's DeStefano at his best...It's almost enough to make me wish he'd won the governor's chair -- at least he would have been out of New Haven.

Posted by: meetoo | July 20, 2007 1:32 PM

JPE
Christy Wareck group was not the only bidder one of the top bidders did have the backing and I am sure a few of the others did to. And they were in town companies, which means that the money would of stayed in New Haven.

I think THREEFIFTHS is on the right track .... look for the hot tubs!

But really the key thing was UNION BACKING. That is why they won the bid. Which did not make this choose the best choose for our city. But people I think is was 5 people (anyone know) that made this decision for our city.

robn more or less they have been sent away...but I am sure they will be offering some kind of contracts to a few of the companys. But your comments ...at least to me are on the nose.

Posted by: charlie | July 20, 2007 4:14 PM

Christie (not Christy) Wareck Group had no experience. Also known as zero experience, i.e., no track record whatsoever, i.e., the equivalent of choosing Artspace to develop the site (one of your other choices!)

Furthermore that company split up, i.e., stopped existing, while the bid was in progress.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 23, 2007 4:21 PM

Love the print outs gee that C.A. White looks like they had a good plan :)

Posted by: Ned | July 24, 2007 12:49 PM

From Business New Haven
8/23/99
By: Linda Mele
http://www.conntact.com/archive_index/archive_pages/2376_Business_New_Haven.html

"Under development is a $15 million mid-block parking garage between Church and Orange streets in the block between Elm and Wall streets that would provide 935 new parking spaces.

The bus depot would have 300 new parking spaces. An [sic] additional spaces at the Union Station parking garage will also be sought. And the $12 million renovation of the Temple Street Garage will bring 1,200 parking spaces back on line within the next two years."

Eight years later - there is still no mid block parking garage, no bus depot, nor a Union Station parking garage, yet some people expect the city to build a garage or purchase a built garage from a developer (with sketchier financing) from a developer other than Becker & Becker? The city government is seemingly incapable, for a number of reasons, of constructing a garage as required in all of the non-Becker & Becker proposals; I'm guessing that even if the city could build/purchase a garage, that it would cost in excess of $6 million, and the (legitimate?) complaints/ questions of insider deals, favoritism to the usual suspects, etc. would be raised. Ideally, no public money would be provided to any developer - how about an Ebay auction of the parcel?