New Haven Independent

Posted by: jj | February 6, 2008 7:51 PM

doesn't this letter from the same company say everything is fine a day before the letter sailing its contaminated? http://www.northside-development.com/2_04_2008.pdf

Why only test the top layer of soil? It was poured so that trucks could drive on to the lot as the demo was on going. Wouldn't it make sense that in taking down contaminated buildings the contaminated material would fall on to the top layer of soil?

Posted by: Correction | February 6, 2008 9:11 PM

JJ,
That letter states that the soil is not suitable for residential in the final sentence.

The top layer of soil was placed to stabilize the area after the buildings were taken down.
Contaminated soil can not be removed from a site in the same fashion as regular soil.
Also, a rational developer/builder would never pay for soil they had to later pay to remove.

Posted by: jj | February 6, 2008 10:23 PM

correction,
no it says 1 in 4 samples had some gasoline spilled on it and when i say some i mean 10 mg/kg or in english 10 parts per million. So pretty much a single drop.

Posted by: Clark Humphrey | February 7, 2008 9:36 AM

So lets have a recap;

-No bid Contracts
-Knocking down the Hahn building by mistake
-Looting of a victims' store
-Polluted material used

This project, run by the city, has been terribly mismanaged from the start. This is going to cost the tax payers of the City of New Haven alot of $$$$ when the Hahn's and Denz win their lawsuits....nice job Mr. Mayor keep up the good work!

Posted by: Jmac | February 7, 2008 9:43 AM

JJ:

No, the other letter says that all samples were impacted by petroleum (not necessarily gasoline and very likely not gasoline), ranging from 84 to 907 parts per million (ppm). The DEP standard for residential exposure is 500 ppm, and the soil on-site exceeds that.

The consultant deliberately avoided sampling an area of surficial staining, which he concluded occurred after placement of the fill.

To me the letter convincingly shows that the fill was contaminated when placed.

Posted by: here we go again | February 7, 2008 10:01 AM

Cedarhillresident, how do your bosses feel about this lot being turned into a parking lot? What can we do to stop this?

Posted by: WEBblog 1 | February 7, 2008 11:37 AM

"The demolition was overseen by Laydon Industries, the firm the city hired on a no-bid contract after the fire".

This is what happens when the city lets a no-bid contract with-out specifications and with no apparent final inspections.
Denz smelled a rat, dug for the carcass and came up with Andy Rizzo.

Judging from the article the city did not provide a firm denial of Denz's charge.

The irony here is that in the Shartenberg deal, ($1) the city provided a environmental survey to Shartenberg before signing the deal. This survey informed Shartenberg of environmental and soil contaminants, they agreed to accept the deal and to remedy the problem at their cost.

Rizzo did not allow the same courtesy to Denz and as a result the New Haven Tax payer will have to pay to defend this law suit, as well as, foote the bill for any liability and personal/ property damages if awarded.

Nice work Andy.

Posted by: Stop It Please | February 7, 2008 12:18 PM

Whether Laydon used contaminated fill or not (and whether mildly contaminated or not), this article misrepresents a reality with some throw away words.

This is described as a no-bid contract but that is not exactly accurate.

My recollection is that once a year the city requests qualifications through a notice in the newspaper from demolition contractors. It establishes their capacity based on these qualifications and also their wage rates. Basically, the contractors need to accept city wage rates and hiring requirements.

Those qualified companies can both bid on work as it comes up AND be available for emergency demolitions when life or property is threatened without a bid. It seems pretty clear that this fell into the latter category.

Under this scenario, Laydon would have been on a short list of pre-approved companies. As a New Haven firm (it pays property taxes here) which has done large jobs for the city, no doubt this would have put them higher on the list than a company like Stamford Wrecking which is not based here but does bid on non-emergency jobs.

But in the end, even this pretty transparent process does not matter since the municipal Building Official in Connecticut (Rizzo in New Haven) has exclusive authority under state law to act in an emergency to solve this problem as he sees fit to protect the safety of the New Haven public.

If Laydon put down contaminated soil, then they have to remove it, but that has nothing to do with a no-bid process.

Posted by: charlie | February 7, 2008 12:19 PM

Where is the developer's sense of civic duty? Pay for the damn soil. "A rational developer would never pay for soil"? Give me a break. This site is in the heart of downtown and potentially worth tens of millions of dollars. Cleaning up the soil is not going to prevent you from selling million dollar condos and recouping the cost. My honest advice is to develop it ASAP or risk the city/state taking it over through eminent domain because of its importance to the city's main retail corridor. Citizens and business owners in New Haven are not going to stand for it being a parking lot for more than a few months.

Posted by: JMac | February 7, 2008 1:17 PM

After the fire was put out and the site secured, why was the site considered an imminent hazard that caused the city to use its emergency powers in the first place?

The City could've simply hired a contractor to secure the site by installing fencing and had the police guard the site (which I understand they did anyway).

The City could've then ordered Denz to promptly complete the demolition of his building (in say, two or three weeks) and warned him that if he didn't complete the work by the specified date, the City would take over and complete it with their own contractor at his expense.

Even with the city's contractor proceeding under "emergency" conditions, ostensibly for the public safety, we had the situation of the beam falling in the middle of the night on the adjacent structure, some (two?) weeks after the initial fire.

So what exactly did the city's "emergency" demolition response buy us, other than a bunch of costly lawsuits that will probably drag on for years?

Posted by: get real | February 7, 2008 1:18 PM

get real
1) oceans 11 could not have robbed the variety store.

2)Why would you want to, nothing of value was in there.

3)Why would they leave anything in there when the building was scheduled and in fact mostly was torn down. It would have been in the dump truck anyway.

Posted by: Correction | February 7, 2008 1:44 PM

JJ,
They are pointing out that the area with the oil spill is not being sampled because that oil spill occurred after the placement.
There is petroleum in all of the samples.
Read more carefully.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 7, 2008 1:49 PM

Stop It: Being a pre-approved contractor is not the same nor a substitute for putting a job out to bid to those pre-approved emergency contractors the city has already identified. These folks are used to doing quick bids with caveats for unforeseen problems or expenses. To have the initial estimate be $200 - $500K and then see it quadruple to $2 million - gosh, that's not even close. Denz' point is he understood the nature of the emergency, felt the site could be contained and controlled enough to allow an orderly process for demolition and at reasonable expense. The $2 million is some 40% of his purchase price.

Posted by: Correction | February 7, 2008 1:52 PM

Stop It Please,
If your "recollection is that once a year the city requests qualifications through a notice in the newspaper from demolition contractors. It establishes their capacity based on these qualifications and also their wage rates. Basically, the contractors need to accept city wage rates and hiring requirements."

Are you saying that Laydon Industries was qualified to demolish the 3 story Kresge building?
You might want to check the records at department of public safety to verify your statement before you comment.

Posted by: Seriously Charlie? | February 7, 2008 2:09 PM

Charlie,
Are you nuts? Do you have any idea what it costs to remove contaminated fill and then replace it with suitable material. In this case we are talking well over $50,000 I guarantee you.
The city f*'d up and we will all pay for it.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | February 7, 2008 2:15 PM

If the city was so concerned about the buildings being and imminent danger to pedestrians, why did they only block off the sidewalk?

What happens when a three story building collapses?
Does it implode without falling out into the street?
If the city believed that they were saving us, why didn't they block off the street?

These are all things that will make the demolition of these buildings come out of our tax bill not the pocket of Mr. Denz.

Thanks Jon Destefano. Er. I mean Andy Rizzo.

Posted by: JJ | February 7, 2008 2:42 PM

JMac look at 91 church (the variety store) the city did exactly what you are sugesting and rather then take it down he is fighting to keep a shell of a building standing.
http://www.northside-development.com/1_23_2008.pdf
http://www.northside-development.com/1_23_2008.pdf

Also rather then rebuild he is turning the space into a parking lot.

Posted by: The Mayor is Ok | February 7, 2008 4:16 PM

Andy Rizzo and Mayor Destefano are honest and trustworthy people.
They would never screw anything up like this.
This must be the developers fault.

Posted by: Stop It Please | February 7, 2008 7:06 PM

JJ --

Just checked out the pdfs in your posting. Good catch. Seems like Denz is not exactly living up to the standards his defenders would like to pretend.

Posted by: JMac | February 8, 2008 9:58 AM

JJ:

I agree, the letter you linked to is essentially the letter which I envisioned the city could have sent regarding the Kresge building.

Although with reference to 91 Church, the city letter states that Denz can apply for a permit to "restore" the structure. So it looks like they are leaving that option open to him, which obviously wouldn't have been feasible with Kresge.

Re: Stop It Please's post, I for one am not "defending" Denz; I just think that he should have been given a fair shot at taking care of necessary work on his own property before the city stepped in and did it without a bid process. Monitor it closely, and if he doesn't perform within the specified timeframe, the city could have immediately stepped in and taken over.

Seems to me that approach would've avoided a tremendous amount of legal exposure for the city and, by extension, taxpayers like us.

As far as the parking lot idea, I'm not defending that.

Posted by: JJ | February 8, 2008 2:56 PM

JMAC I think your right the city could have done it that way but my guess is, and we'll find out with 91 church, had they done it that way the burnt out builings would have been left there for years as the city and denz fought each other in court.
I agree with you that restoration obviously wouldn't have been feasible with the Kresge building however you can see in this letter to the city, and in fact even by its title, there too denz thought it was. http://www.northside-development.com/12_14_2007_Denz_Letter_to_Ward_re_Unnecessary_Demolition_Work.pdf