New Haven Independent

Posted by: Webblog 1 | August 7, 2008 1:13 PM

City: We Didn't Start The Fire

by Melissa Bailey | July 16, 2008 6:15 PM |

"Denz fought the demolition order in December, objecting to the city's haste through an administrative appeal in Superior Court. The buildings have long been demolished. Denz and the city are now fighting over who will pay for a nearly $2 million demolition bill.

"The city recently settled with the Hahn family, owner of the Spector building on Chapel Street. The family sued when their building was knocked down as collateral damage in the demolition process. The city agreed to pay the Hahns $700,000 plus and pay for demolition costs, according to Ward. Together those costs totaled $1.2 million, Ward said".

NEW HAVEN TAXPAYERS, get ready to pay up, again!

Posted by: JP | August 7, 2008 2:19 PM

Wow i dont know where to start on this one.

First off for webblog1 they did pay the Hahn 1.2M but in doing so the city now owns the property so the tax payers will at least break even there.

Second even if Laydon did take down the 3 story building who cares you still have to pay the bill and the bill is most likely less then it would have been had Manaforte Brothers done it.

Third had the city not acted we would have a huge burnt out block forever as evidenced by 1) 91 church is still there with no back wall just a shell of a building for kids to hop the fence and play in at night 2)His refusal to put any money into fixing either the garage on orange and center or the back walls of the bus stop area known as the lot on orange and chapel.

Fourth you just have to love this line at the end of Denz's letter "Please also talk about if Nyberg revokes his contract that they are stuck with me and all of this will come out in short order."

Fifth its incredibly hypocritical for Denz to cry about releasing letters when to this day you can go to his website http://www.northside-development.com/news.php and read every letter the city and him ever sent back and forth.

Lastly he is complaining about the contractors not wearing safety equipment. Obviously he's talking about respirators for the asbestos. Respirators aren't really necessary here because asbestos is only dangerous when airborne. Since the asbestos was only in the roof and the fact and the materials where soaking wet in the beginning and the not kicked up afterward the chance of asbestos poisoning is very low. I know your going to say why then was everything haled away as contaminated material and that's because the roof collapsed during the fire mixing asbestos with everything else and it would have cost more money to sort it all out then to just treat it all as contaminated.

In short Denz just pay up and Johnny just take this thing by eminent domain already.

Posted by: Esbe | August 7, 2008 3:43 PM

I still don't get the argument. First of all, the property is worth much, much more with those buildings demolished. Absent the fire (and any concerns about historic preservation), any sensible developer would have wanted to tear those buildings down, and would have paid to do so. Denz is no victim here, he is greatly enriched.

And how is Denz himself harmed by the city's use of a contractor that was licensed for 2.5 stories but not 3? I understand that the state might want to sanction the contractor or the city. But how does this relieve Denz of his obvious responsibility to pay for the cost of removing dangerously damaged buildings?

The lien is not preventing him from selling the property. Getting rid of the lien would allow him to charge the new owner 1.8 million dollars more, that's all.

Denz is the one who bought the largely dilapidated, fire-trap building building that housed the Brass Monkey. He is the one who benefits from the fire, while the downtown suffers its effects. Why on earth should New Haven taxpayers be on the hook for this?

Posted by: JP | August 7, 2008 4:32 PM

ESBE,
Well said.

Posted by: James | August 7, 2008 5:18 PM

The point is at the end of the day, Denz is looking to get off the hook. If he can prove that the City used unqualified contractors resulting in damage to his building requiring that it come down due to negligence, then the taxpayers pay. Given the City's history of shady dealings and incompetence, I would not be at all surprised if Denz's claims are true and that you and I wind up paying every penny.

As for simply taking the building under eminent domain, there has to be a public good to allow for a taking to occur. "I don't like the guy who owns it" isn't sufficient reason. There would need to be a necessity to take the land that could not be satisfied by alternative means. Plus, do you really want Johnny and his crew of cronies going around this town taking land? Really? It's all they can do not to screw up what they have. Aside from which, at least Denz was making use of the building. As for the City, I direct your attention to the gaping hole at the corner of Crown and Church. Amongst many, many other mismanaged and interminably stalled projects. No, the last thing this city needs is more local government intervention.

Posted by: Esbe | August 7, 2008 9:42 PM

James --

I agree that Denz might have a case if the contractor was negligent in a way that caused the building to be demolished, but that has little to do with a formal license and is not alleged in the article or shown in the pictures. I think that the adjoining property owners did have a case of possible negligence, which is maybe why the city settled. (I don't really know.)

Posted by: mich | August 8, 2008 8:43 AM

jp what department at the city do you work for? Have you seen that piece of land ? would you pay 1.2 mil for it? And why isnt the contractor who knocked down the mystery beams insurance not paying? why the tax payers ? The argument is that the owner wanted the ability to at least be in on the demolition to control costs, Do you realy think the city shopped for the best deal? And who realy cares about licences anyway?And that peskey asbestos stuff all mixed in, that was no problem for the unqualified contractor either, who needs safty gear, or OSHA , "Its soaking wet". And forget about the tenants who had businesses along chapel st, it was a dilapitated building. Those are pretty incredible arguments. But the best is " just take this thing by eminent domain". Then what?

Posted by: JP | August 8, 2008 8:55 AM

James,
That doesn't make much sense the buildings came down because of the fire not because of any negligence. I haven't heard anyone including Denz even suggest that they came down for any reason other then they were to badly damaged. Also I think that half a block not being developed that close to the green and a 1.8M dollar lein is enough to take it by force. Lastly "the hole" as you put it on Crown and Church is Gateway Community College and its being built by the state the city has nothing at all to do with the lack of progress.

Posted by: Clark Pearlman | August 8, 2008 10:15 AM

Well said Mich!

The Mayor has had his eyes on that property for years and will stop at nothing to have the city own that land. When this battle over, it will end with the city shelling out more tax payer dollars. Well done Mr. Mayor!

Posted by: JM | August 8, 2008 10:23 AM

It seems to me that the City could've simply secured the site (put up a fence) after the fire was out, and then ordered Denz to complete the abatement and demolition with his own forces (as he apparently was pleading to do) within a designated time frame (say 21 days).

If he didn't perform for whatever reason, the City could've then stepped in and Denz would've had much less of a case in arguing over the demolition costs.

The point about workers on the site not having respiratory protection is that it tends to seriously weaken the City's claim that the site posed an "imminent hazard", which was the justification for the "emergency" order in the first place.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | August 8, 2008 10:46 AM

It's clear to me the city is trying to grab Dentz's land via the lein because there is no clear path to taking it another way. No normal developer would spend $1.8 million to demolish those buildings. It wasn't the best price by far, and the city excluded Dentz from exerting control over the site and the costs claiming dubious public safety concerns. It would be interesting to know what a demolition, properly bid, would have cost.

We paid $1.2 million to Hahn because the city had liability for it. In the end, we will likely have to pay Dentz too for all the reasons listed above. What's another $1.8 million? The mayor will just sell another asset, borrow against it, pretend it's real money and watch our property taxes or other fees go up again to pay for it.

Posted by: James | August 8, 2008 11:21 AM

JP, I may be confusing Denz's property with the adjoining buildings that were damaged during the demo process and not the fire. As for "The Hole," I know precisely what it is and what is supposed to go there. I also watched the City and the State argue over petty details for over a year while the building sat half demolished. Since then, nothing has been done on or under the ground. The City most certainly has played a part in the delay in the past and has shown very little ability to take available parcels and develop them.

As for your eminent domain argument, it's simply not enough for the city to take the property. It wouldn't hold up in court. Moreover, I just don't understand your eagerness to see the City take over any additional development with their lackluster track record of management. Can you name one project where they have taken on significant parcels of land, cleared them, and developed that land in a timely, efficient, and useful manner? All I've ever seen from the city with respect to development is cost overruns, delays, and excuses.

Posted by: JP | August 8, 2008 11:35 AM

Mich,
I don't work for the city but i do live here.
I think if you look around you'll see that piece of land is worth the money for example the mdm fashion building across the street is asking around 1.2M and on the corner of orange and chapel the building across orange from 360 state (shartenberg) is asking around 3M Denz himself paid if i remember correctly 5.5M and was asking for 8M for his site. As far as what to do after taking the land I think George Knight a wonderful local architect had some great ideas you can read about them here. http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/02/knight_blaze_ne.php

JM,
Thanks you so much for asking that question because its one I can actually answer. The city did exactly what you are suggesting at Denzs property at 91 church street. On January 23rd the city sent this letter to Denz saying 91 church was unsafe and must be torn down or rebuilt within 30 days.
http://www.northside-development.com/1_23_2008.pdf
On February 28 more then 30 days later Denz sent this letter to the city saying basically I haven't done anything yet. http://www.northside-development.com/2_28_2008_rizzo.pdf
And now on august 8th (7 months later) here's what we have helping revitalize our city at 91 church street.
http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=91churchlq0.jpg
So you can plainly see that what your suggesting would not have worked and if the city had not stepped in we would have a full block of burnt out buildings as Denz tried to sell the property.

As for your point about the emergency order not being needed because the wasn't a problem asbestos. I think the fear was the buildings would collapse and killing someone not someone breathing in asbestos. If you remember there was a shell of a building leaning up on the other side of Miso on orange that a bum was living in when it collapsed.

Posted by: JP | August 8, 2008 12:16 PM

James,
Yes if your talking about the Hanh Building that was totally the city's fault and probably do to sub par work.

As far as one project where they have taken on significant parcels of land, cleared them, and developed that land in a timely, efficient, and useful manner? Its pretty rare for any city to do that since they rarely do any developing but if I had to point to such a things I guess I'd say there is the new high school on crown and college I know I know the location makes no sense at all but still they seem to have done a good job. Another example would be on Edgewood and Dwight they rebuilt that house that was so dilapidated I don't think there's a word in the English language to describe it. Here's an article on that http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/05/dwight_street_p.php

Posted by: Esbe | August 8, 2008 12:28 PM

Gary -- if Denz's argument is that the city paid too much, then he shouldn't be complaining that the city tried to use a cheaper contractor than might have been required by law. I can believe that a "rush job" demo might end up costing more, but that is a possible price when you purchase run-down, partly empty fire-trap buildings. The alternative was to risk letting the buildings collapse into the street and kill folks; presumably a "budget saving" plan that you do not endorse.

Posted by: Mich | August 8, 2008 3:10 PM

JM -

You're confusing buildings with land. I don't know the MDM building but 1.2 million gets you a building and a piece of land as does 360 State Street I presume. Those buildings produce rent, the Hahn sliver of land does not. George Knight's proposal looks great, however, you can't be suggesting that the city take the property and develop Knight's plan themselves. Maybe they'll give it to one of their usual suspects to do the development. As to the balance of your comments it appears that you're looking for Denz to invest money immediately into 91 Church Street and the garage even though the city has liened the properties for 1.8 mil. And your suggestion is that they take the properties, that doesn't seem like a prudent business move.

Posted by: Webblog 1 | August 8, 2008 3:28 PM

ESBE:

As usual you do not read or interpret the article completely or correctly.

First, Denz is suing not because the city paid too much for the demolition, but because the city did not consult with him before doing so.

Secondly, Denz alleges the city used a demolition contractor that didn't have the proper license to demolish the buildings. The city first hired Laydon Industries to do the demo job. Laydon has a Class B certificate, permitting it to demolish buildings under 25 feet or up to 2.5 stories.

Thirdly, Denz complains the contractor did not use proper safety equipment to remove asbestos.

Fourth, Denz alleges the contractor spread contaminated soil as the new top soil.

Finally, Denz, Gary and I, complain that your response is trif, contrite, and lacks in-dept subject knowledge.

Please, don't even respond.

Posted by: JP | August 8, 2008 4:14 PM

JM,
Trust me with the condition of these buildings your better off starting from scratch and neither building produces any rent. MDM is a low end clothing store that would leave with the sale and the other building is empty.

If you built condos on the Hahn lot lets say you'd get 5 plus ground floor retail.
The condos would sell in the half million dollar range so that's 2.5M and the ground floor would sell for lets say 1 million just to keep round numbers
So that 3.5 million the city is in for 1.2 right now that leaves say 1.5 million for construction (I'm totally guessing at that number) and you'd still have an 800,000 profit. Build even higher and there is that much more room for profit or construction cost as the case may be.

Your right though I don't think the city should get involved in the building process. I would suggest doing something similar to what went on at shartenberg (with out the 1 dollar price) but I think the Knight proposal is a great starting point of what the city should be looking to get done should they take it over.

The city has no lien on the garage. I'm not sure about 91 church street but my point was more to the type of landlord the city is dealing with and what would have happened had the city not acted. I highly doubt the city will take the land obviously selling to Nyberg for 1.8M less then Denz wants is better then getting nothing at all.

Posted by: Esbe | August 8, 2008 7:03 PM

Weblog1 -- we are in complete agreement, your comments deserve no response.

Posted by: Mark | August 15, 2008 6:59 AM

If you take a closer look at the photos that were released you will notice that the excavator owned by Laydon Construction is lifting something into the building not ripping something down.

Additionally buildings come down from the top not from the middle which is how high that machine can reach.

The Hartford Courant posted many pictures in their paper of this fire and demolition. All of their pictures show Manafort's crane doing the demolition of that building.

Is anyone else tired of hearing about this?