New Haven Independent: Lone Voice Blasts Final Scattered-Site Sale

Lone Voice Blasts Final Scattered-Site Sale

by Allan Appel | August 13, 2008 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (26)

“First, of all, please,” Nancy Ahern said. “This is not a race issue. I have grandchildren the color of Barack Obama.”

Ahern showed up at the Housing Authority of New Haven’s (HANH) Orange Street headquarters Wednesday to speak out against the last of 183 “scattered-site” homes being purchased around the city.

She was one of only two speakers, and the only one blasting the program. She did spark one last debate about the merits and drawbacks of a controversial, drawn-out effort to create an alternative to clustering poor families in dense high-rise ghettos like the old Elm Haven high-rise projects, which the city demolished.

Ahern lives on West Rock Avenue, around the corner from 571 Central Ave. The HANH plans to buy the Colonial home at 571 Central to rent to a public-housing family. It is the third house on the block the authority will have purchased under the scattered-site program, which is designed to spread out public housing in small pieces in neighborhoods across town. HANH previously thought it had finished buying properties for the program, but one sale fell through. (Click here for an account of hte previous “final” public hearing and a review of the program’s arson-touched history).

Nancy Ahern was a Republican alderwoman from 1992 to 2003. She rose at Wednesday morning’s hearing to oppose the purchase.

She cited what she called perennial neglect of HANH scattered-site properties in her area. 571 Central will bring to three owned by HANH, including the one adjacent to and across the street from it.

Karen Dubois-Walton, the new executive director of HANH, recommended the purchase in part because it would be the grouped with two other houses in the area and make for easier maintenance.

Ahern wasn’t impressed.

“You can always tell a HANH property because the grass isn’t cut and the snow is not shoveled,” she charged. “What this program amounts to is what I call ‘demolition by neglect.’ Other people from the neighborhood would be here, except they weren’t notified, including the owner of the property himself.”

Then she called attention to the taxes lost in the program. “571 pays $10,000 in city taxes. Who will make up for that, and the hundreds of thousands lost from the other properties? We all will have to.”

Then, after citing HANH tenants’ alleged behavioral issues, such as the playing of loud music late in the night and unfriendliness, she made two suggestions: First, HANH should have a social integration and training program so clients learn how to be better neighbors. Second, the kids who move in should attend the local schools.

“I met my best friend at Edgewood [School] parent meetings,” she said, “but it’s a magnet school [now] and most of the spots are taken. The authority should work with the school system on making spots available. That would help. It also would make sense of these scattered-site rentals were a step toward home ownership.”

HANH board Chair Bob Solomon and Dubois-Walton listened respectfully but silently.

The second speaker, Maureen O’Sullivan, was more supportive — of scattered-site housing being in Westville rather than where she lives across town.

“I like the fact that scattered-site units are being put in the west of the city,” she said, “because our area, the north east of the city, particularly, Quinnipiac Meadows, has had more than our fair share.”

She criticized scattered-site housing amid condos, which is the case around St. Anthony’s Street, off Quinnipiac Avenue, because the kids don’t have enough backyard area to play.

“Lots of condo owners come to our management team meetings with issues about the behavior of kids from the area . Repeatedly, we’ve asked HANH representatives to come to the meetings.”

O’Sullivan, who is active in the management team and also the Foxon/Essex block watch, said she was pleased that Dubois-Walton pledged to come to the upcoming management team meetings to hear out neighbors.

For a response to Ahern’s critique, HANH’s legal counsel, Rolan Joni Young, referred a reporter to Shelly White, litigation director for New Haven Legal Assistance. White represented some of the clients in the 1993 court decision that paved the way for the program. She just happened to be in the lobby of HANH headquarters with Maria Velez, a paralegal colleague.

“I pronounce,” she said, “the scattered -ite housing program a tremendous success. It is a rental program. It was never intended to be for home ownership; that’s a good goal, but that’s another separate tack HANH is pursuing. To turn the 183 into homeownership units, you’d have to go through a crazy process with HUD [federal Department of Housing and Urba Development], and then, to replace each one, HANH would probably have to purchase another property.

“As to ‘social integration,’ please! According to the ruling, we treat people who move into this housing like anyone else, like any neighbor. And they can send their kids to school anywhere they want. Some kids might have special needs. Having said that, I know HANH keeps a special separate list of candidate families for scattered site housing who are screened; they know what’s expected of them.”

And what about the loss of city taxes issue?

“First of all, of the 183 units, there are far fewer actual properties, and many of these were built on open land, where taxes were not being paid. Maybe 25 percent — I’m not sure of the figure — are in pre-existing houses. In addition, I think there is some kind of PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) that HUD does indeed reimburse the city.”

Was Ahern mollified as she left the meeting? “They’re going to buy the house anyway,” she said. “The owner put his place up for sale as soon as the house next to it was purchased by HANH. He would have been here but he didn’t know about the meeting. What are you going to do?”

Commission Chairman Solomon indicated the proper formal notice had been placed in the Register. (The Reg also ran a news story in advance of the hearing.) The sparse attendance at this meeting, as in the previous, was perhaps due to legal requirements per the 1993 court decision not to notify neighbors specifically in order to integrate new residents in the neighborhood without calling attention to them.

Solomon and the commissioners thanked the speakers, and adjourned the meeting.

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: robn | August 13, 2008 12:59 PM

What if nobody who cares about good reporting reads the Register becuase it sucks? So much for proper notification.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 13, 2008 1:01 PM

Suggestion!!
You need a complaint phone number! You need to keep track of community complaints! And you may need classes to help people understand their obligation to the homes they live in and the neighbors they live near! I am all for the scattered house program but it needs some fixing! It needs to also protect the community's they are in!

Posted by: Ben | August 13, 2008 1:23 PM

Cedarhill, You prbably saw this coming from me but here it is:
SeeClickFix.com is a good place to report issues to housing authority.
you can draw a map around new haven and attach the keywords "housing authority" then just attach their complaint email address or similar.
The tool is yours to do with it what you will.

Posted by: walt bradley | August 13, 2008 1:27 PM

I live on Central ave, and from the day i moved into my apartment, i was able to pick out the HANH house while walking my dog. The house doesn't make my neighborhood better, and i don't see the new house making my neighborhood better either.
Ms. ahern is on the money about the upkeep of the property, and about potential ownership by the tenants. I believe if you give someone a reason to treat the place they live in better they will. At the very least, able bodied tennants should be required to invest some sweat equity into the property they are being given a 90% break on. the housing authority makes a crappy landlord as far as those of us are concerned. maybe ms. walton-dubois should be given free rent in one of the units as part of her compensation
I moved to westville because it was safer than downtown, my next move will be out of town.

Posted by: JackNH | August 13, 2008 1:42 PM

Those of you who think you're in favor of scattered housing might wish to read the article below from THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/memphis-crime

Posted by: jt | August 13, 2008 1:50 PM

scattered housing should be scattered. in order for this to be successful, it must be scattered throughout the city. this is the THIRD house on the BLOCK !!! this does not sound very scattered to me - and it should sound scattered to you either!

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | August 13, 2008 2:41 PM

Cedar Hills, in the past you've demonstrated that you're a skilled cinematographer. Perhaps you could make an HANH educational video to be watched by those selected to the scattered-site home program, sort of like the video the Dutch show new immigrants. As everyone likes to say, education is the most pressing civil rights issue of our time. Adding an educational component to the home program would be good for the community and could be seen as an act of social justice.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 13, 2008 4:48 PM

Of course I knew it was coming Ben that is why we love ya.

Nestor I am sure their is a group of yale students or even the Youth Rights Media that would do a better job. But to your point...you are right this would be for education purposes. A way to undo the cycle that the projects have started. Ex: when you live in a development their is on site maintenance that picks the trash up that you through down, in community's it is your responsibility.
And the defensive dog eat dog attitude is not the way it is in community's. You don't have to like your neighbor but you do have to leave with them...I am sure their is some social worker out thier that can think up a simple 1 hour tape that can be played, but that must be accompanied by follow up reviews. And their must be a way for the housing authority to monitor if people are braking their contracts that allow them to live in these houses. I pray that the housing athority relizes you can not dump people into communitys and expect all of the to dive right in, so do but many don't. this is a simple way to protect communitys, and help these people become part of them.

Posted by: Norton St. | August 13, 2008 5:40 PM

JackNH, the article is very moving and somewhat unnerving but what does it have to do with new haven?
"populations of between 500,000 and 1 million"
although new haven has the culture of a larger city it is still very small.
new haven is about 3 times denser than memphis so the odds of having 40 to 50 shots fired in westville is pretty slim. the reason crime ballooned in memphis is because of the excess of winding roads in the northern part of the city, if scattered house was implemented in a place like woodbridge there might be a problem but to me it seems most places in new haven are dense enough that it cant happen.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 13, 2008 7:19 PM

ps did you know the only thing that can get bad tenants out of these units is if the cops have made arrests directly connected to that unit! It does not matter how they treat your area they can do what ever they want on your tax dollars. Sorry I have had a few bad people over here and have watched destruction right in front of me...but I also have seen family's use this for what it is a stepping stone for better, and have become wonderful community members. so If the HA can just figure out how to give this wonderful EMERGENCY program to people that diserve it that are on long waiting list to have a place for their familys instead of people who abuse it I would be one happy camper.

Posted by: robn | August 13, 2008 8:55 PM

Everyone who cares about New Haven should hit JACKNH's link and read the article. Its a sobering view of scattered site housing.

Posted by: TwoViews | August 13, 2008 9:20 PM

Another entity to begin to watch is Mutual Housing of Southern CT. This politically tied organization has NO interest in developing their communities. They are interested in OBTAINING more property and a few grandstanding projects.

They are slum lords. Just drive around to a few of their some of their less publicized "managed properties" in New Haven. And now they are "developing" in Waterbury. Pleaaaase.

The majority suburban board members and friends of the exective director, offer no accountability and are driven by their guilt. They are effective at convincing people and the government to fund their projects, but it is all show.

I know we are talking about scattered housing and the new haven housing authority. But Mutual Housing is a quasi-government development endeavor. The lack of oversight, development of the people (to be good neighbors), and overall community integration is just lacking on all levels.

Yes, scatter housing is good, when it is has a plan, an ongoing plan with accountability, to develop the people.

Posted by: ANGELOFH | August 13, 2008 10:30 PM

THANKS JACK , I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!!THE ONLY WAY TO HOLD HOUSING ACCOUNTABLE IS THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM, OR THROUGH GOVERMENT MONEY.

Posted by: Chris Gray | August 14, 2008 1:08 AM

After reading large portions of the Atlantic article, all I can say is that at least we are not alone in facing the continuing spector of persistent poverty. That's one war we never won. We've only found ways to exacerbate the problem, while arguing about the pecadillos of the messengers.

Too bad Edwards just set back that cause again. It was the best part of the Democratic agenda.

Posted by: Maureen | August 14, 2008 7:14 AM

Allan, If you are going to Quote someone you need to it accurately. I never refer to the section of the city north of Route 80 as Quinnipiac Meadows. The Actual Quinnipiac Meadows is off of Quinnipiac Avenue between Essex Street and Hemmingway.

What I pointed out is how many of the court mandated places were built in the north east section of the city, using 1990 census data showing it as notimpacted even after the 2000 census figures showed otherwise.

I also didn't use the word LOTS of condo owners come to the Mgmt Team meeting. The point being that the playground has been promised for quite some time up there on the private road-St. Anthony's Street.

FINALLY, What I was brining to the attention of the Commissioners of the HANH (How many were there?) was with all the foreclosures scattered through out the city, perhaps a wiseer course of action would be for HANH to get some of this single family homes that are likely to be blighted. We have a number of single family scattered site in our section of the city that people don't know are HANH. Even though the residents don't own them they have a pride of ownership because they have their own front/back yards.

Posted by: mark.swiss | August 14, 2008 11:30 AM

How can the city of New Haven take advantage of the growing movement of people back into the cities if it is seeding the city housing with people who are antithetical to working tax-payers buying homes and rising there children in New Haven?

People that are not invested in where they live act as a counter weight to the prosperity and well-being of everybody. This is true no matter where you live.

If you don't have to make the investment why would you?
This goes for the rich and the poor. Most of the rich are sent to school and learn/persuaded of the value of work to there own well-being and there standing in world. The poor stay poor because they are not participating in the social streams that move them to prosperity.

Owing you own home and, all that that takes, is one of the many streams to prosperity.
One of the undermined factors is long term free housing. Long term free housing puts the people living there in a prison of having too much to lose and too little to prosper.

When peoples ambitions are undermined people end up sitting around board and aimless. The working tax-payers will not buy homes and rise there children next to the board and aimless in New Haven or any other city?

Posted by: Carole | August 14, 2008 2:15 PM

For a response to Ahern's critique, HANH's legal counsel, Rolan Joni Young, referred a reporter to Shelly White, litigation director for New Haven Legal Assistance.

The article quotes Ahern critiquing the performance of the housing authority, not of legal aid. Why is HANH deflecting questions about whether it maintains its properties or properly prepares tenants for single-family living in middle-class neighborhoods -- questions that are crucial to the success of those tenants in their new homes and to the entire scattered-site program?

Posted by: Hooligan | August 14, 2008 2:29 PM

The whole scattered housing program has to be revisted, because it's not working. Nany Ahearn is right, you can pick out NHHA properties, but the tenents are as much to blame, if not totally.

Drive down Quinnipiac Ave., next to the Riveree condos, look at that place. I have a dear friend who has had her condo on the market for over a year, with no bites ( Hidden Quarry condo ), reason being scattered housing. When I drive to her house I pass the entrance where low income housing is, and it's changed and not for the better. I see peoples frustration and hope that this matter gets resloved.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | August 14, 2008 3:22 PM

It's good to know that our government has plenty of extra free money to buy more private property for the benefit of the People.

Posted by: robn | August 16, 2008 3:50 PM

Theres something very telling in this article that goes to the root of HAHN...Shelly White noted that the program was never about home ownership. If HAHN insists on providing rental units for the poor, then they've resigned themselves to the assumption that there will always be poor people in need of low cost rental units. So instead of developing a program where the goal is ownership and equity, they reinforce the status quo which is dependency and poverty. MARKSWISS made a greqt point about this being antithetical to ambition and betterment.

Posted by: Transit User | August 16, 2008 8:14 PM

Bravo Ms. Ahearn for again getting to the bottom line of a problem, having the courage to speak up even if she is unpopular so it can be solved.

I have seen so many scattered site housing tenants suffer from transportation problems when buses could easily serve denser public housing projects. One young woman fellow bus rider even said to the effect "when I lived in the projects, we had buses all the time but I hate living out here with buses only every half hour and none at night."

The problem with public housing projects like those on lower Dixwell Avenue wasn't the architecture or density. It was how they were administered and maintained and how the 60's riots took work chances away from the area. There are still gun shooting crimes at the very nice homes in Monterey Place!

Posted by: Debra James | August 17, 2008 5:51 AM

I am a scattered site Tenant for 9yrs now I live in Fair Haven heights I'm am very happy with the the outcome where we live on a dead end Street on a cul-da-sac it's not where you live it's how you live My neighbors and myself take very good care of our homes that we rent we mow our own grass shovel snow from our property don' get me wrong the people in East haven did not want us low income housing people in their Neighborhood we proved them wrong.We took on the responsibility of true real homeowners. You could never guess that where we live is scattered site.Because we care how we live. all it takes is people who want to make change, and stop giving the doubters the satisfaction.There're more worried about you than you are worried about the nosy neighbors that are in every neighborhood waiting to see low income housing (Scattered Sites)recipients fail.We are the Kings and Queens of our Woods. God Bless my Neighbors.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | August 18, 2008 12:11 PM

Debra James

Thank you for your considerate treatment of the neighborhood, but exceptions do not make the rule. Most scatter site is trashed.

Posted by: Sadie Lambert | August 18, 2008 4:11 PM

I live in Westville, as a homeowner, and have for about 4 years. I purchased in Westville because I loved the fact that the homes are mostly well maintained, the people are friendly, and that, for the most part, the neighbors are respectful. By implementing scattered housing that is ill-maintained (like the horrid gray house on Central), the city is doing a major disservice to its tax payers in its desirable neighborhoods (which thank you very much pay the highest taxes in the city). Central Avenue, especially between Yale and Fountain, has seen a decline in the past four years from an okay block to, frankly, a disgrace. The gray house that is the focus of this article is one of many on the block that look totally out of character for Westville, and by adding another apt unit to the list of properties that won't be maintained is, frankly, a slap in the face to those who have maintained Westville's charm and let the city ride on the coattails of success of this neighborhood by taxing the hell out of us. The city is short-sighted and, frankly, pulling down Westville's value by forging ahead in this effort to diversify its neighborhoods.

New Haven Independent

Lone Voice Blasts Final Scattered-Site Sale

Comments

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed