New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | January 8, 2008 9:09 AM

has any report been issued by the fire marshall describing the cause of the fire????

Posted by: East Rock | January 8, 2008 10:55 AM

It is atrocious the way the city of New Haven has tried to manhandle Mr. Denz. It is apparent from his letters that he was more than willing to work with the city on these issues, yet they only wanted to strong arm him in their negotiations.

John Destefano has completely and utterly overstepped his boundries and responsibities to his constituents. (Insulting someone in a public forum?!?!?)

Unfortunately I would guess that Mr Denz will likely prevail in any legal action he takes against the city. I say unfortunatly only because as a tax payer in new haven I will be among one of the bag holders that ultimately footsbill.

That being said I hope Mr Denz sticks it to the city in every possible way.

Posted by: Kevin | January 8, 2008 12:28 PM

I have to disagree, in part, with East Rock. The remains of the building contained asbestos and were hazardous. Denz's proposal to control the demolition process was not a viable alternative, in part because it would have opened the city to all sorts of liability.

On the other hand, Destefano was out of line in insulting Denz. In particular, Denz had shown his appreciation for the firefighters from the start, contrary to the impression that Destefano gave.

Posted by: charlie | January 8, 2008 12:31 PM

The public treatment of Mr. Denz does not exactly encourage other developers from working here. This is really bad news for the City.

A similar issue is that right now the building permitting fees are ludicrously high (higher than anywhere else) and were just raised once again by the BOA. Not the way to attract new business and development. Of course, the City waives them for some people (preferred political contacts), but not for others. This may have contributed to Yale's decision to buy a new campus in West Haven. Why would Yale, Albertus Magnus, Knights of Columbus, UI, a small developer or any other business want to continue to expand here if the City is charging absolutely ridiculous fees?

The City should be reaching out and encouraging entrepreneurship and development, not the other way around.

Posted by: Esbe | January 8, 2008 12:38 PM

I don't feel at all sorry for Mr. Dentz, who has made a lot of money off of this fire. The land is worth much more without buildings on it, to say nothing of the insurance money. The mayor shouldn't have yelled at him; getting worked up and screaming is one of our mayor's -- what to say -- less helpful attributes.

On the other hand, Dentz was protecting his financial gains by suggesting that he might resist paying for certain demolition costs (it says that directly in the correspondence posted here.) I am sure that he was following the advice of a lawyer, but I am not surprised the Mayor was unhappy with him.

In the end, Dentz will come out millions of dollars ahead. We will see how the city fares.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | January 8, 2008 2:23 PM

Any total loss causes major valuation & insurance problems. It will be years before the Kresge disaster is settled. The situation became far more complicated as a result of the excessively pro-active role assumed by the City.

Bottom line -- taxes derived by the City from downtown real estate will decline AND the City will pay very large sums of taxpayer money to settle forthcoming, extremely complicated litigation.

Posted by: king james v | January 8, 2008 2:34 PM

The biggest issue i have with the complete demo is that there are empty lots that greet you when you get to new haven (the malley's building) and a new empty lot next door (macy's) an empty lot next to kresgies (that stupid "art" spot on chapel", the coliseum is basically an empty lot. where the old arena stood is a lot, the spot where the ct financial tower stands was a lot for years, the shartenberg lot was a parking lot for 30+ years, and let's be honest, Gateway aint getting built before the "Q" gets done. So what we have now is more lots. we've got enough empty lots, it's soon going to resemble Detroit.
Oh, and let's not forget the biggest lot in town, the RT. 34 connector. It used to be home to tousands of people. Destefano and Lee are starting to mirror each other.

Posted by: Please don't defend a rascal | January 8, 2008 3:30 PM

Around the same time as the fire, the only building downtown whose walk was not shoveled after a snow storm was Denz's apartment building on Chapel Street (between Temple and College).

This guy does a horrible job maintaining his properties and deserves not the least bit of concern. He sucks properties dry at the expense of his tenants. Not to mention his ongoing trash problems at his properties.

Posted by: good for the mayor | January 8, 2008 10:29 PM

I agree with Please don't defend a rascal
This guy put zero money into fixing any of his properties. Just look at the variety store on church. He couldn't even be bothered to paint the sign. He would have left these burned out buildings standing for decades waiting for someone to give him 9 million.

Posted by: mich | January 9, 2008 8:39 AM

Rascal is wrong. Mr. Denz has not owned that building on Chapel St. for quite some time. Tax dollar is more on the spot: This is going to be a long, very expensive ordeal for everyone if DeStefano and Denz cannot agree.

Posted by: Environmental Consultant | January 9, 2008 11:47 AM

"Smuts said that he's still learning about how fire departments make the call about when firefighters wear air packs when responding to blazes in order to avoid breathing in asbestos."

Air packs are not the only means to avoid breathing in asbestos. Obviously, the firefighters were on site for extended periods of time, were generally working outside the buildings and therefore were not in an oxygen-deprived environment. So it seems like it would have been overkill to have them wear airpacks, though, clearly, they could have been issued simple air purifying (not oxygen supplying) cartridge respirators with "hepa" filters to protect against asbestos and organic vapor cartridges to protect against volatile chemicals in the smoke. The fire department should have a protocol for the issuance of such respirators in a situation of this type.

As far as the asbestos "not becoming airborne", there is no possible scenario where a fire in an asbestos-containing building wouldn't cause some asbestos to be airborne. In fact, each and every building that contains installed asbestos is going to have some concentration of asbestos in the air, and EPA studies have shown that even outside air in urban areas typically has a small background level of asbestos. For this reason, virtually every person who lives in a developed nation has some degree of asbestos fibers in their lungs.

As far as health risk goes, it all has to do with airborne concentration and duration of exposure. It seems very unlikely that firefighters working outside battling a fire for say, 12 or 14 hours, would face any significant risk from the asbestos.

In the Dec. 12 blaze firefighters wore them inside the buildings, but not all the time when they were battling flames from outside.

Smuts noted the difference between the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 and a conventional fire like New Haven's. A disintegrating building will release airborne asbestos. In a traditional fire asbestos doesn't become airborne; it traps the heat. "This is why asbestos was used" in the first place, Smuts said. "It doesn't normally become airborne."

He stressed that he's not an expert in the subject, and that he's as eager as the aldermen to know more. "The health of our citizens and our firefighters," he said, "is our number-one priority."

Posted by: Chris Gray | January 10, 2008 3:49 AM

You know, King James V gives me an idea.

Turn all the empty lots into 24-hour a day parking lots. Have citizens park their cars there and use public transit to get to work or home, allowing them to avoid the tickets and tows during snow storms, and keep the streets clear for the plows.

It becomes a habit!

I was musing, the other week, as Cedarhillresident described the view of the city from her gateway, Exit 5 of I-91, what a wasteland the entrance from the Oak Street Connector looks, how desolate Exit 2 from looks, and only Exit 3 (the self identified "Gateway to Yale") and Exit 4, State Street and Humphrey, appear to be part of a livable city.

Exit 1 appears to lead to a cityscape drawn by Carmen Infantino (of the DC Comics 'Flash' fame) after the world of the Super Gorillas has suffered a disastrous civil war.

The mottos of past administrations have been "build, build build". It seems it is difficult enough for this one to tear down and then they stall and choke there. It reminds me of Lee's hole in the ground next to the Green.

Oh, no, they smell Federal money in the air with a new national Democratic Administration!

Posted by: New Haven Is Burning | January 10, 2008 4:02 PM

The latest letter from the city to Dens reads like: "we might screw up on the concord 9 also, so we may have to take down the rest of your building if that happens" I live in Westville, should I be concerned that this domino clusterf#ck that the city has started is going to take down my house? At least then I wouldn't have to pay the impending property tax hike that will stem from this debacle.

Thank God they didn't let Destefano become Governor, bankrupting the state would have been a whole lot worse.

Posted by: cleaning up downtown | January 10, 2008 10:08 PM

New Haven Is Burning,
The 2 buildings in that last letter have nothing to do with each other. They dont touch at any point. Don't get me wrong I hope they do have to take down 91 church but if they do it wont have anyting to do with the spector building.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 12, 2008 10:50 AM

Hey Smuts And King John If The Firefighters Become
Sick Will You Do Like King Bloombreg Of New York
Who Has Denied Benfits To The Firefighters Who Got Sick At Ground Zero? Also Smuts Look What King Giuliani Did Also For The Firefighters of New York. You And King John Should Put It In
Writing That The Firefighters will Get All Of The Medical Help They Need If They Become Sick!!!

Posted by: Moved Away | January 13, 2008 12:22 PM

As someone who had an office in the Ninth Square area for 3+ years, I can tell you running any business in that part of the city is difficult.

Yes, the many of the buildings on Chapel and State were in disrepair, so even an eyesore, but at the end of the day those buildings provided jobs for people and tax revenues (sales, licensing and property) for the city.

The City's primary mission should be assuring the safety of its citizens, clearly something they've already failed in doing by not having adequate environmental response plans.

This is nothing more than an attempted land grab by the Mayor. An attempt to take land and pass it to favored developers who will over develop the properties, take their money and leave New Haven.

People have short memories. The Ninth Square project started decades ago and is nothing but a failure.

Empty lots abound in the downtown area. Even before the recent demolitions, there are lots on George, Crown, State and other areas that could be easily developed, but developers have not arrived.

They will not come once these buildings are demolished either. Or if they do come, the projects will be politically motivated with no long-term chance of success.

I just moved our business from New Haven last year. The BEST decision I could have made. The ongoing crime, political and business environment does not encourage entrepreneurship.

Now that this disaster has happened, I'm afraid that the entire area bounded by Chapel-George-State-Church will have a very difficult recovery. Health concerns will be huge hurdle for new businesses.

New Haven's lack of commercial real-estate is one key reason why personal and residential property taxes are so high. Losing a major block of tax paying properties is significant. Revenues from these properties will not be regained for years, either due to lack of development or due to tax-breaks required to get developers.

The Mayor, instead of battling private business owners, should be welcoming any input, plans or ideas that they have. The City should first protect its citizens and then plot the fastest road to recovery.

New Haven cannot withstand major million dollar losses in revenues and clean up costs. The city simply does not have the financial resources to manage this disaster if the area is not restored as quickly as possible to income generating status.

From what I've heard so far, the impact of this disaster has not been fully explored. I would not be surprised if this does not have long-term financial consequences for the city.

Posted by: Julie Braun | January 13, 2008 7:52 PM

I'm with Robn. Does anyone know what caused the fire in the first place?

This information might shed some light on the situation.