New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 14, 2008 8:44 AM

I am going to the March one. I wanted to go last night to see what Jeffery's group said. Jeff can you post your thoughts and comments on the meeting.

Posted by: James | February 14, 2008 8:48 AM

"We have 12 percent of the state's affordable housing stock...New Haven can only do so much."

This is the first sensible thing I think I've heard the mayor say in the four years I've been here. And it's the first thing I've ever heard him say that leads me to believe that he is not content with New Haven being one, large social service.

"there needs to be a balance in housing stock or else the city would be home to only those too poor to live elsewhere "and those wealthy enough to insulate themselves."

I would argue that we already have this very situation. I personally know only one person who chooses to live in New Haven. Most others that I know who live in New Haven do so because they are either unable to extract themselves due to financial reasons, are dependent on the over abundance of social services we provide, or are affiliated with Yale. Outside of Yale we have few professional positions available in New Haven. This is simply not a choice destination. It is a place people live out of necessity and typically leave once that necessity has ceased to exist. If my job weren't here I would be long gone. How many others would say the exact same thing? This is anecdotal, but I just don't know of too many people who live in New Haven by choice.

As for Washington, I don't even know how to respond to him. More affordable housing? I fully support affordable housing, but New Haven is already carrying far more than it's share of the burden. And yes, supplying affordable housing is a tax burden. That not a value judgment. It's a financal reality. It is inevitable that as development occurs affordable units will be lost in those areas. In the long run, a reduction of low rent apartments is desirable in an environment where we are already oversaturated and is a sign of economic recovery. I find it impossible to believe that the individual in Washington's anecdote cannot find an affordable unit in New Haven. Unless by "affordable" he means free.

At some point the people intent on preserving the status quo need to realize that the status quo sucks. New Haven is a quagmire of poverty, and as long as we attempt to preserve or expand every last social service, every last unit of affordable housing, every last drop of subsidized home heating oil we will not be able to pull ourselves up and out. We need jobs, not a crutch. We need help, not dependence. We need training and development and an elevated standard of living. I question the motives of those who seek to maintain our welfare culture. For whose benefit are they working?

Posted by: on whalley | February 14, 2008 9:10 AM

"You can have too much affordable housing," the mayor said, saying there needs to be a balance in housing stock or else the city would be home to only those too poor to live elsewhere "and those wealthy enough to insulate themselves."

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, pouring from my mouth every 15 seconds.

Congratulations on making use of the last thread of common sense I never assumed you had DeStefano.

Now you just have to realize you can't cut out the abundant "affordable" housing and still accept all of these prisoner dumps week after week.

There are many other things drawing the poor to New Haven. You just cut back in the housing available to them without cutting back on everything else you'll just get more homeless poor.

I'm surprised he would admit to what NH's future is set to be but I'm doubtful he'll push to do everything that would be required to rectify the situation.

Posted by: charlie | February 14, 2008 9:51 AM

"Moving or changing the Church Street South housing complex without reducing the number of low-income housing units available"

How about moving it and NOT replacing the units? New Haven already has WAY more than its fair share of subsidized housing. The surrounding cities need to pick up the slack.

The city needs to wake up and realize what they are doing in the long term. Living in New Haven will only be more affordable when the downtown becomes denser (and more valuable, even wealthier), more jobs come, and surrounding neighborhoods then become denser, enabling people to take transportation or walk to their jobs without relying on expensive private automobile use. Building subsidized housing is the completely wrong approach, and actually makes living here MORE expensive for everyone.

Posted by: PowertothePeople | February 14, 2008 10:01 AM

I've said this before and will keep saying it. The focus needs to stop being on providing affordable housing but on how we can get people to afford houses. I'm talking job creation in for-profit businesses and not more social services. I know of at least 6 non-profit agencies who build affordable housing in the city and they often end up fighting for the same freebie resources. THAT'S CRAZY!!!

I think what the mayor proposes is an excellent very high level plan but needs a lot of detail before it can be real. It will also require a joint effort between government (CT, NH and all the surrounding towns), business (for-profit- let's get rid of some of the non-profit social services), education (I don't even want to get into the school board crap) and every citizen who lives here. We need to see that it is in ALL of our mutual self interests to make this place sustainable in every way. I think Johnny D said 79k jobs and 52k are folks who commute into the city? If NH fails the region suffers.

James - I'm here because I want to be here. I love this city for some strange reason (still working with my shrink on that one) and have turned down positions in other parts of the country and world to stay here. I've been here 3 years. I came as a third career Yalie grad student and fell in love with the town. But I'm giving it 5 more and if I don't see progress... I'm out. Now that also means that I have to make sure that I am an agent of that change.

Posted by: evst1 | February 14, 2008 10:17 AM

Well said, James. I, for one, take every opportunity to get away from New Haven when I can. I'm looking forward to retirement (or career change), either of which will get me out of here. I moved in to New Haven from the suburbs a decade ago...what a mistake. Taxes twice as high, 1/10 of the land and city services that are a bad joke at best. New Haven has become a two-company town (Yale and the city) and we're the worse for it.

Posted by: Nonsense | February 14, 2008 11:47 AM

Affordable housing needs to be taken down a notch in New Haven and expanded to other towns.
We do not have a regional property tax system and as such we need wealthier people living in New Haven to account for all of the non taxpaying individuals.
To say this does not make a person unsympathetic to poverty or a bigot, but rather a rationalist.
We can not keep subsidizing the havenots if we don't welcome the have's.

Posted by: charlie | February 14, 2008 1:08 PM

Move out - it will make the city more affordable for the rest of us. To be honest, your complaints sound kind of ridiculous considering the sky-high level of demand for housing in New Haven, particularly among young professionals.

Posted by: Andy Ross | February 14, 2008 2:55 PM

Cedarhill, I was there last night, invited by Jeff. I will give you a few of my thoughts. My question to the Mayor was "wills this "Future Frame work" become part of an adopted official master plan for the city'? I liked his honest response. He said "I am not proposing anything at this moment officially, just fishing for input from the community."

He thought a master plan might serve as to restrictive. He may be right I hope that is a sincere answer, and he really will listen to people. I think the vision is grand and necessary if New Haven is going to have any chance at keeping up with the changing landscapes of growing and robust cities.

Let's not forget that this plan is designed to grow, attract, and add tax base. While he did not talk about how we are going to pay for this, I respect that too, because frankly, I am sure he does not know yet. To put this kind of a grand vision on paper is the first step. The details will follow.

In summary, it was a good feeling to see this kind of thinking and hear it directly from our Mayor. I hope the whole community gets on board and gives him their thoughts, so that buildings do not start getting torn down and every one plays dumb, like they did not know this was going to happen.

Good Job.

Andy Ross

Posted by: James | February 14, 2008 3:52 PM

...Well, that's great news for all of us looking to sell. Can you tell me where to go about finding these "young professionals" scrambling for housing and driving up the prices? Because last I checked average home prices were down about 12% and sales were down about 20%. Can I place my home for sale with Imaginary Charlie Realty for which the New Haven housing market is booming?

Also, I might want to stop by Imaginary Charlie Career Counseling. You seem to have the inside track on some really super opportunities. Can you tell me where all of these young professional home buyers are working here in the heart of New Haven? I know that there are boundless opportunities for mid level and executive management types in New Haven, but I just don't know where to find them.

Posted by: charlie | February 14, 2008 10:13 PM

Ever hear of Sikorsky, General Electric, Unilever, or any of the other Fortune 500s with offices within a half hour drive of New Haven? Or a nearby town called Hartford, which is bigger than New Haven and has 125,000 jobs, but isn't particularly desirable to young people? You're missing my point, which is please stop complaining and just move out if you hate the place. I'm sure that Naugatuck would be happy to have you.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 14, 2008 10:30 PM

Here's my input. I hope the mayor reads this. He's peddling a fairy tale with the skill of a snake oil saleman. This entire plan is not worth spending two seconds thinking about. It will require massive amounts of federal and state dollars and will take years to gain approvals. DeStefeno will likely be dead by the time anything close to this becomes reality. So perhaps he could spend some time on near term goals.

This is a diversionary tactic to avoid having to talk and work on the real issues facing this city - crime, a police department under seige, an educational system that is performing less than it should, rising poverty, decreasing homeownership, runaway taxes, a foreclosure crisis with subprime loans, the WPCA foreclosures and of course, now the tax collector CJ Cuticello is out with new torture tools to run up the bills, fees and penalties of car owners who owe back taxes.

Running the city and actually solving problems is hard, tough work particularly if you've spent the last 14 years solving nothing and three of those years running like hell to become governor so you don't have to ever fix anything in New Haven.

Forget the fairy tale, mayor. Get to work and spend that energy you have figuring out how to run the city more efficiently, effectively and fairly. When you actually start accomplishing something, perhaps you'll have some free time to dream a bit. In the meantime, you've got some real pressing problems which you're being paid handsomely to fix.

Posted by: Ned | February 15, 2008 8:32 AM

"He [the Mayor] called the city a place of dead ends" just walk across the street, from Union Station, into the dead end maze of the Church Street South project and see for yourself. Welcome to New Haven. I'm glad the mayor has another vision for the city, other than having it become the social service nexus for the entire region.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 8:52 AM

Charlie, I don't think I am missing the point. Do you really think that GE, Unilever, etc. folks are scrambling to live in New Haven? There's nothing to suggest that this is happening, and it's counterintuitive when there are so many nearby towns with good schools, lower taxes, lower crime, and a better standard of living. And I don't even know why I would bother to respond to the "If you don't like it, get out!" argument that has been ignorantly bellowed by morons for centuries. The point of dissent is to affect change. And barring that, some people just need to vent.

That being said, I do intend to get out just as soon as I can and you and your ilk can get back to wallowing in the urban decay and corruption you seem so fond of. I'm sure you'll do just fine without the tax money brought in by people who actually have jobs and work to improve their communities. Soon enough you will have replaced people like me with some more Dollars Stores and maybe a few new hair braiding studios. Until then I guess you'll just have to put up with people who think that there might be some hope for New Haven if only people would just stop accepting conditions as a foregone conclusion.

Posted by: Frank Iezzi | February 15, 2008 9:38 AM

People who think that this city needs more housing ought to just take a walk around East Rock and see all the "For Rent" signs that have been popping up on lawns like weeds. Never seen till about 5 years ago, but proliferating as the city keeps on encouraging more luxury housing in downtown. Doesn't help with homeowners facing huge mortgages with no rental income to pay it with. Can anyone say "foreclosure" ?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 15, 2008 10:45 AM

Thanks Andy, I to see this being a good thing. It is a start and yes Gary it is not something that we may see in the here and now but someone has to get the ball rolling on it, which it appears by Andy's comment is what the mayor is saying. But I heared about these plans with Church street south a few years ago from CORD who had a map of this whole part of the city being changed. Kind of the Princeton effect starting to happen to the city (not a good thing for the middle income or the poor for that fact).

But I to do agree with the comments made by Gary about the need for downtown to address the problems we are facing now. Truth is yes this is a great thing and I am glad to see the start of the future....but if the present is not fixed the future may not be as grand a place.

Posted by: charlie | February 15, 2008 11:22 AM

James - I'm essentially agreeing with you on every point. I think that there should basically be a moritorium on all new subsidized housing within New Haven proper, and that at least 2/3rd of the subsidized housing currently located in New Haven should be phased out over the next 5-10 years and NOT replaced. The suburbs need to pick up their fair share.

All I am disputing is your contention that New Haven isn't a desirable place to live. If it isn't desirable, how come the rental market is so strong, and how come home prices in many neighborhoods are still so high (even with the high tax rates)? As far as Sikorsky and other corporations go, I know dozens of people who work at those companies and choose to live in New Haven because frankly, the rest of the state is a horrible suburban wasteland. I know many people who would not move out of New Haven no matter how much you paid them, unless perhaps you bribed them with one of those $2 million beach homes on Linden Avenue (10 minutes away). People are clamoring to live here.

Remove some of the subsidized housing and reduce tax rates on building permits, and our economy will do even better. This in turn will actually make it more affordable to live here (see above).

Posted by: robn | February 15, 2008 1:01 PM

Tearing out the RT 34 connector is an asinine idea and is clearly a bizzare coopting of a similarly asinine proposal by the Urban Design League. UDL sought to make the connector a slow surface road.

The RT 34 connector admittedly did a lot of damage when it was built, but that damage is A DONE DEAL and is nothing compared to the collateral damage caused TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS if its removed. The RT 34 connector may not be pretty, but its a vital traffic dispersal device for downtown and its removal will introduce a domino effect of MASSIVE traffic exiting through both Church Street South AND EAST ROCK NEIGHBORHOOD.

There are already too many semis and commuters howling down Willow Street, State Street and Orange Street. We need less of this, not more.

PAY ATTENTION EAST ROCKERS...THIS PROPOSAL IS A GUN POINTED IN YOUR DIRECTION.

THINK AGAIN MAYOR DESTEFANO!

Posted by: charlie | February 15, 2008 2:38 PM

Robn, the connector will not be removed.

A much more pedestrian friendly "urban boulevard", carrying the same volume of traffic but lined with beautiful trees and buildings producing hundreds of jobs and millions in new tax revenue for the city, will merely be substituted in its place.

Posted by: robn | February 15, 2008 4:05 PM

Charlie,

Dream on man. If the connector is replaced with a low speed urban blvd, it will cease to be an effective feeder. Traffic already backs up on it during rush hours. If the existing behemoth of a road can't absorb traffic quickly enough, a smaller, slower "urban boulevard" certainly won't be able to. If a less effective feeder is put in, even more traffic will back up on I-91 and will naturally divert to other exits, including ones through East Rock; State Street, Willow Street and Trumbull Street. Not to mention the back-ups on I-95, on the Q-bridge, which will certainly divert to Wooster Square via Hamilton and the aforementioned East Rock exits.

The UDL is clueless about the repercussions of their idea and the mayor is obviously looking for federal pork.

This proposal is ridiculous. East Rockers and Wooster Square people (who pay a LOT of taxes) should be very alarmed.

Posted by: Kevin | February 15, 2008 5:25 PM

Robn, I don't see how modifying Rt. 34 affects East Rock at all. Cars currently using Rte. 34 would have to go more than a mile out of their way to come to East Rock. For the record, I live about 400' from I-91 and about 300' from the exit 3 ramp.

Charlie, with regard to your first comment, state law (CGS Sec. 8-64a)requires the city to replace any public housing units it demolishes on one-to-one basis.

Posted by: robn | February 16, 2008 8:28 AM

kev,

Think about cars coming to new haven from the other directions...I-91 south and I-95 North and South

Posted by: Ned | February 16, 2008 9:08 AM

Robn has a point. Willow St. already serves as a relief valve for traffic backed up on I91 South. The traffic on Willow has become much worse, often being backed up from Orange St. to Foster St., as drivers of cars and 18 wheelers seek to avoid the I91/I95/Rte.34 malfunction junction. The state could try something like making the exit for carpools only, in the a.m., or charging people to use the exit, at peak times, but I doubt that's going to happen before I move out. The city could catch a lot of speeders on Willow, that might make it a less attractive alternative. Either way, the state is building a "flyover" to connect I95 north to Rte.34, so the mayor better talk to someone in Hartford, at the Department of Tar, to coordinate. Rte.34 as highway or boulevard, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference - traffic is going to increase either way.

Posted by: WestvilleMom | February 16, 2008 2:05 PM

I haven't seen the Rt. 34 design proposal, but from what I've gleaned from the description, this is intended as a broad boulevard which would most likely include more left turns. Some of the back-up coming off the connector at present results from the limited options for turns. Also, one of the biggest problems with the street system of New Haven is that so many streets are one-way and you just can't "get there from here", unless you know the city very well. For the record, for 7 years I came down I-91 after visiting my mother at Bella Vista and almost never got off at Trumbull, unless I had to stop in the Yale area, because making your way across the entire city to the west side is tedious. If this boulevard were to be elegantly, intelligently, and logically designed, with many options for turns, I think it would actually be highly desirable as the main entrance to the city. But importantly, this should be coupled with other street re-designs too, particularly in the Y-NH hospital area. How many of the current "traffic" problems and back-ups are actually due to people being forced to go around the block or multiple blocks to get somewhere? It seems to me that there is a lot of unnecessary traffic in this city that could be alleviated with a more "organic" approach to planning.

Posted by: OH WELL | February 17, 2008 7:27 PM

Robn here comes the car's Traffic is on the way like birds going south in the winter. Garage in Science Park BIG BIG GARAGE between 500-800 car's.HO HO HO jobs for forks in the area?

Posted by: Kevin | February 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Robn

I've driven 91 south from Hartford to East Rock on a daily basis for nearly 20 years-I don't buy the argument that changing the design of 34 will substantially affect traffic in the neighborhood. On the other hand, I believe that both Ned and Westvillemom are right-the 91/95/34 interchange is very badly designed, as is the one-way system downtown, and both problems spill over to the neighborhood. Mike Piscetelli is working on the latter problem, but it needs to be fixed before Gateway, Shartenburg, and the Cancer Center totally bollocks up traffic downtown.

Posted by: Ned | February 19, 2008 4:55 PM

The traffic "solutions" seem more like where the "clog" is going to be moved to. For example, usually, when I91 south is blocked, I95 south moves a little freer, as the traffic flow is "metered" from I91 onto I95. When I91 south is flowing smoothly, I95 south gets backed up through Long Wharf. Either way traffic on Willow is getting worse - I'm guessing because people have GPS units that are directing them around the traffic jams, and onto city streets. Any traffic engineers want to do a study on GPS effects on traffic patterns? Kudos to the city for allowing parking on Chapel St. between Orange St. and Church St.!