New Haven Independent

Posted by: Esbe | August 6, 2007 2:19 PM

I support the Supreme Court's deference to the Board of Alderman. In a democracy, that is the correct place for these decisions to be hashed out.

I hope that the neighborhood really does move beyond this fight. And I hope the city is sensitive to the neighbors concerns as it finalizes building plans.

Posted by: Walt | August 6, 2007 5:53 PM

No insult meant to the Hooker family which, I gather, goes way back in the City's lists of prominent folks, but isn't it time to drop the term "Hooker School" which must too often evoke giggles of disrespectand derision around the Town.

Time for a new name!

Posted by: David Cameron | August 6, 2007 6:33 PM

No surprise here. Courts give municipalities enormous leeway in land use decisions. As the court said in last year's Campion decision, the discretion of the local legislature (i.e., board of aldermen) is wide and liberal and can only be disturbed by the courts if the action is clearly contrary to law or an abuse of its discretion.

The crux of the decision was the court's conclusion that the rezoning of the back half of 691 Whitney to RH-1 and change in the zoning ordinance pertaining to RH-1 districts to allow a school at that site was not spot zoning, which is illegal. The reasoning in that portion of the decision is, at best, disingenuous. But once spot zoning was ruled out, the only question was whether there was reasonable support in the record for the zoning amendments and whether the board, as the zoning authority, acted within its scope of authority. The court said yes on both counts.

The court doesn't say this, of course, but the decision clearly implies, as did those in the Kelo and Campion cases, that people who're dissatisfied with land use policy in a city shouldn't expect any help from the courts and should, instead, use the ballot box to change the composition of the local zoning authority -- i.e., the board of aldermen.

Posted by: Steve | August 6, 2007 6:54 PM

Of course, It has been a widely spoken "secret" that the future name of the school is going to be the John DeStefano/Worthington Hooker School. That is the sole reason for the determined battle of his Magesty's War on the neighborhood. This location creates the life long horror of memorializing the Mayor's legacy to the City. His name will live in history on the Avenue to the Heart of the City!! God Bless America!!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 6, 2007 7:10 PM

Esbe
Well put!

Walt my kids are hooker grad's and of course we got a little laugh....but the name should never change.

Posted by: Mark | August 6, 2007 7:51 PM

Sure, we giggle about the name, but you get used to it. I remember laughing about all the conversations we had when we moved to New Haven about trying to "find a house in the Hooker district."

Seriously, though, this is such good news. I'm so grateful to the city officials, lawyers, parents, and other supporters who persevered throughout this whole mess. See you at the dedication!

Posted by: Andrew | August 6, 2007 8:06 PM

But those bumper stickers "I'm a Hooker Mom" have got to go.

Posted by: mary | August 6, 2007 11:23 PM

great job!!!!!!!!! kids first all the way

Posted by: Esbe | August 7, 2007 12:41 AM

David, I read the decision carefully and I think that the determination about "spot zoning" was carefully argued, with much relevant citation of precedent to back up their definition of "spot zoning", which also struck me as the logically correct definition. I am no lawyer, so maybe they didn't cite the "correct" precedent, but then again I note that it was a 5-0 decision.

Not only was the actual re-zoning legal, but the unanimous decision suggested two other ways that the city could have legally accomplished the same goal. So the legal issue is really, really, really settled.

Posted by: Katie | August 7, 2007 12:57 PM

The stickers actually read "Proud to be a Hooker Mom" with the full name of the school beneath it. Those stickers were created for the purpose of allowing those of us who support public education (not just in theory, but in reality) and thus send our kids to Hooker to show our support for the proposed new middle school on Whitney Avenue.

I have actually always been opposed to school stickers on bumpers and back windows, particularly those (and they are the majority) that display the name of some local private school. Whether intended or not, those types of stickers primarily serve as self-identification with an elite private school and all that entails -- in a city where the majority of kids are denied such privileged academic opportunities. The Hooker sticker was meant to be a political show of support -- largely in response to those very same private school folk who wished to deny children a decent school building in the neighborhood (and did, in fact, deny many kids that opportunity over the past several years) because it would "disturb the ambiance." In fact, that very division between who opposed the school and where their kids were educated and who favored it was glaring.

Many of us who send our kids to Hooker are able to do so because we can afford to live in the neighborhood. But 40% of the students come from out of district and there is the real crux of the opposition to a new middle school in the neighborhood. The disingenious reasons given by many opponents like concern for children crossing Whitney Avenue or the fact that the new space couldn't accomodate playing fields -- conditions that have existed for many years without so much as raising an eyebrow amongst these residents before -- was shameful.

While we should try to repair divisive wounds now that the court has ruled, it will take a long time because we know now that some of our neighbors care more about the future of their property values than about the future of children and the community as a whole.

Posted by: David Cameron | August 8, 2007 4:13 PM

ESBE, spot zoning is hard to define, in part because the Court, in defining it in past decisions, used vague and ambiguous language. But here's why I think its argument that the change in the zoning map classification of the rear portion of 691 Whitney Ave. wasn't spot zoning is wrong.

Spot zoning has been illegal in Connecticut since 1972. In previous cases, the court has ruled spot zoning is "the reclassification of a small area of land in such a manner as to disturb the tenor of the surrounding neighborhood." It has said two elements must be present for a zoning change to constitute spot zoning -- it must involve a small area and it must be "out of harmony with the comprehensive plan for zoning." It has also said the comprehensive plan for zoning is to be found in the zoning regulations and the zoning map.

The rear portion of 691 Whitney that was changed from RS-1 to RH-1 is about 200' by 250', roughly 1.15 acres. Judge DeMayo of the Superior Court ruled the map change was spot zoning because it involved a small area, would allow a new institutional use, and ignored the non-conforming character of the existing institutional uses in the RS-1 and RH-1 zones.

The Supreme Court noted that section 64 of the New Haven zoning ordinance says that as a general policy the City Plan Commission shall not consider favorably any change in the zoning of a residential district that involves a total contiguous area of less than two acres. But instead of noting that the change in the zoning map involved an area of 1.15 acres, the court argued the map change joined an area that's 2.65 acres -- i.e., the whole of 691 -- to a much larger area of approximately 45 acres -- i.e., the whole of the RH-1 area along Whitney. Quoting an earlier decision, it said this was not spot zoning because it was "not an attempt to wrench a single small lot from its environment and give it a new rating that disturbed the tenor of the neighborhood....It is merely an extension of a zone that was already established." It claimed the extension was in accord with the comprehensive zoning plan and hence proper.

It then goes on to claim, quoting another decision, that the ultimate test of whether the extension of the RH-1 zone to include the back half of 691 was spot zoning is whether "the extension is, primarily, an orderly development of an existing district which serves a public need in a reasonable way or whether it is an attempt to accommodate an individual property owner." It claims, of course, it was the former.

I think the argument is disingenuous for two reasons. First, it disregards the fact that the map change applies to an area smaller than two acres and minimizes its consequence by claiming the change "merely" extended a zone that already existed. Second, it's absurd to claim the zoning change was not an attempt to accommodate an individual property owner. It was in fact precisely that. The Board of Ed purchased the property in December 2003, nearly a year and a half before the zoning changes were enacted in May 2005.

David Cameron

Posted by: elmcity69 | August 10, 2007 12:15 AM

as re: "Katie"'s comments: yes, yes, and yes again....very well said. justice certainly has been served here in the Elm City!

and ps: some of us are even thinking of making "hooker mom" t-shirts......

Posted by: UNANIMOUS JUSTICE | August 10, 2007 10:27 AM

Five Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that it's actually proper to build a school at 691 Whitney Ave. but we still hear whining about "disturbing the tenor of the neighborhood."

Transforming an old cracked up parking lot into a new grass field won't negatively disturb the tenor of "their" or any neighborhood but we sincerely hope that site opponents will finally consider the myriad of affected children before further disturbing the tenor of their education/lives.

Posted by: NHPS Parent | August 13, 2007 9:12 AM

Perhaps a "sad day" for a few but the greater community can rejoice in the very happy day that this school was finally allowed to join the ten other schools along Whitney Ave. from Trumbull Street to Skiff St; all examples of developments of existing districts which serve a need in a reasonable way.

Quotes from the unanimous Supreme Court decision:

Page 3; "We now reverse the judgments of the trial court."

Page 15; "We agree with the defendants in both cases and reverse the judgments of the trial court."

Page 16; "Zoning must be sufficiently flexible to meet the demands of increased population and evolutionary changes in fields such as architecture, transportation and redevelopment...The responsibility for meeting these demands rests, under our law, with reasoned discretion of each municipality acting through its duly authorized zoning commission. Courts will not interfere with these local legislative decisions unless the action taken is clearly contrary to law or in abuse of discretion..."

"Thus, if the decision of the board of aldermen to amend the zoning regulations reasonably was supported by evidence in the record, in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the city and related to the police power enumerated in the city's zoning ordinance, it must be upheld on appeal. We conclude that the board of aldermen acted well within its authority in the present case."

Page 17; "The requirement of a comprehensive zoning plan is generally satisfied when the zoning authority acts with the intention of promoting the best interests of the entire community."

Page 19; "There can be little doubt that the location of a local elementary school within the neighborhood from which it draws its students is in the best interest of the community that it serves."

Page 20; "In examining the record and substituting its judgment for that of the board of aldermen, the trial court impermissibly exceeded the scope of it's review."

Page 21; "for the reasons previously discussed at length, the zone change unquestionably was part of a larger project that included the construction of a public school, clearly intended to serve the public interest and consistent with the comprehensive plan."

Page 23; "Upon examination of the record, we find no proper reason for the trial court to have over turned that decision.

The judgments are reversed and the cases are remanded to the trial court with direction to dismiss the plaintiff's appeals.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.
1 William Konigsberg, Anne Schenck, Robin Roush, Gary Witten, Robert King, Ruth King and Margaret Mack are plaintiffs in both cases. Each claims to be aggrieved by decisions involving the use of property at 691 Whitney Ave..."

Page 29; "Likewise, the trial court improperly focused on "traffic issues" as the basis for its reversal of the plan commission's decision."

A quote from a Shipman and Goodman attorney:

"Ranelli said there is no further avenue of appeal from the state Supreme Court ruling because it involves an interpretation of local and state laws."

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctschookerschool0807.artaug07,0,4080760.story

The reality that all those children missed out on decent facilities for years is much more than sad so lets make the school the best that we can make it for all the generations of NHPS students to come.

Posted by: HAPPY HOOKER | August 13, 2007 5:02 PM

ELMCITY69 wrote: "some of us are even thinking of making "hooker mom" t-shirts......"

Woo Hoo, now that's school dedication! You go girls - now that we'll need to help defray more costs I'm sure a Hooker Mom fundraiser would blow all past events out of the hot tub water - earning even more than 1974's delicious "Happy Hooker Cooker" !

Just to give ya'll a taste, on page one we have, under "POWERFUL POTABLES AND PALATABLE PRELUDES," Adrienne Munich's KENTUCKY MINT JULEP recipe - "A traditionally powerful way to recoup losses...

1. Put 1/2 - 1 tsp. simple syrup* in bottom of 12 oz. julep cup (or any 12 oz. container) with 5-7 uncrushed mint leaves.
2. Fill cup with chopped ice, then pour in 1 1/2 oz. bonded bourbon whiskey. Swish ice, whiskey and syrup well.
3. Then fill with ice again and put in another 1 1/2 oz. bourbon.
4. Take 5 or 6 stalks of mint, cut the ends off so the flavor will bleed into the ice. Stick stalks in middle of ice.
5. Place two short straws (so your nose is close to the mint) in the cup and sip VERY SLOWLY

*Simple Syrup: Boil one cup sugar and one cup water. Cool."

And under "SAVORY SALADS and VALOROUS VEGETABLES" we have, happy hooker parent Anne Schenck's "RATATOUILLE - Called Ratty because my children hate it..." Will transcribe by request but for now, let them eat cake.

Many thanks again to all who persevered to help make this school get this far!

Good time to celebrate with those juleps. CHEERS :-)