New Haven Independent

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | July 11, 2007 3:19 PM

Well-settled State law applying to New Haven's BZA as well as every other board of zoning appeals in the state holds that, in order to get a zoning variance, the applicant needs to have HARDSHIP! The Courts have decreed the demonstrated hardship cannot be merely financial. That's the law whether or not anyone's at the hearing to oppose the application. The BZA is sworn to have enough backbone to enforce the law even if there's a ton of political pressure on them to look the other way.

What is this hardship except financial? Nobody's forcing the Beckers to do this development. If they're like most developers, they want to maximize the use of the vacant land so they will be able to make the largest possible profit AND they want to invest as little of their own money as possible (it's obvious that those two latter points are related).

That City officials are supporting granting of an illegal variance is, unfortunately, not shocking. City officials have a long history of pressuring the BZA. Moreover, the Mayor and his development toadies are already on record in favor of this biggest, most dense development ever built in the area. Like the ill-considered Connecticut Financial Center, it will be an ugly shadow on the neighborhood. Moreover, the cars that won't have parking spaces (despite the bicycles) will park elsewhere for example in Wooster Square where it's already crowded and where the City opts not to enforce existing resident-based parking laws and ordinances.

Dear Beckers, here's a couple of ideas: (A) make it a smaller project so you won't need to vary the parking regulations; (B) don't build the child care center. There's a not-for-profit child care center known as The Connecticut Childrens' Center a few blocks away. Instead of "reinventing the wheel" and competing by providing a service with which you have no experience, you could make a significant contribution to that organization. They probably would be delighted to use any sums you give them to expand their services and to accomodate the children from your development (that way you also avoid crowding already overburdened Orange Street with child drop-offs). Finally, hire yourselves one of New Haven's world class architects to design a building of which we could all be proud to invest tons of taxpayer money -- even though its financial viability and benefit to taxpayers - big or small - is yet unproven.

Posted by: Donna | July 11, 2007 3:33 PM

They want to attract bikers and train-commuters? All well and good, but people's situations change. That person who trains to Hartford suddenly gets a new job in Madison, and needs a CAR. Where's he gonna park it? If they want to build all those residential units, they have to assume everyone one of them will have a CAR--such is life in the USA. And not having a parking space for it is NOT a reason people don't buy a car when they need it; we all know that. There's not enough downtown parking in this city as it is, and the surrounding businesses will go NUTS if residents of this building (and visitors to the proposed grocery store) suddenly start taking up all the on-street parking. And who'd blame them?

Posted by: fair haven cyclist | July 11, 2007 4:40 PM

Hey "City": thanks for thinking of the bicyclists, and encouraging the use of bikes. But with the exception of the recent award to Elm City Cycling), I have not witnessed the city showing such outspoken support for bicycling or projects that were designed to support cycling (bicycle lanes, traffic enforcement, support for cyclists injured by reckless driving). I am sure this is just about the "bottom line" and is City Hall's business as usual. The reality will be that this will be a congested site, with inadequate parking facilities requiring people to park in other, already crowded locations. Cycling is still regarded as a foreign and renegade activity in this town, and until the city goes out of its way to change that in more altruistic and meaningful ways than this ill-conceived plan, it will stay that way.

Posted by: Ok | July 11, 2007 4:53 PM

I represent a buyer of a parcel in New Haven. It can be deveopled with X number of units, with parking as a major area of concern. If we put it in the deed restrictions that occupants must rides bikes to school or work do we get changes in parking requirements?

Posted by: Bruce | July 11, 2007 6:58 PM

Donna, one of the reasons that every man woman and child in America has a car is because we go way overboard trying to accommodate them. People can move close to where they work and if they lose that job they can find another nearby or accessible by train. This is how it works all over the world -- why not in the US? I can understand this argument if the building was in out in the middle of nowhere, but this is in an urban center, walking distance from a major university, right on a major bus line and directly across the street from a commuter train station. If we can't encourage sensible transportation choices here then where will we ever encourage them?

Posted by: Bill Saunders | July 11, 2007 8:00 PM

I never knew bicycles could be used as a smokescreen for specious development.

Leave it to the 'DeStefanatti'.

Posted by: Ned | July 11, 2007 8:03 PM

How about the city builds a 45 story parking garage on the site? Then, level most of downtown and construct a facsimile of Hamden Plaza surrounded by split-level ranches and faux center-hall colonials, with a six lane freeway running through it? Basically the building codes, as they exist, would not allow New Haven to even be built! Most neighborhoods would end up looking exactly like suburban developments. People will deal with the parking issues on their own, as they do in cities like San Francisco and New York. Check out:
http://www.zipcar.com/
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-fare
Again, it all comes back to a lack of innovation, creative solutions, and backward thinking which seems to characterize the naysayers of development in this town.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 11, 2007 9:10 PM

Ned
I was thinking about the zip car thing to. A lot of inner city have them now. I could never give up my car (what a fascist I am) but there are many New Yorkers that have never even drove. Alot of the bigger city do are filled with people that use taxi's buses trains and bikes. So I do apprcate your post. But as a person that fights for that space every day I can also understand the other people opinions on this matter. This project is going to happen I think it is now just a matter of making sure it grows to be a positive for the city.

Posted by: toomanytaxes | July 11, 2007 9:25 PM

This is more of the same BS from the mayor. They want to give away the property for one dollar, millions to have afforable units for a few years, and more. Now they want to congest the streets with reduced parking. They hope you are not paying attention or too overwhelmed to care. This is their strategy. Call your alderpersons.

Posted by: Taxed To Death | July 11, 2007 9:28 PM

This deal gets richer by the day -- first they need tens of millions of dollars in subsidies, free taxpayer owned property and now, they want to save money by shaving the number of parking spaces by a third -- oh, but they'll have daycare for the people who live there. How are those people going to get their kids to the doctor? Little league or swimming lessons? On the back of a bicycle? lol....in the winter too. This is a rotten deal. If Becker wants to build it -- let them build it to our specs, including the parking spaces. Pay for the land and get no subsidies. That's a deal worth talking about. The rest of it is a bite in the shorts.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | July 11, 2007 9:33 PM

Ned,

How outlandish can you be?
Who is talking about bulldozing downtown?

We are talking about the politics of greed, and how an unrepresentative local government uses 'progressively' popular causes to skirt local statutes and process.

The downtown has so few vacant parcels left, that is only fair for the public to ask for prudence and foresight in their development.

Don't worry, we are not going to wind up like either New York or San Francisco (so stop those unfair comparisons), though we may wind up as 'Hospitals','Yale', and their employees.

You might have to move to Hamden.

Posted by: charlie | July 12, 2007 1:21 AM

The city should not force the developers to provide parking at all. Let the market dictate the price of parking. Why should parking spots for commuters take precedence over the quality of life for people who actually live here? How about pedestrianizing lower Chapel altogether (except for vehicle deliveries), moving all the bus stops out of the city center (and adding a round the clock trolley service to convey bus riders to the Green), narrowing Church Street by 2 lanes and making it 2-way, and turning lower Chapel into a beautiful public plaza? Commuters would come in even larger numbers if you did this, because the area would be so desirable that companies would be clamoring to move in.

New Haven's competitive advantage in the global economy is not its highways, roads or anything else. The advantage New Haven has over everywhere else in the state, if not over the entirety of New England, is the city's urban scale and amenities -- which, as someone above pointed out, would be impossible for anyone else to replicate given current zoning codes, not to mention history. Curtail the automobile and New Haven would really prosper -- because it would be the only place like it. Sure, some parts of the downtown might start to get a bit of a Disneyland feel to them (like most of Manhattan), but the increased real estate and tax values would benefit everyone else tremendously.

So cut the parking requirement, and sell the site for $1 (it will pay for itself many dozens of times over, after all) but retain control over how the project is designed. New Haven is a major architectural hub and there is no excuse for an ugly, dysfunctional project on one of the premiere sites in downtown.

Posted by: Ned | July 12, 2007 8:26 AM

Ironically, when I'm riding my bicycle around town, I go out of my way to avoid the lower two blocks of Chapel St., because the block between Orange and Church Sts. has been completely given over to cars. Two lanes of cars with not even a few inches for a bicyclist to squeeze past. In addition, the dedicated turning lanes, for cars, from Elm on to Church and Church onto Chapel, make bicycling dangerous. Maybe the city could get the FBI to move out of its completely inappropriate (for an urban setting), hostile box building, with its suburban wasteland security parking perimeter, so that denser development could spread out from the core of the area nearest the Green. Parking, in outlying neighborhoods, like mine (Willow St.), could easily be doubled, by eliminating the garbage and dog waste accumulating "grass" strips between the sidewalk and the curb (which are mostly neglected anyway). Which would add enough space for more parking, make the street a little tighter, so that traffic would slow down, and provide a buffer, albeit of cars, between pedestrians, on the sidewalk, and cars traveling at 25-35mph. The underutilized bus service, on Orange St. could transport the parkers downtown and relieve traffic congestion in the core of the city... I think the Becker's are just throwing in the Daycare center, because people in this town love to eat that b.s. up. Is there a shortage of daycare in Downtown New Haven? Also, there is a huge piece of underutilized open space 50 yards from the site, otherwise known as the New Haven Green. Wooster s
Square is a short walk away, and there is a plaza behind city hall, and a small park across from the Post Office, on Orange St....

Posted by: Taxed To Death | July 12, 2007 10:33 AM

The city is narrowing the street on the eastern shore because people are too stupid to slow down and city officials are too unimaginative to put in speed bumps. The cost is $500,000 or more. So Charlie: You'd like to see more walking and parking? Got money? We can ban all cars from your vision of downtown -- turn it all into a pedestrian zone and have satelite parking only on Route 34. Please write your check for tens of millions to City of New Haven. You really think people will come here because we limit automobiles??? Pls send me the tea you're drinking right after you mail the check to the city.

Posted by: bugupit | July 12, 2007 5:18 PM

Tax Dollars: "Well-settled State law applying to New Haven's BZA as well as every other board of zoning appeals in the state holds that, in order to get a zoning variance, the applicant needs to have HARDSHIP!"
I also understand that the Hardship cannot be self-created. This was NOT the view of ZBA when the developer abutting my home wanted variances for height, setback and density. That developer/schoolbuilder/publichousingbuilder/campaign donar was granted a variance the very night they presented, and three abutting neighbors had expressed support for the project but dissatisfaction with height, setback and density. READERS, LET US KNOW, IS THE ZBA DIFFERENT THIS YEAR UNDER NEW LEADERSHIP?

Posted by: do have to say | July 12, 2007 7:12 PM

I work in the bizz and when we rent in the downtown area. I must tell you that when incoming people to the city ask about parking we do tell them it is very limited. We do suggest they consider not bringing their cars. Most that live in downtown work downtown or along the train route. And a large number of them do not have cars. Those that do store them, in cheaper garages in the area or they do fight for the spaces. When you really think of the expense of our golden gods (cars that is) you save hundreds a month living with out them. I find that alot of people that move downtown move there because they do want everything in walking distance. I think the main problem will be the parking for the store more so than the residents. But I could be wrong.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | July 12, 2007 10:20 PM

Becker and Becker are certainly making kelly Murphy look foolish, just one day earlier she briefed the Board of aldermen on the proposal. Both the NHI and the NHR reported the aldermen did not like the $1 giveaway and the 3.1M (12yr)deferred building permit. Ms. Murphy went on to say that the project called for 500 parking spaces and about 475 units at a cost of 165M.
Ms. Murphy left the meeting saying that she needed more time to consider the 23M total city givaway and the size of the project. She said she would get back to the board at a later date. The following day, Becker and Becker, without time to confer with Murphy, completely change the context of their proposal in front of the BZA. The BZA asked if their were ay opposing questions, none came forth.(See above). The notice of this hearing to the BZA was posted three weeks earlier in the NHR without notice or fanfare. As expected citizens did not testify. The paradox is that while the BZA meeting was planned well ahead, Murphy appeared in front of the BOA and testified quite diffently then did Becker one night later. It appears Kelly was left out to dry. Either way the proposal should be altered by the BOA to better reflect the size, cost and long range benifit to the city and it's tax payers.... Least we forget the long term colliseum debacle.

Posted by: robn | July 13, 2007 9:25 AM

Although I support reducing automobile presence downtown (the use of bicycles and Zip cars being good examples) I view a this news as a corruption of the original design competition and a degradation of value for the citizens of New Haven.

When the City had a design competition, ALL proposals were required to include a 500 car garage in their proposal (to get a sense of the scale of this problem, imagine trying to hide the train station parking garage under another building.) The parking requirement was THE key design problem for all of the development proposals and amounted to millions of dollars of cost.

This 11th hour reduction of parking requirements is corruption of the whole process. Given this and yesterday's NHIndependent revealation of a potential sweetheart 75% tax abatement...

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/07/dollar_deal_und.php

...the Board of Aldermen should reject this award and reissue the original Request For Proposal including the tax abatement and the parking reduction. New Haven will get legitimate value if there is a level playing field when RFP's are issued. Our citizens deserve an uncorrupted process and a good project.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | July 15, 2007 2:26 PM

Why do New Haven development czars keep making the same mistakes?

Fifty years ago the Chapel Square Mall project/fiasco originated during the Lee administration was rationalized as an anchor for downtown redevelopment with massive ad valorem tax benefits planned for "the city of the future."

Twenty-five years ago the Connecticut Financial Center was supposed to raise property values and bring miracles of development downtown with untold future tax and land-lease income to New Haven.

Both projects were infused with with massive governmental largesse and laced with shocking sweetheart deals cut for political and favored developers.

Both project's banal and thoughtless developer
designs were rationalized by a pervasive end-justifies-the-means philosophy.

Both deals were big winners for the developers while taxpayers were absolute losers.

There were many other smaller deals cut from the same pattern. The two mentioned above are only the most obvious

Kelley Murphy ought to consider the oft quoted words of George Santayana: "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it".

Posted by: nfjanette | July 16, 2007 3:15 PM

Robn, you just knocked the ball out of the park with your cogent analysis. As always in New Haven politics, follow the money to find the corruption. While Ms. Murphy's point about considering a total picture of the impact of the proposed financial package is valid, we shouldn't even get to that point given the attempted derailing of the original design constraints.

Posted by: da hill | July 16, 2007 3:47 PM

your tax dollars at work,

While your quote is quite appropriate, you over-estimate Kelly Murphy's intellegence. I would be surprised if she reads anything other than picture page. Her post in the City of New Haven is merely to do as she's told and not to create any novel development projects...are you kidding me, she is incapable of such a task. Try having a conversation with her...true frustration.

Posted by: Cordalie | July 16, 2007 4:08 PM

If we had ZipCar or another car sharing company here in New Haven, fewer parking spaces would be needed by all. Also, I hear that car sharing reduces car trips so we would also have less traffic. Why not make Becker & Becker bring such a program to New Haven in exchange for any give aways. We have city owned parking lots all over town which could be used for parking the shared cars. Thanks for reading and thinking- CB

Posted by: TGUNN | July 16, 2007 9:54 PM

Da Hill,

My fried you must have spoken to Ms. Murphy. It is like talking to empty space. Thanks i hope some people will look at the weakness she represents, By the way look at the Winchester numbers, they were fudge to to qllow for millions, but Ms. Murphy connot show you te agreement. Just ask.

Posted by: Taxed To Death | July 16, 2007 10:27 PM

Put lipstick on this pig and hand it a purse -- dress it up any way you want, this deal is rotten to its core. 75% property tax abatement; $20 million plus dollars; reducing the required parking by the same number of spaces needed for parkers already; selling the property for a $1 when it's worth $2 million plus; and amortizing the building fees across 30 years.

Gee, Kelly Murphy...do ya think you could have thought of anything else? How about putting them up at the Omni while they build the damn thing? Free room service and all....

Anybody read Ms. Murphy's defense of this porkie pig project in the Register? It was a verbal work of art -- how do you write so many words and leave out so many facts? Once again, the DeStefano motto comes into play: If we can dream it, the taxpayers will have to pay for it one way or another.

Posted by: andy ross | July 16, 2007 11:39 PM

Who cares about Zip cars, bicycles or pedestrians? What we should care about is what is the most effective long term and most economically, environmentally and socially responsible thing to do with this site. It should not be given away to begin with. Commercial land any where is hard to come by and there are eager developers with money willing to invest in prime down town developments. This mayor is being either pushed around or in other ways being made blind to the realities of an open commercial market place. I say scratch the whole thing and start over again but, this time around do not let any one or few people be the deciding factor for its use.

1) The city can get and deserves to be paid market value for the land.
2) Few incentives need to be offered to get developers to invest and get a return.
3) No concessions should be made for parking requirements or any other city code.
Why should we give up those things to the big guys while we bust the stones on small businesses making them adhere to every fire, parking, health and all other codes the city enforces?

This is plain out pandering and maybe it goes deeper who knows. What is clear is that this is a botched up job of selection and now people are pisssed off. We will not have too many more shots at utilizing New Havens prime down town land for increase visitors or employees. We have already given up to much prime real estate to the likes of the High school down town and Gateway College which for the life of me I see no logic in at all.

This city is becoming less and less governable by the day as long as the current Mayor reins and wields his power.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | July 20, 2007 1:13 PM

In a previous posting I wrote that the granting of the parking "relief" to the Beckers was illegal because they had applied for a variance and, for a variance you must show "hardship"

Actually, I was mistaken. The Beckers did not apply to the BZA for a variance to reduce parking. They applied to BZA for a variance to the City's "open space" zoning requirement from 250 square feet per unit to 45 - an obscene 80% reduction! That's because the Beckers are crowding the site with vastly more units than the City's zoning code anticipates. They DO need to show hardship to obtain this variance. So where's the hardship? -- Beats me! The Beckers and the rest of the bidders knew about the open space requirement before they bid. Their only hardship if they don't get the variance is they won't make as much profit on the deal. The nasty truth is they should not have been selected because their application provided for density as yet unheard of in our fair city.

Actually, to reduce the parking, all the Beckers needed was a "special exception" from the Planning Commission. As the recent NIH article points out, the Planning Commission, all Mayoral appointees, acted swiftly and granted the reduction in parking requirement.

Even though there was no one at the BZA hearing opposing the application for variance to the open space requirement the clear legal need for hardship is not eliminated.

The BZA is now our last line of defense against this poorly conceived project. Let's hope the members of the BZA see their duties and responsibilities clearly and refuse to grant the Open Space variance. Hopefully, then, Development folks will reconsider, re-bid the RFP and choose something more appropriate and more doable. -- Maybe they'll be motivated to choose a development that enhances the ambience of our New Haven instead of the other way around.