New Haven Independent

Posted by: anon | April 30, 2009 11:51 AM

This is great news, but what about the state's affordable housing crisis? The state government could be giving special grants to private and non-profit developers who build new homes on sliver lots and brownfields. Beautiful new mixed-income homes would be perfect for these lots, since that's what was there before. They would also provide jobs and homeownership opportunities for everyday working families.

Unfortunately, the state is busy shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars for new roads to suburban subdivisions, and debating how to give property tax breaks for SUV owners in Greenwich. State reps are also working to ensure that the poor and middle class continue topay a much larger fraction of their total incomes in taxes than the wealthy do. And for some reason, repaving roads in North Branford, building train stations in the middle of nowhere in Orange (presumably so that people can get to the new United Illuminating Headquarters being built on the prime farmland there), and building a billion-dollar new Q-bridge take priority over the rebuilding of our diverse city and town centers -- centers which, according to all predictions, are the last remaining hope for creating a sustainable Connecticut economy that can compete with the rest of the world.

What about the asthma crisis? Turning potentially valuable home sites into yet more parking lots is bad for the environment, too, besides not being a good, tax-producing use of our city's precious land. As the foreclosure crisis worsens, I have a feeling that we're going to be seeing more and more empty lots. I hope the state and city will work together on strategies to make them more of an asset to society as a whole.

Posted by: Cat2000 | April 30, 2009 12:08 PM

What is the import of identifying slumlord Etoule as a "nigerian speculator?"

Posted by: robn | April 30, 2009 12:50 PM

CAT2000,

Whether an out-of town, speculator is from Nigeria or from Woodbridge, identifying them as such helps give New Haveners a sense of who is abusing the public by letting propoerties get distressed.

Posted by: Fred Johnson | April 30, 2009 2:54 PM

"..Beautiful new mixed-income homes would be perfect for these lots, since that's what was there before.."

Many or most of these lots are to small to construct a new house of any decent size, even with extensive zoning relief of yard setbacks. Also if any city or federal program funds are used for the construction the red tape and "green" requirements would price such small stuctures way out of the market of the very people one would hope to attract. Sadly, there is az lot of lip service given to the need for this sort of housing but very little reality and practical common sense.

Posted by: TimCT | April 30, 2009 3:33 PM

The train station in Orange will also allow New Haven residents to get to their jobs at Yale's West
Campus, not to mention allowing Orange residents access to their jobs in lower Fairfield Cty. They're supposed to build West Haven's new train station first though.

Posted by: anon | April 30, 2009 3:48 PM

What is your definition of a home of decent size, Fred? You have good points, but part of the reason that the "market" may not be obvious is because the correct policies are not in place. Of course projects are expensive if you are just trying to do a handful of them, but are they expensive if you are working with an entire city (like rebuilding New Orleans), or trying to address a problem more comprehensively (like filling the hundreds of thousands of vacant lots in the cities between Boston and Washington DC)?

Posted by: jawbone | April 30, 2009 4:13 PM

I'd rather be a nigerian speculator than what I actually am; an american obsessed with checking NHI posts...

Posted by: Cat2000 | April 30, 2009 4:36 PM

Robn:

Looks to me like this particular slumlord is from Bridgeport, and does not appear to be flying in from Nigeria to buy up property in New Haven. The bit on him being Nigerian seems superfluous, especially coming from Paul, who painstakingly went out of his way so as not to reveal the identities of kids who had mugged him. Just an observation in irony--not meant to be a distraction from the real story ;-)

Posted by: norton street | April 30, 2009 8:36 PM

i posted this on another article and didnt get a response, so ill repost and hopefully get an answer:

is the objective of selling sliver lots to encourage development on these sites? is the tax deferral's purpose to give time to construct housing so that it is generating money by the time the taxes phase in? or is there some other intended outcome?

it seems that the vast majority of these lots are on streets with high poverty rates, where most residents rent and the houses are not owner-occupied. the adjacent property owners, i worry, may not care much about these areas and if they were to buy up these lots they might turn them into parking rather than do much with them. or if they are the type of property owner with access to many resources, the buildings they will put up in these lots will be cheap construction, poor design and only there to make a little money.
another thing that has become very popular is turning vacant lots into small gardens, which can be nice but becomes problematic because they often do not follow the traditional organizing systems of urban design; they are meant for the neighboring buildings but have little to no relationship with the entire street, community, and neighborhood, whereas planned green space (like monitor square, phelps triangle, state street triangle, etc.) are much more of a centralizing element rather than an obvious place where a house used to be. the number of these sliver lots in the city is astounding and i am hopeful yet weary of the possibilities they hold.
i suggest that where abutting sliver lots are located their combined space can become community gardens/small parks/plazas (like Kensington Playground, which is quite nice), while traditional housing is built on lone sliver lots, and sliver lots on intersections should be mixed use, with retail on the ground with 2 units of residences above.
an overall city plan for how to sell these in a way that encourages this would be desirable.
if the city just wants to get rid of these as fast as possible, i think that is a huge mistake and we could lose out on some revenue/meaningful places in the future.

Posted by: Ben Ross | April 30, 2009 9:56 PM

What is behind this?I wonder if the next door neighbors get first crack at the lots?
Building makes little sense ...we got enough buildings and people as it is. The lots might make good gardens (gardens are good for community). Maybe we would have some air to breath if we grow our own veggie and flowers in the summer.....so tax break for gardened yards ...owned or not. And let all city employees ride the bus (or a bike) to work one day every week.

Posted by: Fred Johnson | May 1, 2009 10:40 AM

Anon:
What I meant by "decent" size was a two floor, two bedroom house about 14' x 34' or 952 sq.ft. on two floors. Factory manufactured on a site built foundation this should run $62,000 or $62/sq.ft. Such a house would fit nicely on a lot about 34' wide x 84' deep. Many of the sliver lots are deep enough but not nearly 34' wide. Now, add in funding source energy star requirements and new haven living wage regulations and that $62/sq.ft. cost can easily climb to $85/sq.ft. or $81,000 for a small house on an inner city lot. If you can keep in down to the $62/sq.ft. we might have something.

Posted by: Walt | May 4, 2009 10:01 AM

Looked at a few of the sliver lots on the list. Those few varied from under 100 sq.ft to 4,000 sq, ft.

Never will anyone collect the big debts on those properties, nor can I figure how a lot of debt could have been acquired on a tiny lot of under 100 sq. ft.

Clear the titles on the tiny lots,and split ownership to adjacent property owners who can take care of the land and pay future taxes.

On the bigger lots, buildable if little homes like Johnson proposes are permitted, clear the title and give them free to folks who have legitimate plans and financing (Title to be forfeited, if not built upon in, say 5 years_

Everyone does not want or need or can afford spacious lots.

On some lots in Hamden, when you walk out the cellar door, you must make a quick turn or you will be trespassing on your neighbor's property, yet those properties seem to sell pretty quickly.