New Haven Independent

Posted by: anon | March 19, 2009 12:02 PM

Click http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/protectbeaverhills/ for the petition.

Posted by: robn | March 19, 2009 1:07 PM

Where I went to school, it was not uncommon to have a 1 mile walk to some cross campus classes. Hell, I walk two miles to work every day. Maybe SCSU should widen their radius for parking garage location and then ask their students to buck up.

Posted by: jay | March 19, 2009 2:05 PM

so let me see if I have this correct - an institution wants to doing a major project that will vastly improve the area that continues to reveal a decline in overall esthetics of the area, and the neighborhood opposes it? As a graduate of SCSU, I am proud of this school and the quality students they produce.
Moti Sandman wants SCSU to think outside the box - and to think about mass transit. News flash - mass transit has been around for a while, it's not exactly out of the box thinking. Maybe as an alderman, he should take on CT Transit, and actually make mass transit better, and a more viable solution in New Haven.
And lastly, doesn't Chris Ozyck live on the other side of New Haven?
For the record, I support SCSU's efforts! and I actually live close by!

Posted by: Power to the People | March 19, 2009 2:59 PM

Jay... since when does a parking garage improve the community? Since when does more car traffic improve the community? This isn't about not expanding SCSU. This is about not expanding it at THAT location.

How do you know that Moti is NOT talking to CT Transit too? Why can't this be an opportunity to unite around getting them to do more? What would happen if SCSU added it's weight and power to the transit discussion happening all over the city/region?

And lastly, what difference does it make where Chris Ozyck lives? Do you know who he is? Do you know what he does? Are you suggesting that his work should only be around his house?

I'm not attacking you or insulting your intelligence but I am asking you to think a bit more about what the complaint being raised is and then come back with an argument if you so desire.

Posted by: William Kurtz, SCSU Graduate | March 19, 2009 3:06 PM

I think the question under discussion is whether this project will, in fact, "vastly improve the area that continues to reveal a decline in overall esthetics of the area" (sic), so ridiculing people who are opposed to this garage is a pretty clear example of question begging,
in the most precise sense.

Posted by: Bill | March 19, 2009 3:15 PM

It appears from the photo in the news story, that the proposed garage will be placed on what is now a parking lot. Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: anon | March 19, 2009 3:27 PM

"What would happen if SCSU added it's weight and power to the transit discussion happening all over the city/region?"

Amen. SCSU needs to get more involved in advocating for its students' long-term interests. Campus parking fees should be raised by $300/month and there should be buses running to campus every 5 minutes from Downtown, plus walkways, bikeways, carpool incentives, and better train service into New Haven.

Posted by: jay | March 19, 2009 3:58 PM

so, power to the people - are you saying the garage is okay, as long as it's "not in my back yard"?
A parking garage is one aspect of the larger plan that is geared to educating people. I firmly believe that does improve a community.
And if the claim is what this is going to do to the neighborhood, then yes, I do believe that it makes a difference where people live.

Posted by: William Kurtz | March 19, 2009 4:16 PM

Whoa whoa whoa. I'm all for increasing accessibility of public transit and other alternatives, but until all of that stuff is in place, Anon, let's not try to finance the car-free utopia on the backs of state-university students to the tune of $300 a month--at least not without a corresponding jaywalking tax on Yalies.

Otherwise, yes, I completely agree that SCSU and other universities should put more time, effort and money to offering more incentives for students not to drive personal automobiles to campus, while not taxing the ones who do right out of their educations.

Posted by: Chris Ozyck | March 19, 2009 4:32 PM

For the record I have worked with the Friends of Beaver Ponds for years and they asked me to look over the EIE. Most of my comments related to storm water and the University's impact on the river, streams and ponds that envelop the university. I am only questioning who really owns the land. City maps and road atlas maps clearly show that the land by the Ponds is Beaver Ponds Park, there are no addresses for SCSU on Crescent or Fournier street on Vision appraisal. If the City in fact owns some of the land needed for expansion, then there is additional opportunity for discussion, if not lets make sure we are getting our full share of Pilot for SCSU. Maybe it wasn't made clear but I believe most people in the neighborhood support the expansion, and just are concerned how it "faces" the neighborhood and their beloved park. For the record I support the SCSU expansion and structured parking but would like to see higher LEED standards on the land management side, parking internal, the architecture facing the neighborhoods aesthetically pleasing.

Posted by: anon | March 19, 2009 5:16 PM

The point of $300 per month parking is not to finance new train stations. It's that virtually nobody would pay it, and the urban land at SCSU could then be put to better use -- instead of the State CONTINUING TO TAX THE COMMUNITY to build more and more hulking garages every year, while providing nothing in return.

Zero dollars is a small price to pay for ensuring that our communities aren't DESTROYED. If people can afford the $300, great. That's the true cost of a parking space -- and people who use the parking should be the ones who pay for it.

The current system is messed up. What we have now is that poor people (who probably either walk to campus or take the bus already, or perhaps who didn't get into SCSU or even graduate high school in the first place) ARE SUBSIDIZING THE STUDENTS who choose to drive and park there.

The cost of a parking garage, when construction, debt financing and long-term maintenance is taken into consideration, is upwards of EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER SPACE.

Do you honestly think that the student drivers are paying for even a fraction of the cost of these? Perhaps the people who are REALLY PAYING are the ones struggling to survive after their high payroll taxes, running for a bus that runs once an hour, and then dealing with all the pollution and traffic in the inner city.

Obviously, the other systems need to be in place first, but if SCSU demanded them, they would appear within a few years or less. Instead, we have a situation where drivers are valued above all other members of the community.

This needs to be redressed at once!

Posted by: Moti Sandman - Alderman Ward 28 | March 19, 2009 5:47 PM

Hi All:

Just wanted to clarify what I said about mass transit.

An idea was put forth - by the University - last year to have a light rail or electric bus system that would bypass the city streets and just move on the SCSU campus. It would run on a regular schedule and connect the farthest parking spot to the main halls within 10 minutes.

SCSU could then build a structure on the surface lot off of Wintergreen, meet their parking needs and keep the neighborhood happy. The reason for bypassing city streets is because the area streets jam during the evening rush hour and the current shuttle is not reliable. There is a pedestrian bridge that crosses over Fitch Street that can be expanded to handle a light rail system.

Another point is for SCSU to improve security at the far end parking lots. The students will not use a lot if the don't feel safe. More "blue boxes" should be installed as well the institution of regular patrols.

I recognize that the needs of both the student body and the administration of SCSU need to be met and respected but I sincerely hope that the SCSU community understands the need to meet and respect the neighborhood requests.

Yours truly,

Moti Sandman
Alderman - Ward 28
Beaver Hills

Posted by: Nan Bartow | March 19, 2009 11:27 PM

I am totally against the proposal to build the Ella Grasso garage on the hillside overlooking the parkland which is shared by New Haven citizens and SCSU. Increased impervious surfaces will cause more erosion into Beaver Pond, will add pollution, will effect changes in pond water temperature, and will reduce flow in between rain events. Pollution from a campus garage from this particular site will include leakage from cars,and excessive noise and lights, along with regular trash. A garage in this location will also encourage more traffic on the neighboring streets. SCSU should show good stewardship of these resources rather than propose to build a parking garage right next to the natural parkland that borders Beaver Pond North. There are many other places on the campus to build parking garages. The University needs to plan a transportation system that is not so dependent on garages. The University should develop a much more comprehensive shuttle system and improve its bicycle and pedestrian walkways. Most of all SCSU should respect its beautiful natural surroundings and the residents who live nearby.

Posted by: steve | March 20, 2009 12:12 AM

the official address for SCSU is 501 Crescent St...the State owns all the land...the parking lot, while, yes, is near the pond, is actually between englemann hall bldg & the baseball field, which is ST of CT property...you will never find that ownership in Vision Appraisal.

Posted by: DEZ | March 20, 2009 3:39 AM

I am so impressed with the work that has vastly improved Beaver Ponds from a storm water, trash impacted catch basin to a viable park space with a strong following of committed neighbors who value the parcel for the greater good. That being said, I also attended SCSU for grad school and realize their parking is inadequate at best. I propose parking lot 9 on Farnham as a garage location. The topography of lot 9 sets the garage into a bowl of sorts and will leave Beaver Ponds unaffected. Thoughts?

Posted by: Carl Goldfield | March 20, 2009 2:25 PM

I object to the proposed parking garage being located next to Beaver Pond Park because there are alternatives for parking on the other side of the campus which will have no impact on a sensitive environmental site nor abut a residential area. The proposed parking garage will be reserved for faculty and staff (confirmed by the SCSU administration in response to my inquiry at the public hearing) and that is the only reason it is being located at the end of the Boulevard. It's because the administration doesn't want to have to ask faculty and staff to ride a shuttle or walk a short distance.

I support expanding Southern (I taught there for many years as an adjunct) and its mission (more important than ever in this era of job loss and retraining). I thank the SCSU administration for its openess. However the proposed garage makes no sense when there are perfectly suitable alternatives which have no negative impact.

Posted by: anon | March 20, 2009 3:23 PM

"It's because the administration doesn't want to have to ask faculty and staff to ride a shuttle or walk a short distance."

That's ridiculous. The best campuses are spread out on purpose, to force faculty and students to mix. Giving the faculty easy access from their pod cars to their pod campus offices is a recipe for a fourth rate institution, and is a disservice to the students.

Every faculty member and staff person should have to walk across the campus for at least 15 minutes per day.

Posted by: robn | March 21, 2009 9:01 AM

For Pete's sake!

The campus is only a half mile wide. There is no burdensome point-to-point walk. SCSU should view the pond as an aesthetic asset University...just like the neighbors do, and protect it. Just put the parking structure someplace that makes sense and don't worry about asking students to walk...they can do it, and they'll be healthier for it. and do it like other universities with faculty and upper classmen getting the perk of centralized lots.

Posted by: William Kurtz | March 21, 2009 1:08 PM

You DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT AT ME.

Yes, the current system is in need of major change; we agree on that as you well know and I'm sure you make these kinds of suggestions ($300 per month for a parking spot at SCSU; required 15-minute marches back and forth across campus for people trying to do their jobs--run that one past the maintenance and food service staff who are on their feet all day) knowing full well that they're politically and practically absurd, as a way of calling attention to the core inequity that yes, promotes or enables driving in personal automobiles above all other means of transportation.

Unfortunately, we're living in a world not entirely of own design, dependent on decisions--bad or good--that were made long ago. Change needs to be practical and respectful of all the different people affected.

Have you considered the impact of your 'plan' on low-income college students of all kinds (traditional and non-traditional, single parents, returning students, etc.) for whom public transportation in its current less-than-ideal state isn't practical? What about recent high school grads who are living in other towns, maybe still at home, and commuting to SCSU while working at night to finance their tuitions?

Posted by: David | March 22, 2009 12:02 AM

Once upon a time Fredrick Olmsted designed Central Park in New York, Parks in Chicago and Ohio and his firm was asked to design a park system for New Haven. They envisioned a green ring around an urban setting that included Beaver pond. The plan was implemented but was quickly encroached upon by Yale fields, High school expansion and New Haven teachers college (AKA SCSU).

I believe the original vision the Olmsted group had, was correct. We may not want to tear down all the stuff that was built on the green belt but we should continue the quest. A parking garage is not apart of the vision. It more resembles a windmill.