New Haven Independent

Posted by: DEZ | December 26, 2008 9:53 AM

I'm slightly surprised...a "special" meeting, on Christmas Eve? And the commission voted 'yea' to a decrease in home ownership. Why not just wait this one out? If Trinity stands to lose, then why would they vote to do something that will ultimately work to keep people in poverty? I'm perplexed. I spent many hours as a concerned neighbor at planning meetings for this project, and am intimately aware of the downturn in the economy. BUT, Q Terrace was re-designed to offer opportunity to the residents through living in a mixed use development. I have heard firsthand that there are plenty of issues with drug dealing and intimidation of upstanding, outstanding residents at Q Terrace by thugs that have slipped in to beautiful new homes through HANH loopholes. This decrease in home ownership will only make the situation worse. I'm getting really tired of this shortsightedness. Building ANYTHING on this property at a loss or no net gain is going to be much more expensive in more ways than one for both Q Terrace and Fair Haven then just waiting it out for a number of years. Just seed the field and cool your heels!

Posted by: amicahomi | December 26, 2008 10:58 AM

Commision Chairman Bob Solomon asked what they would be sold for.Miller responded, "About $300,000, just about what it will cost to build them."

WRONG. Try half that.

Posted by: Walt | December 26, 2008 11:30 AM

The area is certainly much more attractive than when "the Project" was built, long ago, when I was a Fair Haven kid on Grafton, near Rowe.

Back then, it deteriorated into a trouble- filled dump fairly quickly and I expect this one will too, although with some tenant ownership, it should deteriorate somewhat more slowly.

If I were a prospective buyer who could finance a $300,000 buy, despite the really nice look (maybe a little gaudy or nicely spirited or exciting, take your pick) of the rebuilt area now, I'm sure I would head for the suburbs where I could buy a really nice private home for $300,000, in a quiet neighborhood, without New Haven's high taxes, crime and corruption; without impoverished and drug-troubled folks and excons being invited by HANH to live next-door to me at low or no rent.

They did an excellent job of rebuilding the neighborhood, as far as I can see, and are now doing the same on Eastern Street, but I think they are doomed to failure within 10 years.

Bah, humbug! Really hope I am wrong. Time will tell.

Posted by: Lance | December 26, 2008 1:46 PM

Why would someone drop 300k for a residence comingled with low income rentals? You'd have to be crazy.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | December 26, 2008 3:38 PM

Yeah, like who thought that in today's economy, we can give mortgages to low income people with bad, or no credit? What can possibly go wrong??

Posted by: Bob Solomon | December 27, 2008 12:23 PM

These are all good points. As Dez points out, the QT planning process was quite extraordinary, with neighbors, residents and public officials spending long hours on design. That part of the plan has not changed. The amount of homeownership was always unusual, since other sites depend more on market-rate rental thanhomeownership, but the market studies at the time showed that the river views would help sustain the larger home ownership. At Monterey Place, the result was the opposite. Before building the last phase of rental housing, we were able to change the plans to build 30 additionals homes for sale. At the time, we were beneficiaries of an expanding housing market. Even so, the decision to move from rental to ownership caused an immediate $4 million deficit. These are 50-100 year decisions. Elm Haven and QT each lasted for over 50 years. When Elm Haven was completed in 1941, it was considered a great achievement, and people came from around the country to view it as a model for how to house low-income people. Those who built it - and other public housing super blocks - did not foresee crack, welfare, urban flight, single-parent families, or the degree of isolation of large public housing developments. I am sure that 50 years from now, those of us making these decisions will face the same questions. (Okay - 50 minutes after making the decisions.) I agree that waiting can make sense. In West Rock, we have waited for several years, and Rockview has remained fallow. We will soon start building there. QT is different, because most of the site is already built out. To comply with the HOPE VI grant, we need to meet deadlines. The ECCO phase was hindered by unexpected "urban fill," a euphemism for pre-1940 fill consisting of old incinerator residue and other material, containing arsenic and just about everything else. The removal of that material cost $4 million. At the time, the question was whether to forego spending the $4 million and lost 25-40 units. In the suburbs, with more available land, we would have picked another site. In New Haven, building means demolishing something else or remediating a brown field. We decided to go ahead. You can view this as paying an additional $125,000 per unit, or as an extra $2000 per year for 62.5 years of occupancy (or whatever other calculation you think makes sense). These are hard decisions, and I appreciate that we will never reached unanimity. That's a good thing, because, at least in my view, constructive engagement results in better decisions.

Posted by: robn | December 28, 2008 12:25 PM

This is too bad. I truly believe that increased ownership would increase upkeep.

Posted by: new havener | December 29, 2008 8:55 AM

Keep electing these ALDERPEOPLE...when are you people going to realize they are all Yes people for the city...what they do is a lot of talk before meetings and agree on certain things..some don't even go to meetings until there is a vote on the table..how many alders that you voted in do anything for there wards...and i'm not talking about block parties..Q-Terrace already has big problems with drugs ...intimidation...fights ...the same ones moved out are back in...some don't pay rent..but you want to sell for$300.000 would you live there for the price and others low oncomes...

Posted by: Drop the Hammer | January 2, 2009 3:06 PM

Why is this surprising to anyone?