New Haven Independent: Black Panther House Razed

Black Panther House Razed

by Paul Bass | August 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (29)

Work crews crushed to bits a piece of the Hill’s and New Haven’s controversial past — and possibly a promising future. Activists Jackie James and Maurice “Blest” Peters said a developer double-crossed the neighborhood.

James, the neighborhood’s alderwoman, and Peters, a youth worker and co-chair of a community group called CORD, are mourning the demolition this week of the house at 35 Sylvan Ave. The house served as one of the headquarters in the early ’70s for New Haven’s Black Panther Party chapter. Neighbors like James and Peters were planning to revive the spot as a home for a renewed free breakfast program for kids, and an after-school hangout for kids and parents. (Click here for an earlier story detailing the idea.)

And they thought Will Smith of Boston-based Intercontinental Developers Inc. — who bought up blocks near the new Yale cancer hospital with plans to remake the Hill — was going to help them.

After meeting with Smith, they said, they decided not to protest his plans for the larger neighborhood or take other steps to pressure him or the city to preserve the house at 35 Sylvan.

Peters said Smith even came to a youth program Peters ran last summer at Career High School and promised to save the building.

Then this week Smith’s crews began tearing down nine houses along two sides of the block of Sylvan directly across from Career. 35 Sylvan was history — destroyed history, not preserved.

Now, vowed Jackie James, Smith’s path to receiving public approvals for some of his pending plans won’t go so smoothly.

“If you’ll lie to kids, you’ll lie to anybody,” James said Thursday. “We weren’t asking for a million dollars. We were asking them to give us back what was ours. It was part of our history. Part of our culture. Part of our community.”

Reached on his cellphone, Will Smith (pictured) refused to answer a question about whether he made that promise.

Instead, he promised to call back with an answer. Then he hung up. By press time he hadn’t called back. Nor did he respond to subsequent phone messages seeking comment. Two city officials said Smith did everything by the book. They said he took out the proper permits for demolition, made sure the buildings weren’t listed on any historical registries, and has maintained good lines of communications with the city about his brewing plans.

Smith and partners have bought up 17 parcels of land in the area bounded by Howard, Legion, Sylvan, and Ward streets, as well as “Lot E,” a block away across Legion Avenue. He’s building a garage, stores and lab space on Lot E. His plans for the now-demolished stretch of Sylvan Avenue are less certain; he hasn’t revealed them. He convinced the city to rezone the area so he has the option of building a dense mix of stores, residences and offices. Once he has a solid plan, he’ll need to get another approval, and neighbors will have a chance to weigh in. Relations have at times been tense between Intercontinental and neighbors wary of gentrification around the hospital.

A Symbol
sylvan%20--%20jackie.jpg The Panthers, a black-led revolutionary group calling for armed self-defense by citizens in African-American neighborhoods, had several headquarters around New Haven during its brief life here in the late ’60s and early ’70s. The central event of the New Haven Panther era — the torture and murder of Alex Rackley, a Panther falsely accused of being a spy — took place when the headquarters was on Orchard Street, before the move back to Sylvan. The FBI and local police closely monitored doings at the Panthers offices. The Panthers briefly ran free-breakfast programs for schoolchildren in Newhallville and the Hill, the latter at 35 Sylvan (shown in file photo circa 2007).

The period, and the house, symbolize the two poles of the ongoing historical debate about the Panthers. When fans burnish the group’s past, they inevitably bring up the breakfast program (and often only the breakfast program) as an example of positive community organizing. Or they cite the government’s suppression of the party: The New Haven chapter indeed crawled with government spies. The cops illegally eavesdropped on Panther doings in their various headquarters.

Opponents speak of the violence the group espoused and the violence that accompanied their presence in town.A local documentary about the period in New Haven, Next Question, included reminiscences of gunfire between cops and Panthers at 35 Sylvan, and adults keeping children in bathtubs to avoid the bullets.

“For the divisiveness the Panthers brought to the city during their brief stay, this house should be destroyed and no marker left,” one reader, Ralph Rechtenberg, commented in a debate on the Independent last year.

Opined another reader: “The Black Panther Party was a militant destructive party that preached violence against the police, government, and other black people who were not down with their program. A small minority of their work was related to helping the community. But anyway, I still believe the house should stay because whether you think their history is good, bad, or undecided, they played a major part in the turmoil of the 60’s, and 70’s in this city and the country. But historians should not glorify their work. Portray them as they were.”

Those divergent views are one reason to preserve the house, argued preservationist Anstress Farwell.

“Part of being engaged in the future is remembering the complexity of the debates,” Farwell said Thursday. “Any political movement has multiple meanings,” has its combination of “earnest” idealists working for the common good as well as “scam artists.”

The house “should have been preserved” as a “reminder of what it means when you commit to something,” said Farwell, who heads the Urban Design League. “It gave you an idea of the intimate and personal setting that shows this form of political engagement. You would look at that second floor and think, ‘People because of their commitment or effort had to live in dangerous circumstances. They had to dive into bathtubs with their children.” Farwell said such a site offered a “corrective” to the more prevalent image of the Panthers in New Haven: the mass rallies on the Green.

“I’m outraged. This didn’t have to happen,” Farwell said. “It’s so gratuitous and unnecessary, a slap in the face. The developer got everything he asked for [from the city]. The one thing the neighborhood asked for was to save the Panther house.”

Hill activists James and Peters, too, spoke of the house’s importance in terms of both the past and the future.

Whatever the truth about the events of the Panther era, and the activities of the party, the house, and the party itself, retain the power to inspire people in the Hill and elsewhere in black New Haven. Even black cops who probably would have been locking up Panthers even if they’d been around then. (Check out Malcolm Davis’s comments in this article.) For a new generation of activists like Maurice Peters, trying to address youth crime and inactivity, poverty, and the needs of working-class neighbors in the face of upscale development, the resonant message doesn’t involve the tactics of the Panther era. It involves the message of self-determination, black pride, and community organizing.

Three of Peters’ uncles, Harold and Daniel Peters and Mark Jones, were involved with the local party, contributing artwork for posters and the newspaper.

Maurice Peters himself, who’s now 41, was around 2 at the time. He tries to young people through efforts like “Uniting Our Youth,” the summer program Will Smith visited last summer; and the Street Outreach Worker team.

He also helped CORD push Yale-New Haven Hospital for “community benefits” during the approvals process for the Smilow cancer hospital.

“[Smith and Intercontinental] saw us organizing around the cancer center. They knew the community could come out,” Peters said. So, he argued, Smith offered the promise on the Panther house to defuse organizing efforts against his project. Peters said he now regrets taking the bait.

“This sets a precedent,” he said. “This is part of the gentrification [of the neighborhood]. This is historical to us.”

Jackie James said neighbors had already promised to volunteer at a new community center to be housed at 35 Sylvan: At the breakfast program, to help set up daycare and afterschool teen programs. She claimed Smith promised to move the house to one of the two vacant lots across the street if he decided he needed to remove it from its then-current sot.

James said she did receive word from Smith that demolition was going to begin on the block, but not that house. She said that because of previous promises, she assumed the Panther house was safe.

Good Relationship With City Hall

Smith took out the required permits to demolish nine buildings on that block, including four facing Sylvan, according to the city’s chief building official, Andy Rizzo.

Chrissy Bonanno, the deputy in charge of city government’s economic development department, said Smith has done a good job informing City Hall of developments with his various projects.

“Will came and did all the proper due diligence” before demolishing, Bonanno said. “He notified local official well in advance of his plans. We’ve been in constant discussions with him” about all his plans. She said Smith also made a point of checking the state and national historical registries to make sure no restrictions would have prevented him from demolishing the homes on the block. (The homes had been abandoned and were in some cases quite rundown.)

There’s official history, and other valid kinds of history, countered Jackie James.

“Just because it wasn’t listed, doesn’t mean it wasn’t important to us,” she said of 35 Sylvan. “This was blatant disrespect.”

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: James | August 7, 2008 4:51 PM

"We weren't asking for a million dollars. We were asking them to give us back what was ours. It was part of our history. Part of our culture. Part of our community."

It was also a parcel of land put of for sale and purchased by a developer. It was not "yours." WHy is it that James feels that the developer owed them anything? Granted, based on James and Peters' story, Smith did make promises. But the day you take a developer at his word is the day you find yourself screwed. Both James and Peters have been around long enough to know that.

For a new generation of activists like Maurice Peters... the resonant message ...involves the message of self-determination, black pride, and community organizing.

Where was the self-determination here? Waiting for some developer to hand over property that his organization had rightfully purchased? How is that anything other than panhandling for real estate? How is that different from sitting around and waiting for somebody to give you something for nothing? If preservation of the site was so important, why didn't James or Peters make an effort to have it listed on the national register? Or did they? If it was so important, why not buy it? OK, we don't all have the cash sitting around for that kind of purchase, but set up an organization, raise funds, and take ownership of the building. Then you can set up all of free breakfast/after school programs you want. For the record, these sound like great ideas. But why, if this was so important, was it left up to the "good will" of a developer?

More to the point, why do Peters, James, and the unnamed "community" feel that "somebody" owes them "something?" That's not rhetorical. I would really like to know why they seem to feel that the developer should have been expected to give them the time of day, let alone a HOUSE.

Posted by: Funky Chicken | August 7, 2008 5:23 PM

What is not being reported in this story - but if you read carefully you will see it is this: Jackie James & Cord tried to shakedown Intercontinental & Will Smith.

Instead of calling it a shakedown they call it "Community Development Money". The fact is no developer has an obligation to pay anything to any "Community" (whatever or who ever that is). Intercontinental will be paying taxes, they are going to be employing people from the city to run the building that is their contribution to the City. James and Cord found a way to make noise only because Smith is not caving in and paying them off.

If ever developer who comes to New Haven gets the same "shakedown" treatment we will always be a second rate town losing out to the burbs and Stamford.

Posted by: JackNH | August 7, 2008 5:53 PM

The developer made a promise? A PROMISE? Were you born yesterday? Unless it's in writing, you had nuthin'. I'm sorry this bit of history is lost, too, but you gotta be real about this.

Posted by: robn | August 7, 2008 9:06 PM

James,

What if the house was someplace that Benedict Arnold lived? ...Not neccesarily a guy that Americans look back at with fondness, but an important part of history...

just sayin

Posted by: DaringDennise | August 7, 2008 9:08 PM

We were asking them to give us back what was ours

Saddly, these people think they are to be "given" things. In the real world, people WORK & PAY for what is theirs.

If they wanted this property, they could have worked for it, and purchased it. It is not the developer that lied, it is them lying to themselves.

No one owes you anything. You owe yourself everything.

Posted by: robn | August 7, 2008 9:12 PM

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

George Orwell

Posted by: Chris Gray | August 8, 2008 12:34 AM

O.K., my head hurts.

The developer, called Will Smith (like the best paid, most successful movie actor, not to mention probably the most popular African-American in the world - come on, Barack, you're just playing Will playing you, later!), tears down a house where African-American children were in the line of fire from New Haven police after promising to save it for activists who have highly unrealistic plans for it and do next to nothing to realize their plans. (I'm sorry but a few promises from neighbors do not sound even a little bit like a board, a budget or a funding source to staff it.)

Does this appear in any way to be confusing? Not to one who read the Party line in the '60s.

A better way to honor what good there is in the Panther legacy would be to continue to organize the program without the hook of the bullet bedeviled house nor the largesse of the fork-tongued developer.

Posted by: to james | August 8, 2008 7:55 AM

Can't help but feel James's post is racially tinged. Everyday in this city people negotiate for concessions from developers and I never hear them criticized this way.

Shartenberg,

the cancer center even,

retail all over town, - the new walgreens made bunches of concessions demanded by neighbors.

there is a city owned house on prospect st. rotting and off the tax roles while city tries to get someone interested in restoring it because there is so much appreciation by city hall of its history. the house could be demolished and the lot easily sold.

i think the characterization of these people as rank panhandlers was really unfair and insulting

Posted by: unprotected | August 8, 2008 8:07 AM

why didn't James and Peters try to purchase the lot and restore it? something for free in new haven??

Posted by: James | August 8, 2008 8:47 AM

i think the characterization of these people as rank panhandlers was really unfair and insulting

Agreed. My apologies. But racially tinged it was not. I fail to see how the color of someone's skin has anything to do with their failure to take appropriate action to preserve a historic structure. I do feel it was a shakedown, in the proudest of New Haven traditions. I do feel that there is a naive, cultural sense of entitlement here that you could be reading as racism. I don't see it that way. Just as easily could have been a couple of white folks.

However I don't think that the comparison to developer concessions/exactions stand. When the concessions were made by Walgreens there was an organized, concerted effort that resulted in written agreements. Moreover, nobody was asking them not to develop their property. Same can be said for Shartenberg or the Cancer Center. Nobody was asking the developers to forgo developing the property that they had rightfully obtained. However, in the case of the Cancer Center I do think that New Haven did its very best to shake down the developer for everything they could possibly get going well beyond simple community interest in local development and urban planning, delaying the project, generating ill will, and signaling to potential investors that if they want the privilege of developing in New Haven they had better be prepared to dig deep and pay the right people.

As for the property being historically significant, that may be so. I don't posses sufficient knowledge to make a call on that. I can't tell you why City Hall takes interest in one "historically significant" structure and not another. The point is that they didn't, and you can't sit around waiting for somebody else to do it for you. I've been involved in having dozens of structures around the country listed and protected. It's hard work, but it pays off.

Lastly, to ROBN, I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Would Benedict Arnold's home be historically significant? Maybe. If you feel strongly about it, I would recommend you get it listed to protect it. Are you simply making the point that Benedict Arnold was white, so I would clearly be up in arms? Sorry, no. If something is historically significant, it has been for a while. Protect it now if you are concerned, because by the time you actually need the listing to protect a structure it is far too late to start. As for your Orwell quote, yeah, that's one of my favorites, too. What's your point?

Posted by: Paul | August 8, 2008 9:15 AM

Yeah, it's definitely developers all over this state being picked on by bully neighborhood organizations who, as we all know, lord over massive reserves of power, connections and wealth. Oh wait.

I really tire of that whole free-market narrative which always seems to characterize people's attitudes about places they don't personally have any attachments to, historically, culturally or affectively.

Posted by: Funky Chicken | August 8, 2008 10:30 AM

The study of "community development" in the cases of Intercontinental and Walgreen is a great way to see how it could and should be done (Walgreens) and everything that is wrong about it (Intercontinental).

The concessions that Walgreens gave the neighbors were done to create a more beautiful Whalley Avenue. They were asked to bring the store to the sidewalk - not have it set back on the lot with parking up front - this encouraged people to walk or take the bus line that stops step from the main entrance. Walgreens was also asked to landscape the property and not have a flashing multi colored digital sign (like the horrid one at Primo Pizza down the block from Walgreens). During the dialog between Walgreens & the residents, Walgreens was not asked for cash or land but just to create a thoughtful and user friendly store. I think we all can agree that this was accomplished.

With the store set on the sidewalk people are encouraged to walk to the store - not drive the landscaping great and the store is always busy - this is a win - win for all.

On the other hand when you have a developer that is being shaken down for a parcel of land, that was purchased on the open market and has and has the crazy idea to build a tax generating building, this sets a bad precedent.

When the local alderperson threatens to hold up the process because she neglected to do anything for the past half year (as pointed out in other posts) we are setting a bad precedent. This is just her trying to cover her self after the fact. (I have no proof, but I contend that Intercontinental was asked to "contribute" money to a particular "community" project - and when they refused this furor was set off.)

In short we need to recognize the difference between legitimate concerns of a neighborhood and attempts to extort money from people or entities. New Haven has to rise above the practice of "community development" shakedowns for it to grow and prosper.

Posted by: anon | August 8, 2008 11:03 AM

The Walgreen's on Whalley is nice to have at the edge of the sidewalk rather than behind a mile of asphalt, but to encourage pedestrian-friendliness, it really should have had more windows and more of a street presence.

Posted by: Funky Chicken | August 8, 2008 12:22 PM

ANON:

What do you mean by a steet presence?

Thanks,

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | August 8, 2008 12:24 PM

Super! This house should have been razed long ago.

Posted by: robn | August 8, 2008 12:59 PM

JAMES,

My Benedict Arnold analogy was less about race and more about the lens of history (just how long is it and where is it aimed).

My point is that both good history and bad history are important if we're to understand where we came from and where we're going. The Panthers express a mixed history becuase theirs was a tumultuous time. The neighborhood perceived a historical connection and wanted some preservation. I don't neccesarily agree with the idea that anybody would be outright "given" the structure" but if there was an implied agreement for preservation, with some benefit gogin to the developer, the agreemtn should have been respected. Its too bad it wasn't put in writing.

Posted by: matt | August 8, 2008 1:31 PM

Robn,
Benedict Arnold lived in New Haven from about 1761 until 1780. His house on Water St. was demolished around 1917.

Posted by: matt | August 8, 2008 2:22 PM

Robn,
Benedict Arnold lived in New Haven from about 1761 to 1780. The house he built here was demolished around 1917. If you're interested I posted a clip on youtube titled "Benedict Arnold: House On Water Street"

Posted by: James | August 8, 2008 3:00 PM

Robn, I'm sort of history agnostic on this one. My opinion on whether it is good history, bad history, or even history at all is irrelevant. I agree that historically significant structures should usually be preserved. My point is that there is plenty of precedent and procedure in place for just such instances. If it was a historical structure and preservation were an issue then something should have been done proactively. To bemoan it after the fact (Peters and James) is either naive or disingenuous. I'll take a listing on the national register of historic places over a developer's good will any day.

Also, thanks for the interesting history, Matt.

Posted by: king james v | August 8, 2008 4:00 PM

A community organization armed to the teeth, the suppored a breakaway community run by "it's own" people, giving out free breakfasts and killing in the name of progress.
Today's we call these people HAMAS.
If the guy lied, he's a jerk, but let's call for some discretion when we decide on what's a monument and what's a dump.

Posted by: ROBN | August 8, 2008 5:56 PM

MATT,

Awesome! I guess you've proved that the Orwellian erasure of history is an old New Haven tradition which is in and of itself awe inspiring!

JAMES,

Historical designation has no legal teeth (for preservation) unless there is local landmarks preservation codified in local law (as we now have in a couple of New Haven neighborhoods.. You hit the nail on the head regarding proactivity vs. reactivity.

Posted by: KAMB | August 9, 2008 11:34 AM

Someone wrote and tried to compare the BLACK PANTHER PARTY house to a house that BENEDICT ARNOLD might have lived in. WHOA! Big difference here. At the time of the revolution it was the lawful thing to support Britan and her troops. At no time in history is it lawful or rightous to KILL COPS and overthrow the established government.

The Black Panter Party is no different than the Ku Klux Klan. The only difference is the size and the power. BOTH organizations should the dug and buried 6 feet under.

Posted by: re racially tinged | August 9, 2008 3:34 PM

I am the one who wrote the post "to james"

I am not finding the arguments persuaive. the distinctions people are making between a supposed shake down over the panther house and activists addressing walgreens are not sticking.

for exampple - that one costs the developer money, other doesn't. Not true, all the concessions walgreens and others make do cost money and more concessions by walgreens weren't made because it would cost more than walgreens was willing to go.

Smith bought up a bunch of properties for a major development. the panther house was only one and the request was made that smith make this one concession to preserve some importnnt history.

the same is true of every supposed distinction posters are making in response to my post.

way it seems to me anyway.

Posted by: robn | August 10, 2008 10:23 AM

KAMB,

So if the American Revolution wasn't killing cops and overthrowing the governement, what was it then?

Posted by: Edward_H | August 10, 2008 10:40 AM

James

Your reason and logic will not persaude anyone who bases their anaylsis of your posts on their personal "feelings".

Love reading your posts man. I think I agree with you about 99.9% of the time.

Posted by: bugupit | August 10, 2008 11:31 AM

Alderwoman James, have you identified the next property in your Ward worthy of preservation on behalf of the history of your ("un-named") community? If so, what are you doing about it?

Posted by: che15 | August 10, 2008 12:45 PM

if the property was so important to the community why didnt the community band together, raise money, and purchase the home. not for nothing but how do we know the developer actually told these two he would give them the property. This is new haven and it seems to me people are taught or even encouraged to lie about anything. in the end the bottom line is if thisproperty was soooo important some one would have taken the initiative to save it but they did not.

Posted by: Ira Johnson | August 11, 2008 6:46 AM

IF THIS ISN'T A SMOKE SCREEN I DON'T NO WHAT IT IS. LAST YEAR I RAN FOR ALDERMEN IN THIS SAME WARD AND I TOLD PEOPLE THAT ALDERWOMEN JAMES WAS TAKING A BUY OUT AND SHE WAS GOING TO COME OFF GOOD, AND GUESS WHAT HAPPEN?

I READ EARLIER THAT WHY DIDNT THE COMMUNITY GET TOGETHER AND RAISE MONEY FOR THE HOUSE TO PURCHASE IT, WELL THAT IS TRUE BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THE ALDERWOMEN JACKIE JAMES, AND CORD DIDN'T INFORM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT MEETINGS OR WHAT WAS GOING ON.

I GUESS THE COMPANY THAT BROUGHT ALL THIS PROPERTY WASN'T BIG ENOUGH? WHEN YALE WANTED TO BUILD THE CANCER CENTER THEY FOUGHT AND FOUGHT, BUT WITH THESE PEOPLE THEY JUST SAT BACK AND ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN.

THE COMMUNITY WAS LEAD TO BELIEVE THAT THE BLACK PANTER HOUSE WAS GOING TO BE SAVED AND LAST WEEK I WALKED BY AND SAW IT GONE. INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT ONLY THESE PEOPLE LOOK ALDERWOMEN JAMES AND HER LITTLE GROUP HOW BIG WAS THERE PAYOFF, BECAUSE SOMEONE GOT PAID OFF BIG TIME. IF YOU ARE AN ALDERWOMEN AND A DEVELOPER IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT IT SOMETHING SMELL BAD.

SHE REALLY LET OUR COMMUNITY DOWN

Posted by: kms | August 12, 2008 8:46 AM

"For a new generation of activists like Maurice Peters, trying to address youth crime and inactivity, poverty, and the needs of working-class neighbors in the face of upscale development, the resonant message doesn't involve the tactics of the Panther era. It involves the message of self-determination, black pride, and community organizing."

Come on, James and Peters, where was YOUR self-determination and pride? You failed to organize. You took the word of a developer. You did not get the house listed on the registry. You did not try to raise money to buy the property. You did not get anything in writing.
Instead you waited until the house was gone, raised your fist in the air and bitched about a broken promise.
This apathy, naiveté and attitude of entitlement are a part of what fuels the crime and poverty in our community.
Additionally, I don't understand how one can talk about the "message" of the panthers without acknowledging the tactics they employed.

New Haven Independent

Black Panther House Razed

Comments

Post a comment

Preview:

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed