New Haven Independent

Posted by: Frank Iezzi | July 13, 2007 6:33 AM

Willie Greene is right. If private industry cannot make the project fly on it's own, then it is not an economically viable endeavor. Subsidies would just mask the reality of it and wind up costing us, bigtime, in the end. What usually happens then is that we sell the building to Yale for pennies on the dollar, or turn it into a school. Both options take the property off the tax rolls. The last thing we need is to remove another property from the grand list. The only reason Mayor [John] would ram this through is to give his buddies at Fusco more work.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 13, 2007 9:42 AM

hmmm well Greene seems to be a little bit more on the ball than Newton. Now who is Greene??

Posted by: Taxed To Death | July 13, 2007 9:58 AM

Like the mayor needed to be a League of Cities confab -- what for? What's more important - hanging out with a bunch of mayors in some far flung, most likely exotic resort, or paying attention to the issues we're confronting here at home. It's about priorities and the ability to make good choices. Nothing worth a damn ever comes out of the league of cities -- except new ways to tax and spend.

Posted by: PAPER BOY | July 13, 2007 10:25 AM

Willie Greene is making a fairly articulate argument against the corporate welfare the city wants to give Becker + Becker. What he's missing, though, (and which I believe Paul Bass has brought up) is that the city chose the worst of the five plans offered for the Shartenberg site - - on the premise that Becker + Becker had the financing to get the project done. Now they need a $5 million bailout?
Becker + Becker's design offers far less to the public than, say, the Baldwin Square proposal offered by the now-defunct Christie Wareck Co., which had a jazz club, public farmer's market, boutique hotel and plenty of public space as part of the plan.

Posted by: anewday | July 13, 2007 11:36 AM

Wow! Even the NH Reg agreed with Greene about the Shartenburg give-away in yesterday's editorial. That's gotta hurt Johnny. But I bet the Alders press ahead and do what the Mayor wants done. We need a solution to this "deficit" as well as to the financial one.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | July 13, 2007 12:54 PM

First I Must Take Issue With The Statement That
Nzinga Shani Made That Immigrants Do The Jobs That
People Who Live Here Legal Will Not Do. This Is Not True. The Reason Why People Who Are In This Country Legal Is That We Know What Wages We Are To Be Paid To Do These Jobs And That The Employers
Exploit These Immigrants!! Second The Term Should
Be Illegal Undocument Immmigrants Also The Reason Why They Do Pay Taxes Is So That The Crooked Employers Who Hire Them Can Show That They Are On The Payroll And Taxes Are Still Being Take Out Of There Pay Check, The Fedral Tax Number You Are Talking About All Of Use Have One.Second Mr. Newton Said That He Is Against The Ice Raids Yet
He Is For Frisk And Stop By New Haven Police And He Also Stated In Zero Killings Campaign That Maximum Sentencing Should Be Hand Down Yet Mr. Newton You Say That You Are Against The Ice Raids
In Which People Have Broken Laws? Mr. Green Did You Not Write Letters For Ben Hunter Who Embezzled Federal Funds And Forged Checks And Got No Jail
Time? People Of New Haven Wake Up And Smell The Mackral King John Will Be You Next Mayor!!! P.S. How Come The Green Party Candidate Was Not at This Debate?

Posted by: charlie | July 13, 2007 1:58 PM

1) Opposing the Shartenberg development because the land is "selling" for $1 is the most absolutely ridiculous thing I have ever heard, on all fronts. The developer is paying for almost all of this and the development will be paying large amounts of tax to the city, even before you consider the increased revenue that results from all those new residents downtown.

2) In order to cut the budget, how about demolishing all the city's subsidized housing and turning it over to private developers. New Haven already has way more than its fair share. Keeping the newest developments and all the privately-run subsidized housing would still leave New Haven with more than its fair share of cheap-o housing, and the savings in the budget as a result of eliminating HANH would allow for better services for everyone. Also, efforts to attract businesses to downtown (by doing things such as making sure the huge parking lot, aka Shartenberg, sitting in the middle of it is actually made into something ASAP, and also issuing RFPs for other city-owned sites in the area) is clearly the only way to expand the tax base and must be done much more quickly than it is. The City is mostly just sitting around on all this valuable land, doing nothing (or being thwarted by anti-development Aldermen who have no idea what they are doing). Eliminating the subsidized housing downtown would also help, because rents wouldn't be artificially deflated and investors would see it as a more attractive location to build housing or businesses.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | July 13, 2007 4:02 PM

I cannot agree that this forum was a debate as such... In my opinion Newton, more so than Green, appeared to have a greater command of the response to the questions, and in a more direct fashion.
Both responded fairly well to the shartenberg issue, with Green aptly tying the tax issue to taxpayer concerns regarding the giveaway of taxpayer interest. Here it is worth mentioning that it is the taxpayer who has invested 40 yrs of tax subsidy in the land and the city plans to just give away that which is not theirs to independently give.

To the question of the future tax cuts, Newton nor Green answered well regarding future cuts of 10M. A much better answer would have been- Had I been your current Mayor, you would not have seen a 30M + budget this year, in fact there would have been a much smaller increase to cover wage, medical and pension benefits.

Both candidates need to be better prepared to respond to questions regarding New Haven's ID card program. During the answering to this question, both fell victim to confusing the ID card with a nation immigration policy, which the city cannot influence. Bass was responsible for the mis-leading question.
With regard to the hypothetical question concerning the bikes surrounding the car... Newton danced, saying something like I would talk to them nicely and quitely. YEA right,
and Green say he would not fudge an answer.

I would have consider self preservation as paramount and acted according...Drive-OFF.

Over all, in the eyes of white voters, they did not at all attempt to win over white votes, which they must do.. both relied on the old notion that the city is 45% black and 26% hispanic and there lies the majority. Wrong... the voting majority in both primary and general election is still white.
Check the last two primary and general elections voters by ward and by census track in New Haven.

The moral of the story is that both candidates will have to study the issues much better and, better tailor their answers towards the political center if they want to compete with the Mayor.
Most of all come up with your own initiatives or stay at home.

The Mayor has $$$, is fact checked, voter location and issue ready.

Posted by: Taxed To Death | July 13, 2007 4:05 PM

Look...Shartenberg doesn't need a subsidy, and we don't need to sell the property for a dollar. Sell it for fair market value --- get full value on permits and fees and provide no subsidies. Who would want to pay $1500 a month for an apartment on the open market and live next door to a subsidized unit with screaming kids and the associated issues that always seem to follow Section 8 housing. It's not like we have to beg people to redevelop downtown...they're standing in line. Tap somebody on the shoulder.

Posted by: Carole | July 13, 2007 4:40 PM

Charlie,

The housing authority is funded by HUD. Closing it down would not save the city money and would increase unemployment.

More important, your suggestion to tear down all the public housing would be completely illegal. Are you going to give back all the federal money that built those apartments, and which legally obligates New Haven to provide the housing?

I think your repeated demands to drive poor people away from New Haven are mean-spirited. However, I do agree with you that neighboring towns should do much more to share the burdens of poverty. Got any ideas for how to make that happen?

Posted by: TGunn | July 13, 2007 5:09 PM

Webblooger. I am a white voter, either one is better than the administration we have. Notice the Mayor couldn't make it. So let's see,,,for three years he couldn't make to BOE meetings, he also was seldon even in city hall. The real question is not who should be next, but instead let's get a fresh start and get the entrenched yes men out of the way. Both, New ton and Greene, have their flaws, but they fail if you actualyy compare them to the Mayor running this city into unmanagebale debt. As well as apointing completely unqualified people to high paying jobs because they worked on his campaign. This is not a secret, we all know what he did, he ruined the city, he did not save anything. Just look and all the companies that have left New Haven. This administartion runs around begging for non-profirs and Yale to bail them out. We have a totally incompetent economic develop department. Point,,,what industrial or manufacturing company will come to River St. They don't even have access!!!!!!!!! Stop insulting the people that have stepped upi to offer a new view and start looking at why we are in such a basd fiscal state. No one person can fix the problems this administration has allowed, especially in two years. We need a fresh look and new blood. The only people left running most departments are long time employees that can;t afford to leave, but these same people have great ideas and potential. You just can't disagree with the Mayor or you are considered an adversary to be shut down. Let's start asking the mayor the hard questions. let's look at the deferral deals. Let's look at LCI and how llittle they do to enforce violations. Let's look at a city left in the rear view mirror of the want a be gov that feel flat on his face. Let's asl the Mayor why he won't show for a debate. Yeah...league of cities...did he make any of those events a priority while aspiring to be Gov. NO!!!!!!!!!!! BUt if he was to face hard questions he could be shown to be negligent. I tell you most city hall workers white, black and latino know he is not concerned anymore. So why not just question what the situation is that a new administration would have to fix and why such a high degree of fixing is needed. Do you really think the current group in city hall are well healed leaders? Have you heard one plan to correct the growing deficit? Next year, you house value will increase by 20% and the mill rate will again have to be increased. That will happen for five more years. There is lots of revenue to be found, but it means stepping on the toes of people connected to the currnet administration. That is why we need a new administartion. Rearding the repsonse to kids on bikes, what does the mayor say? In fact what di the NHPD say? Can you answer any of these questions? I doubt it. By the way Shartenburg is a bad deal for the city. If not read the post asking for a feasibility study, under that article.

Posted by: charlie | July 14, 2007 6:28 PM

Carole:
1) Closing HANH might not directly save the city that much money, but it would allow the sites to be reused as private properties that would give more tax and jobs to the city than a housing project does.
2) They wouldn't have to be all immediately torn out. But there should be a plan to phase almost all of them out over the next 20 years. It's fine to keep a few, especially the ones like Monterey Place that are HOPE VI funded and need to stay.
3) Closing all the public housing in New Haven would make that happen. Yes, it's too bad that a few of the poorer families might have to move to Wallingford or New Britain and commute here, but it's also too bad that New Haven's residents have to pay for waaaaay more than their fair share of public housing right now, and ultimately this current situation we're all in just drains the treasury and makes the overall problem worse.

Posted by: westvillecharlie | July 14, 2007 10:27 PM

Why wasn't ferrucci part of this deal?
why was the moderator (ms. shani) someone from Hamden, and not New Haven?
couldn't they wait till mayor johnny was in town?
this seems a bit too staged to be credible.

Posted by: N'Zinga S. Shani | July 14, 2007 11:02 PM

"The program with the Democratic mayoral contenders was not a debate. Nor was it intended as such. As the producer of the program, I did not represent it as a debate. It was an opportunity for the two Democratic contenders to present their arguments to the citizens of New Haven for why one of them should be supported as an alternative to the present mayor, who is also a Democrat. They were there to identify problems and concerns in New Haven, and to propose the solutions they would implement as mayor.

For the past 11 years, the television program "21st Century Conversations" has steadfastly provided information to the community on important issues worthy of additional attention. We believe that "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"; in fact, this is our organizational motto. These men are contending for public office; they have messages for their community, and they asked us for an opportunity to share those messages. We provided that opportunity. Had this been a debate among all the candidates contending for the mayoral election in November we would have invited all of the contenders to participate. Of course, we have no control over who accepts our invitation.

The members of OneWorld Progressive Institute, Inc., who are responsible for "21st Century Conversations" believe that open and informed discussions, and the exchange of ideas and perspectives are essential in a democracy. Nothing is gained from harsh rhetoric. We can all learn from each other; this is particularly true when we each take the time to check our information, seek clarification, and present facts rather than make negative assumptions and present those as facts.

New Haven is a city with a rich history; the people of NH, as a collective, have it within their power to ensure that their city moves in the direction they wish. We at OneWorld, Inc. look forward to the opportunity to facilitate more enlightened conversations about the City's future."
N'Zinga S. Shani, Producer & Moderator
"21st Century Conversations"

Posted by: king james v | July 15, 2007 12:42 PM

Ms. Nzango shold have left the candle unlit and kept us in the dark about these two gems. I know DeStefano is due for a new job, but she left out the only viable, progressive, untarnished candidate, Ralph Ferrucci. I realize he's not a registered democrat, but he embodies the social ideals of the lion's share of new haven dems. Bad job ma'am.