New Haven Independent

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | June 26, 2008 11:33 AM

The majority of original residents who returned to the Terrace are in public housing so they pay no rent, can't be fined, and are essentially free of the threat of eviction, which leaves management with little leverage.

And what makes you think that this Norman Rockwell housing development is going to look this way in a year? Things that are given to you have no value. Precious tax dollars will have been blown to hell! You wonder why this city is in so much trouble. Wish someone would build me a home for nothing! What's the point in working?

Posted by: jdavis | June 26, 2008 12:13 PM

when i moved here a year ago i went to check out that area since it is nice, clean and near the water. i thought it could be a nice community. however driving around then, and again a few weeks ago I have noticed the same issues that were described here. that is such a shame! its a great location, nice area, new construction, and close to the city... and we are not charging them anything! I would have paid rent to live there, and taken care of the place. instead it will quickly become rundown and dilapidated. Thank God for community members such as the ones mentioned above. More parents, citizens need to care about what goes on in their own home and on their own street, and have pride in their home.
I wish that development the best of luck, but i dont think by not charging them anything is the right way to go about succeeding.

Posted by: NotsoNewHaven | June 26, 2008 12:19 PM

I agree. I work extremely hard for my earnings and pay very much of my hard earned money to the government. It is a disgrace that there are individuals out there who can basically float around freely with no intention to work, participate in the community or pay taxes-- on my dime.
This city is the most backwards place I've ever lived. We give more freedom and rights to our homeless and jobless population than to those who not only respect themselves, but the community we live in as well. I'm tired of telling homeless/jobless individuals in this town 'No' when they come to my front door begging for money,I am tired of letting them roam our streets and feeling completely unsafe to walk around on my own. I'll be the first to say- if this city didn't have Yale University it would go to crap. I do say thank you to those who are making a difference in this city- but what we need is a Police Force who cares and PROTECTS it's citizens, and a Government that stops babying the homeless.

Posted by: dak | June 26, 2008 12:39 PM

Public housing,no rent no responsibilities. The city should have scatterd sight housing. This place will end up a dump. You can't group people together.

Posted by: robn | June 26, 2008 1:08 PM

By not instituting credit and crimnal checks, and by having NO teeth in the lease agreements, the housing authority is not only acting irresponsibly with tax dollars, but it is also acting irresponsibly to those tenants who are respectful and law abiding and want to live in a neighborhood free of trouble. This is simply an outrage.

Posted by: 2nd Amendment | June 26, 2008 2:25 PM

Fed-Up:

Couldn't agree more. I've lived in the New Haven area for 25 years and have driven past the Church St. South and Q. Terrace projects almost every day. I can't count the total number of plywood-over-windows / new-window cycles that these places have gone through.

Should have left the old buildings...at least brick is more durable than frame construction.

Posted by: DEZ | June 26, 2008 4:59 PM

I have great hope for Q Terrace. I chose to live in this very Fair Haven neighborhood for its sense of history, diversity, and of course the Quinnipiac River. However, I distinctly remember being told that persons from the old 'Q' wishing to come to the new 'Q' would have to attend 'move to work' type classes geared to give a hand up, not a hand out. I hope that these 'sparsely attended' meetings become jam packed with residents who wish to take control of their lives in whatever way they can to better themselves and their community. The parishioners of St Rose of Lima marched on the houses of known youth offenders who terrorized their Fair Haven enclave and took control of their lives. If the majority of the law abiding residents of Q Terrace realize that they have a voice, and now with this new development, a beautiful new home to defend the right to live in, the power is theirs to make the lives of the 'rotten apples' in the barrel hell. With the help of the management company, Housing Authority, police and elected alders, there is nothing they cannot do to change the situation. Multiple community groups in the area want this to work and have offered outreach to the residents of Q Terrace. I have what I have because of who I was brought up to be and that's that. I once took exception to those getting the 'free ride', and frankly looked down on 'them'. Guess what? 'They' are 'us'. There are friends of mine that think I have more than them, and there are friends that I think have more than me. When you learn to be happy with what you have, and give back what you can when you can, you learn that the economic argument is not the one to make. Scattered site housing? Sure it works, but I can still point a finger at both scattered site houses and section eight rentals within a block radius of our house not due to economics alone, but socio-economics and lifestyle choices that need serious augmentation to break the cycle of 'hand outs'. On the other hand, I can also point to those very houses where people are working against sub-prime conditions to better both themselves and their families. With this, like Q Terrace, I have hope. If, after all of this, you still cannot be happy with your own lot, and help others where you can, then get dirty and plant a tree with one of the great URI Greenspace groups! Friends of Chatham Square, Atwater Street blockwatch, Cedar Hill...there are dozens in New Haven where you can physically change the landscape of your neighborhood, and with it, your mindset!

Posted by: bugupit | June 26, 2008 8:50 PM

Seems most posting to this article are afraid funding this housing will make it harder for the Government to give them their millionaire's estate tax break and might lead to a millionaire's income tax surcharge. Sorry to pop your bubble, but tenants pay 30% of their household income in rent. This is checked at least annualy and should be updated as needed. Falsifying would be Federal fraud.

You have read here about Nichole Jefferson and the City/HANH jobs program. Don't you get it? In theory anyway, here's how it works: Training==> Jobs==>paying rent ===> responsible attitude and promotion ==> moving out of QT to live next door to you!

Posted by: Hooligan | June 26, 2008 9:24 PM

I agree that there has to be a set of bylaws in place to protect the honest people there, if you get arrested for selling drugs or carrying a weapon, you and your family should be evicted.

I disagree with Dak, people can live together, look at Monterey Pl. do you remember the high rises, or was that before your time? The problem isn't people living so close, that brings people closer, it's the bad apples that ruin it for the group and get everybody labled. I lived in public housing in the 70's, and we looked out for each other. It's this new generation, and there selfish ways.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | June 27, 2008 7:08 AM

BUGUPIT,

30%? What part of that is paid for by assistance and vouchers?

BTW, I have a better flow chart to show you that is fact and not theory. It's been in play since 1965, ground zero for Great Society trillion dollar spending sham and War on Poverty:

Government assistance==>dependency==>destruction of black families ==> single teenage moms with multiple children ==> incentivize single moms to pop out more illegitimate babies paid for by the government ==> blame the white man ==> More government assistance ==> scatter site housing==> moving out of New Haven because I don't want to live next door to a drug house and watch my property value and quality of life vanish ==> New Haven becomes Bridgeport ==> liberals can't figure out what went wrong and repeat same mistake over and over again

Posted by: disgusted | June 27, 2008 8:44 AM

I don't understand how the old tenants come back in with no criminal/background checks..not paying rent or nothing what a sweet deal....they don't work ? why not? because the housing authority allows it....time to change the rules a little don't you think..parents can get full/or partime jobs and contrubutr a little..you see the clothes they wear or the cars they drive...hell my car is 12 years old...who pays for their luxuries...yea i am pissed...management can't throw the bad seeds out...but the ones pay rent yea money..could be thrown out ..something wrong with this picture.

Posted by: facChek | June 27, 2008 12:21 PM

To disgusted and all others.

The article is just not factual. All public housing tenants with income pay 30% of adjusted income. Bugupit had that portion correct.
If a tenant pays no rent at all it's because after gaining entry with income, for what ever reason that person or family lost all sources of income. In that rare instance, that tenant will pay zero rent but is encouraged to find work.
All of you are reacting to the false comment by the assistant manager Vanessa Porrata. The manager Jenishah Johnson and the HA should correct her.

As far as the lack of back ground check is concerned,
According to the transfer agreement between the HA and the original tenant, the original tenant receives first move back choice, since they were previously screened no new checks are required.

All of these provisions are consistent with federal law.

You all are over reacting to a partially inaccurate story and false statements made by the management at Q- Terrace.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | June 27, 2008 1:02 PM

FACCHECK,

What you have explained does not change the situation. You stated that anyone can claim they lost their job, then pay no rent (which also means utilities) and only be "encouraged" to find work. If their is employment, you can get paid under the table and live pretty high.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has thought about gaming the system that way!

Posted by: robn | June 27, 2008 1:27 PM

FACCHECK,

Its evident that HAHN has a problem with its tenants since there is a clearly visible degredation of (some of) their properties. For instance, Farnam Court near Grand and Hamilton was completely renovated in the late 90s and in less than ten years a visible number of units have been boarded up becuase of property damage. I don't agree with some of the "abandon the poor" sympathies expressed here but I do think that periodic, not just first time entry, background checks are necceesary to assure the working poor that their efforts to better their environment isn't contaminated by criminals.

Posted by: facChek | June 27, 2008 3:41 PM

Fed up & Robn,

Perhaps you are right from where you sit in this society and the prism you are looking through.

I am not defending the HA in this case, god forbid, their management practices range from poor to disdain.

However, in this instance the posters are suggesting, with assistance from the management comments here,... " "Although it's new and it's beautiful, they still have that mentality that 'I don't work, I don't pay rent,'" she said.

That may be the assistant managers opinion but it is not HA policy. Many of your have formed your opinions and statements in response to that falsity.
Robn, more than 95% of public housing tenants are law abiding rent paying people. If during the course of the two year lease cycle, a tenant breaks the law, that in itself is not reason to evict any more so than if a city dwelling renter broke the law. The courts will not up hold such a premise.
Fed-up:
If a tenant has a rent reduced to zero and works under the table, as fed-up questions, yes he would be gaming the system. But if caught the tenant would have to pay all back rent and then face eviction action for fraud.

I hope these comments add clarity to the issue.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | June 27, 2008 5:36 PM

ROBN,

The only person in that article telling the truth is the assistant manager. Reality trumps HA policy.

95% of public housing tenants are law abiding and pay rent? What are you smoking? Where do you get those stats? I form my opinions from life experience and what I see with my own eyes. Ask yourself why the lifespan of a public housing unit is about 15 years.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | June 28, 2008 11:58 AM

Sorry ROBN,

My mistake. That last comment was supposed to be directed at FACCHECK

Posted by: robn | June 28, 2008 1:09 PM

facchek,

I'm not speculating about the percentage of cirminals in public housing. I'm observing damaged (not aged, but damaged) property that appears to be tenant inflicted and I'm also defending the right of working poor to be free from a criminal element. I'm not sure that what you wrote about HAHN's inability to evict criminals is true. CT Judiciary has a pamphlet on landlords and renters rights that suggest that crimanl checks are NOT disciminatory.

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/Publications/hm031.pdf

Maybe this isn't the case for public housing???do you have a source for your statement and also for your 95% law abiding figure?

Posted by: facChek | June 28, 2008 1:58 PM

Fed-up, in response to your comment....

"Ask yourself why the lifespan of a public housing unit is about 15 years".

Q-Terrace was built in 1939 and Farnum court in 1940/41. So.. 2008 minus 1940 = 60 year life span for the basic unit between re-build.
Are you going to believe these fact or your lying eyes??

Posted by: -fairhavener- | June 28, 2008 10:55 PM

I find it a problem when I go to the park (across from Q Terrace) with my family and we see little kids 12-15 years old come down from one of the units on Front St and sit in the park and drink 40 oz's, while their mom sits on their porch across the street.

I find it even more appalling that the police don't care enough to come down and enforce underage drinking even after we called them.

I had a lot more points in my first post that got deleted, but I can't remember at this point.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | June 29, 2008 7:57 AM

FACCHEK,

We have a different population of public housing tenants since the 40's. Why don't you pick a property that was built in 1990, and then tell me what condition it's in now?

Posted by: fac Chek | June 29, 2008 10:38 AM

Robn,

I agree that looking from the out side at a boarded unit it appears to be tenant caused damage. HANH routinely boards up vacant units to prevent looting, so from the outside it is difficult to tell if in fact a previous tenant inflicted damage.

I also agree that law abiding people have a "right of working poor to be free from crime, including all over the city of New haven. But guess what, that just is not the case.

I did not say the HANH does not have the ability to evict criminals, you need to read more closely, I said, in response to your comment concerning evicting criminals above, "If during the course of the two year lease cycle, a tenant breaks the law, that in itself is not reason to evict any more so than if a city dwelling renter breaks the law. The courts will not up hold such a vague premise. The HANH, nor private landlords do not evict for breach of peace, or trespassing, or any other civil misdemeanor.
The 95% tenants in good standing comes from the HANH tenant manual.

So Robn, as you can see we basically agree in principal.

Posted by: Edward_H | June 29, 2008 11:28 AM

-fairhavener-

I find it even more appalling that the police don't care enough to come down and enforce underage drinking even after we called them

Most likely becasue if they did enforce the law the mother would then claim the cops are "Harrassing my babies" and proclaim that her kids "wasn't doing nothing wrong". Then the usual suspects would show up and claim they city is not providing enough activities for the kids and claim that suburban kids drink all day and no one arrests them so the underage drinking law is just a conspiracy to criminalize urban youth and give them records in order to expand the prison industrial complex and provide jobs for the suburbs and overtime for the police.

Posted by: DEZ | June 29, 2008 4:58 PM

The housing authority must have the basics on rebuilds at Q Terrace, but I know the original development went through at least 2 major rebuilds in it's 1939-2006 life-span. One of which was to reconfigure the entryway of each unit to eliminate the long interior corridors due in part to crime. I also know the tenants association post-war (WWII) prided itself on the community vegetable gardens. As well, in that time, Dover Beach Park was a destination for many people with swimming pavilions and food vendors. It wasn't all bad in the day, and needn't be now. Again, I have hope.

Posted by: Chris Gray | June 30, 2008 12:55 AM

I can remember back to the tumultuous '60s and the efforts of the War on Poverty. In New Haven, we had Community Progress where my boss, Eric Sandahl, met my co-worker and later benefactor at The Elder, Rita Reutter, providing, if I recall the program correctly, jobs for youth who several years earlier had been rioting in the streets. Many of them had their lives turned around, I'd guess. The '80s were pretty mellow.

I can also remember the boarded up units at Brookside, Rockview, Q-Terrace, and Farnum Courts of the '80s and early '90s, both from delivering Elders there, but also later driving mothers and grandmothers from these projects to meetings of Tenants Against Drugs, Dammit!, a project of the Coalition for People, which organized public housing tenants and churches for empowerment. With public housing, maintenance was always another big complaint but we also organized field trips for kids in summer.

Dez, there is much that can be done and it sounds like some folks are lined up to help out. I am glad there are some optimists left. There have to be some people who don't just throw up their hands and say, "Nothing I can do!"

Posted by: NH | July 10, 2008 9:31 PM

So they conduct no background check, no drug testing & then they pay partial rent and the tax payers swallow the rest? Just about anyone who applies for a job has to go through these steps but from the postings I have read it doesnt sound like most of these tennants would be able to pass them. Good thing they only "encourage" them to get employment. The system is totally backwards. How about you pass the testing, background/employment check and then we help you out with your rent. If you do lose your employement you are required to show up at a state office where you spend the day contacting employers and applying for jobs until you find new employment. As long as you supply this crutch where they dont have to work and are given new places to live there is no incentive to working hard. I have been working 40-50hrs a week for 20 years and have never lived in a brand new home but I'm glad my tax dollars have paid for theirs. What else can we give them, how about a new car while we are at it to go in front of that new house?