Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Follow Us

NHI Newsletter

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

New Farnam Courts May Push Out Men’s Shelter

by Thomas MacMillan | Jul 17, 2014 8:31 am

(37) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Housing, Fair Haven, Mill River, Wooster Square

Thomas MacMillan Photo The housing authority’s latest plans to revamp a Grand Avenue public-housing complex call for two new mid-rise apartment buildings with a corner store, 13 townhouses—and, down the line, buying and tearing down the homeless shelter next door.

Those intentions came to light in a meeting of the City Plan Commission Wednesday evening in City Hall, where the housing authority showed renderings of the first phase of the proposed new Farnam Courts housing complex.

The housing authority is nearing groundbreaking on a massive overhaul of the troubled complex, which has long been a source of 911 calls. The authority plans to tear down and rebuild the 70-year-old, 244 unit housing complex in several phases. The work will begin closest to Grand Avenue, and work north into the property, which is bounded on the east and west by Franklin and Hamilton streets, respectively.

The authority presented its Phase One plans for approval by the City Plan Commission Wednesday evening. The $40 million plans call for razing 120 units of existing housing to build new apartment buildings, townhouses, and a park. The commission voted unanimously to approve the plans.

Phase Two would see the demolition of the rest of the existing project and the construction 99 more townhouse apartments north of Phase One.

The housing authority is also considering what staffer Shenae Draughn called “Phase 2a”: buying the homeless shelter next door and building more housing there. That plan, which is contingent on the shelter finding a new location to move to, would be a way to “stabilize” the area, she said.

Also Wednesday evening, the housing authority won City Plan Commission approval for its plans for 32 new apartments where a derelict warehouse now sits on Chatham Street. The Chatham Street project, along with another development at Eastview Terrace will create a total of 57 units for a total cost of $23 million. Slots in those developments will be available first to people displaced from the current Farnam Courts. Architect and Board of Zoning Appeals member Regina Winters (pictured) presented the Chatham Street plans to the commission Wednesday evening.

$40 Million

Joseph Lenehan, a project manager with engineering firm Fuss & O’Neill, presented the Phase One plans to the commission, as well as an overview of the entire project.

Phase One includes the construction of two mid-rise buildings directly on Grand Avenue, where a plaza now exists. One building will bend around the corner of Hamilton Street and will have space for a corner store on the first floor. The two buildings together will have 90 apartments.

Thirteen townhouse apartments will be built behind the mid-rises, next to a new 33,000-square-foot park and a 3,600-square-foot community center.

More townhouses will follow in Phase Two, arranged on a grid (pictured) of new streets. The north-south streets will be public; the east-west private.

The housing authority is aiming to begin construction in November, with an expectation that Phase One will take 18 months to complete.

The phase will cost $40 million, funded by a combination of tax credits, housing authority and city money, and loans.

”A Good Mix”

“We’re talking about a major social shift,” said Ed Mattison (pictured), chair of the commission. Grand Avenue near Farnam Courts is not currently “one of New Haven’s premier streets,” he said. The architecture in the area is “haphazard” and doesn’t connect well to downtown.

Mattison asked what the authority plans to do to fix that.

Draughn said the housing authority has been meeting with local merchants and is planning “treatments” for the underpass as well as facade improvements in the area.

Mattison asked about plans for the emergency shelter next door.

“We’ve had that parcel appraised,” said Draughn (pictured). The shelter is looking for a new location, she said. If it can move somewhere else, the housing authority would buy the existing property.

“We’re trying to figure out how to integrate that parcel,” she said. “We would build on it” as part of the Farnam re-do. “That is our desire, to purchase it.”

Mattison noted that the city is in the midst of reconsidering its homelessness policies. The city is nearing the end of a major 100-day push to house the majority of the city’s chronically homeless. “It’s not at all clear the city will want to continue mass sheltering.”

Draughn later said that buying the shelter would help “to stabilize the area” and “contribute to the success of the development.”

Mattison said that Farnam Courts tenants have long complained about the loitering that occurs outside the shelter, which provides beds for 75 men.

“The neighborhood doesn’t think it’s a good mix,” he said.

Tags: , ,

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Comments

posted by: Threefifths on July 17, 2014  9:12am

The housing authority is also considering what staffer Shenae Draughn called “Phase 2a”: buying the homeless shelter next door and building more housing there. That plan, which is contingent on the shelter finding a new location to move to, would be a way to “stabilize” the area, she said.

Plan or Not the shelter like the rest of the people will be gone.This housing is not for the people who live there already.People wake up.The gentrification and Charter school vampires are coming.This is happing across this country in the hoods.Keep voting them in.

posted by: Anderson Scooper on July 17, 2014  10:19am

Hey NHI, can we be given more info about the Chatham Street project?

$23 Million for thirty-two housing units comes out to about $735,000/unit. Can that be possible? And if the people in charge of the public funds really care about the mission, (and aren’t out and out turning a blind-eye to highway robbery), why would they say yes to such a lavish use of limited dollars?

posted by: Noteworthy on July 17, 2014  10:26am

Expensive Poverty Notes:

1. The Chatham project will cost taxpayers $718,750 per unit. That exceeds if memory serves, the last project which was close to $500,000 per unit. Perhaps the Housing Authority can add some gold fixtures, a bidet and a three car garage so they can hit a million per unit.

2. It is unclear according to this article how many new units will be built on the Grand Avenue property - 120 are being torn down - for the $40 million investment but it too is likely to be in the hundreds of thousands/unit.

3. These costs are only justified in the stupefied air of government employment. Common sense it seems, is in short supply with contractors only too happy to push them over the edge.

posted by: wendy1 on July 17, 2014  10:29am

I live 3 blocks away.  I didn’t make the meeting on Wed. but I wish I had been there with my bullhorn.

No one should have to live between 2 major highways.  The dirt and noise are unbearable but it took us years to get flimsy highway fences built.  Also the grocery store owned by a notorious Republican and the liquor store, both across the street from FC are an armed camp that help mark the neighborhood as ghetto.

So far no buildings have broken ground that I can see in town except for Yale-backed WinchesterLofts.com which will be an all-white section of town.  Plans and promises I hear but where are the buildings??? I went to the Econ.Dev. office, LCI, and the Mayor’s office begging for homeless housing since we have a growing population.  City govt so far is not interested.  Expect more homeless and more crime everywhere.

I have found over a dozen large empty buildings, many possibly available to the city and am happy to share my list.  I offered to give Mat Nemerson a tour in my car.

posted by: Gretchen Pritchard on July 17, 2014  10:57am

I wonder about apartment buildings with lobbies, stairwells and elevators.  If I recall correctly, these architectural features typically turn out to be a major can of worms when incorporated into public housing, and were a major factor in the failure of the Elm Haven high rises in New Haven and similar projects in other cities.  If tenants are screened to eliminate all individuals exhibiting any kind of anti-social behavior, fine—but then are we talking the dreaded gentrification?  If households with troubled members are living there, then how will the buildings be set up to prevent loitering, drug transactions, urinating in stairwells, crime in elevators, and other intrinsic risks of that layout?

Some reactions to earlier comments:  Wendy, what exactly do you mean by your observation that Farraro’s is owned by a “notorious Republican”?  I’m as blue as they come, but so far I haven’t heard that being a Republican is in and of itself a crime.  Is the owner of Farrarro’s committing some kind of outrage against the members of the community, based on political views?  Or do you just not like the Bible quotes on the walls of the store?

3/5, it would be kind of nice to hear something a bit more nuanced, now and then, beyond your many-times-daily refrain of “wake up people the gentrification and charter vampires are coming.”

posted by: FacChec on July 17, 2014  11:13am

“Farnam Courts: Phase one will cost $40 million, funded by a combination of tax credits, housing authority and city money, and loans.”

In 1997, the HANH completed a $20M HUD sponsored refurbishment of the 290 apartments reducing them to 244 apt, at Farnam Courts, the first such grand repair since inception in 1941. HUD required that all tenants who resided in the project receive first refusal to return, almost all returned.

In just 17 years the HANH is seeking to tear down the entire project for this current reported rebuild. HUD has twice turned down HANH’s request for funding to perform this task.
As a result, HANH has resorted to a series of mixed funding strategies from the state of CT CHFA, DECD, city of New Haven bond fund($8M) and loans from private industry. There is no indication how this money will be repaid considering that the main source of income, tenant rent, will remain fixed at 30% of tenant income. Ultimately taxpayers will have to pick up both the front side of the funding and later, the back side of the repayment, as well.

If this sounds like a bad deal…it is!

posted by: Threefifths on July 17, 2014  11:15am

@wendy1

There is no plan for the Homeless or the people that are living there.The only way to help the homeless is this.

1979 a lawyer named Robert Hayes, who co-founded Coalition for the Homeless, brought a class action lawsuit in New York State Supreme.The landmark victory in the 1979 lawsuit Callahan v. Carey paved the way for further legal victories that ensured the right to shelter for homeless men, women, children, and families in New York City.

The Callahan Legacy:  Callahan v. Carey and the Legal Right to Shelter.


http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/pages/the-callahan-legacy-callahan-v.-carey-and-the-legal-right-to-shelter


In fact the city of New York had to open a agency call the Department of Homeless Services.


http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/html/home/home.shtml

Now if this is done.The other towns will no longer be able to dump there homeless people on others.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on July 17, 2014  11:29am

The plans, as presented, show an enormous amount of asphalt - each housing structure is surrounded by roads on all sides! At least two internal streets could be eliminated from that plan to allow for more green space or building space. Also, I’m not so sure having the park on the interior of the block is such a good idea. It would probably be better for it to be visible from either Grand Avenue or Hamilton, if not both.

posted by: Dwightstreeter on July 17, 2014  11:37am

Mattison noted that the city is in the midst of reconsidering its homelessness policies. The city is nearing the end of a major 100-day push to house the majority of the city’s chronically homeless. “It’s not at all clear the city will want to continue mass sheltering.”

Does this mean developing Single Room Occupancy housing? Tiny houses on wheels? Scattering the chronic people without homes? Doing another Columbus House type shelter? Allowing for a tent city?

While CT law does NOT recognize a right to a home or even a shelter, the Legislature did pass a Bill of Rights for the Homeless in 2013.

Chronic unemployment of skilled, experienced workers, health problems (not just mental health or addiction), depleted assets and unemployment benefits are all creating a class of chronically homeless people, adults and children, who can only turn to the government, our representatives, for humane, dignified and safe shelter.

Where will the political leadership come from to design and implement a plan that recognizes that the issue of homelessness is no longer a transient issue but a permanent feature of our unbalanced economy where the victors have taken the spoils?

posted by: Threefifths on July 17, 2014  11:38am

posted by: Gretchen Pritchard on July 17, 2014 10:57am

3/5, it would be kind of nice to hear something a bit more nuanced, now and then, beyond your many-times-daily refrain of “wake up people the gentrification and charter vampires are coming.”

The people better wake up or they will not be here very long.I am sorry if you can see the take over by the gentrification and charter vampires.I have people stop me in the streets all the time and tell keep speaking the truth.I know what gentrification will do.My aunt almost lost her apartment buliding in Brookyn when they Build the Barclays center.And they also told the people they would make affordable housing.The people had to put lawsuits in to get them to build affordable housing.Keep on think all of this housing will be for the people.It will be for a certain class of people.Trust me.This will happen here in New Haven.People wake up the gentrification and charter vampires are coming.

My Bad.Atleast these people put up a fight.Looks like here in New haven people sleep.

Plan Expedited for Affordable Housing Near Barclays Center in Brooklyn
By CHARLES V. BAGLIJUNE 26, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/nyregion/plan-expedited-for-affordable-units-at-atlantic-yards-near-downtown-brooklyn.html

posted by: McMansion man on July 17, 2014  12:05pm

@ threefitfiths; As you are always preaching about the negative part of gentrification, how about looking at the positive.  People that pay taxes, People that take care of their property and neighborhood, less crime, better students in school, the list keeps going. The non gentrification movement should be called vampires, since hey suck the life out of the neighborhood, and town. 

As you drive through poor neighborhoods, I can understand that the homes are in poor condition, no money, absentee land lords, ETC.  However why are streets and yards full of trash and garbage.  Is it too much work to expect them to clean up after them selfs? 

@ Wendy1.  Housing projects are not for lifelong residences.  They should not be made comfortable, two years out and make room for the next group. Donate you home to become a shelter

posted by: DrDuBoisWalton on July 17, 2014  12:06pm

The off site Farnam Court redevelopment consists of two parcels - the one described at Chatham St and one at Eastview Terrace.  The total number of off site units is 57 and the $23 million cost cited in the article relates to building 57 units (not just the 32 mentioned in the article).  Given that the Chatham St site had a pre-existing use as a dry cleaner facility and other light industrial uses, there are remediation costs that must be incurred.  However, even with that, the per unit costs are no where near the levels mentioned in the comments.

I don’t think that the “gentrification” argument rings true when you look at the extensive redevelopment that has been undertaken by the HANH/ECC.  Whether you consider Monterey Place, Quinnipiac Terrace, Brookside, Rockview, Eastview Terrace or the Rowe Building, HANH/ECC has consistently replaced its public housing and maintained its commitment to all existing residents.  What we have provided are improved communities that offer better for our residents and offer better for the communities of New Haven.

Karen DuBois-Walton, HANH/ECC

posted by: RhyminTyman on July 17, 2014  1:23pm

3/5 this is public housing. How is public housing gentrification? This will create more affordable housing putting less burden on families means less homeless families. The shelter isn’t going to be purchased until after a new location is found. This seems like a reasonable solution for housing. How does this have anything to do with charter schools?

posted by: TheMadcap on July 17, 2014  1:43pm

“However why are streets and yards full of trash and garbage.  Is it too much work to expect them to clean up after them selfs? “

Because it’s a cycle, it’s hard to care about your surroundings when no one else including the city doesn’t seem to. This applies to everything. Go to a supermarket, nice bathrooms remain nice, but the moment they let that bathroom begin to slide in terms of appearance it starts degrading it eventually slides into absolute grossness. Or shopping carts, someone leaves a shopping cart in a random place that isn’t the carriage corral, all of a sudden everyone begins leaving them in that general area as if the presence of one person who didn’t return them ha now made it okay to not care. Plus most people don’t have the resources to make their neighborhood look good. You going to spend your limited money on making a nice lawn or clean up trash in your vicinity when some slumlord has you 9 dilapidated houses on your block? It’s not worth it and it creates a vicious cycle.

posted by: FacChec on July 17, 2014  2:16pm

@posted by: DrDuBoisWalton on July 17, 2014 12:06pm

You said that the commenter’s are incorrect in their analysis of the per unit cost for the on-site and off-site Farnam Court redevelopment consisting of two parcels.

However you failed to provide your estimated cost for these work sites; instead offering the following non committal statement; ” “However, even with that, the per unit costs are nowhere near the levels mentioned in the comments”.

The commenter’s found your response insufficient and it fails to insure them that this project will be cost effective, exclusive of poor management and waste.

In addition, you did not offer an explanation of when and how the HANH will repay its borrowing obligations to the state of CT, the city, and other private sources, utilizing tenant rent of 30% of income, as primary collateral. Please provide more detail.

posted by: McMansion man on July 17, 2014  2:26pm

@ madcap. I made it clear that the condition of the home can be beyond the ability for the poor to fix.  It is not beyond their means to pick up the garbage.  Responsibility begins with them. If the city continually provides services, which in the past has,.  Now the city can no longer afford to do so.  We as society give excesses of why the poor can not succeed, from poor teaches at their schools to minimum wage jobs.  The poor needs to take responsibility for their actions.  IT SHOULD BE CLEAR that there cases off abuse as well as true hardship, we just need to find the common ground

posted by: Noteworthy on July 17, 2014  2:49pm

Revised Expensive Poverty Notes:

1. It is with great relief that taxpayers’ cost of building the Chatham property will now be $403,508 per unit vs the $718,750 I calculated earlier because instead of 32, there will be 57 units. Stupidity has its degrees. At this rate, HANH could afford to buy all these families homes in tony Guilford - there are more than 200 listed at this price or less.

2. Environmental remediation is greatly exaggerated - no heavy industry just light industrial? If it costs a whopping $3 million which is highly highly unlikely, HANH will still be spending $360,876 per unit. What’s the estimate KDW?

3. How many units are going to be built in Phase 1 on Grand Avenue? For $40 million.

posted by: Threefifths on July 17, 2014  5:30pm

posted by: McMansion man on July 17, 2014 12:05pm

@ threefitfiths; As you are always preaching about the negative part of gentrification, how about looking at the positive.People that pay taxes, People that take care of their property and neighborhood, less crime, better students in school, the list keeps going. The non gentrification movement should be called vampires, since hey suck the life out of the neighborhood, and town.

What is positive of gentrification when it increases the average area income and frequently decreases average family size.  Poorer long-time residents (poor, elderly, working class, and minorities) are displaced due to their inability to afford increased property taxes, rising housing prices, and far higher rents brought on by gentrification.


As you drive through poor neighborhoods, I can understand that the homes are in poor condition, no money, absentee land lords, ETC.  However why are streets and yards full of trash and garbage.  Is it too much work to expect them to clean up after them selfs?

You should ask that question to mayor Harp,Last I look the Enforcement of the city’s housing code comes under LCI.


You also said People that pay taxes, People that take care of their property and neighborhood, less crime, better students in school, the list keeps going.

Talk to people in westville about the breakins.Get the crime report on east rock and westville.

I like what British sociologist Ruth Glass said.

One by one, many of the working class neighbourhoods of London have been invaded by the middle-classes—upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews and cottages—two rooms up and two down—have been taken over, when their leases have expired, and have become elegant, expensive residences ... Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly, until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed.

Like I said the vamipres are here.

posted by: Threefifths on July 17, 2014  5:53pm

posted by: DrDuBoisWalton on July 17, 2014 12:06pm

.  Whether you consider Monterey Place, Quinnipiac Terrace, Brookside, Rockview, Eastview Terrace or the Rowe Building, HANH/ECC has consistently replaced its public housing and maintained its commitment to all existing residents.  What we have provided are improved communities I don’t think that the “gentrification” argument rings true when you look at the extensive redevelopment that has been undertaken by the HANH/ECCthat offer better for our residents and offer better for the communities of New Haven.

Karen DuBois-Walton, HANH/ECC

I would expect you to say I don’t think that the “gentrification” argument rings true when you look at the extensive redevelopment that has been undertaken by the HANH/ECC.You are paid to up hold the system.ButI wll say this.There are Plans to Lease Open Land to developers at Public Housing Projects across this country.Gentrification is done in steps.It takes any where from five to fifteen years before the people she it comming.

posted by: Jones Gore on July 17, 2014  6:01pm

I’d like to ask Mr. Mattison if the residents ever complained about the loitering and drugs selling that occurred in the park directly on Grand Ave.

I bet the relatives, of the man who was shot and   life was practically saved by two Shelter Staff members trained in CPR and First aid, did not have a problem with the shelter. If the shelter was not there the man would have died.

posted by: Threefifths on July 17, 2014  6:07pm

posted by: RhyminTyman on July 17, 2014 1:23pm

3/5 this is public housing. How is public housing gentrification? This will create more affordable housing putting less burden on families means less homeless families. The shelter isn’t going to be purchased until after a new location is found. This seems like a reasonable solution for housing. How
does this have anything to do with charter schools?


There are plans across this country to to Lease Open Land at Housing Projects Stirs and to bulid.

 
A Closer Look: NYCHA’s Plan to Build Luxury Housing on the Lower East Side

http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/2013/03/a-closer-look-nychas-plan-to-build-luxury-housing-on-the-lower-east-side.html

posted by: jeffreykerekes on July 17, 2014  6:40pm

I was at a presentation on the Farnum Court redo where Jimmy Miller reported that the entire project, for 210 families, will cost $120MM.  That includes roads etc… to make this project complete for the 210 units.  So that comes to $570,000 per unit.  They try to partition different costs in different silos to conceptually reduce the cost per unit, but the truth is, if you didn’t do the project, you wouldn’t have the expense - also could be stated, you have all these various expenses because you are doing the entire project.  So it is appropriate to think about the total cost per unit.  If you bought a piece of land in the middle of no where and it was super cheap, but you still need to pay for a well, power etc… which could run thousands and thousands, you would need to compare that total cost to an alternative piece of land that has those amenities to compare apples to apples.  The truth is, there are tons of existing structures in NHV for far less than $570,000 per unit.  Using this much money for each unit means less people can be housed with these housing dollars.  Just think about how many people can be given shelter for $120,000,000.  Far more than just 210.

posted by: McMansion man on July 17, 2014  7:27pm

@ three fifths,

I can understand your concerns of gentrification and how it disrupts working class neighborhoods .  Gentiles are NOT vampires, they do not take, they only provide.  The under class are vampires, they suck the life out of our cities. 

Please Please choose another name for gentrification.  How about the elitist ?

posted by: Johnilovenh on July 17, 2014  8:43pm

Hello everyone… I want to respond on the “why don’t they pick up their trash” comment. It has nothing to do with where you live. I lived in Eastview back in the 70’s and the city renovated it 3 times and I watched people tear things up. My parents had us pick up trash or raking from the dirt(we had no grass lol). We kept our area spotless… So it really goes back to how you are brought up. I am also thinking if you are wondering where your next meal will come from etc, I am then thinking picking up trash is someones last concern,,,,thanks

posted by: Threefifths on July 17, 2014  9:01pm

No project can be called Economic Development if it does not provide a lasting benefit to the residents of that city.

Glen Ford.

posted by: McMansion man on July 18, 2014  7:36am

@ johnilovenh

Oh Please, The neighborhoods that we are speaking about, are a mess because they do not care, someone has always provided for them, they have no sense of pride, no family or work ethics.  They are disenfranchised broken people.  As it relates to the worrying about their next meal, if they were starving and hungry DIABETES and OBESITY would not be plaguing the poor today.

It is very unfortunate that the poor are lacking education and job opportunities.  Poor/uneducated people tend to make poor decisions that affect them deeply.  While wealthy/educated people tend to make correct decisions that affect them deeply, however in a better way.

The big question is how to fix a broken population?  Giving them hand out does not work.  It has created a dependency problem that is now generational. 

I am truly sadden that there is no foreseeable fix in the future. No one can stand up and speak the truth and provide a fox.  If they did it would not be PC and would become a racial issue.  So the mess continues

posted by: Noteworthy on July 18, 2014  9:40am

Duboisious Financial Notes:

1. In the interest of transparency and open, informed government, KDW needs to go over the total financial picture of this development - total cost, total number of units; projected cost of remediation and infrastructure improvements.

2. On the financing side - there needs to be full disclosure on what property if any is going to be removed from the property tax rolls; how much in state tax credits will be awarded to this project and what they will be sold for as well as how much HANH money, city money and debt will be required.

3. Why? Because we will all be paying for it one way or another. Those state tax credits will be bought by a corporate or wealthy taxpayer and will used to directly reduce their tax payments dollar for dollar. That reduction in payment will need to be absorbed by the rest of us state-wide. City debt and dollars - at a time when the Harp House has to have a $50 million line of credit because it has cash flow problems amid rising taxes affects us more directly.

4. What passes for economic development is just pitiful.

posted by: Threefifths on July 18, 2014  9:41am

posted by: McMansion man on July 17, 2014 7:27pm

@ three fifths,

I can understand your concerns of gentrification and how it disrupts working class neighborhoods. Gentiles are NOT vampires, they do not take, they only provide. The under class are vampires, they suck the life out of our cities.

Sorry they have been taking.Also correct the do provide at a high cost.You say the under class are vampires, they suck the life out of our cities.Last I looked it was crooked bankers and hedge funders that made the underclass with there sub-prime derivatives and then the puppet politicians bail out the investors with taxpayers’ money.

Check this out.You need to read there stories.

Hello From the Underclass: Unemployment Stories, Vol. One

http://gawker.com/5927342/hello-from-the-underclass-unemployment-stories-vol-one


Please Please choose another name for gentrification.  How about the elitist ?

How do you like this name One Percenters gentrification and charter school vampires.

posted by: McMansion man on July 18, 2014  10:26am

threefifths

the 1% are not living in this dump of a city.  Without gentrification, who is going to pay the taxes to support the poor? 

Please explain the options that you have in mind to have low cost housing, social services and low taxes? 

As a point to the sub prime mortgages, no one twisted the arms of the recipients to take out the mortgages and buy homes that they could not afford. 

I want to be clear that the predatory lending practices were morally wrong , how ever buyer beware.  Unfortunately, no jail for Wall Street since there was no laws broken, moral law does not send you to jail. 

Charter schools are just stealing funds from the city.  New Haven BOA is trying to perform the three card monty to distract us to think they are trying to fix the problem.. This i am sure we can agree on.

posted by: Threefifths on July 18, 2014  11:51am

posted by: McMansion man on July 18, 2014 10:26am

threefifths

the 1% are not living in this dump of a city.  Without gentrification, who is going to pay the taxes to support the poor?

They do not have to live here.Also what does gentrification have to do with pay the taxes to support the poor.


Please explain the options that you have in mind to have low cost housing, social services and low taxes?

For the middle class I would bring in rent control and rent stabilization.Along with the Mitchell-Lama Housing Program.

NYC Rent Guidelines Board

http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentcontrol.html


About the Mitchell-Lama Housing Program

http://www.nyshcr.org/Programs/mitchell-lama/

And for low income people I would bring in more housing for them.Take a look at this PDF and you will notice how rents are based on your job income.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/Elliot-Hobbs-Gardens.pdf

As far as low taxes.The people must fight for that.


As a point to the sub prime mortgages no one twisted the arms of the recipients to take out the mortgages and buy homes that they could not afford.

Not all true.There is evidence that many families who receive subprime mortgages could qualify for prime loans, but were steered into accepting higher-cost subprime loans. Also how illegal steering occurring on a prohibited basis,were borrowers are steered to higher cost subprime rate loans on a prohibited basis,such as race or ethnicity. Any one can be taken. Look how many people Bernard Madoff scam out of money.

I want to be clear that the predatory lending practices were morally wrong , how ever buyer beware.  Unfortunately, no jail for Wall Street since there was no laws broken, moral law does not send you to jail.

Not true.Blame him.

Holder Admits Some Banks Are Just Too Big To Prosecute

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html

Charter schools taking money.

I agree.

My bad. So what do you plan to do.

posted by: 1644 on July 18, 2014  12:32pm

$500K to $700+K per unit?  For low income housing?  Utterly absurd.  For that money one can buy a very nice home in Guildford or any other suburb.  In some areas one could buy 2 to 3 modest but decent single family homes.  There must be a lot of kickbacks built into this project.  It reeks of corruption.  And, as other have stated. did we decide high rise low income housing was a recipe for disaster?  Why are we not sticking with townhouses?

posted by: Atticus Shrugged on July 18, 2014  4:12pm

The price per unit is actually not at all absurd.  If you look at Live, Work, Learn, Play - they estimate $400 million for roughly 880 units (719 residential and 160 hotel).  That breaks down to roughly $450,000 per unit.  That does not include the “free” money the state is throwing in to help with the roads.  Construction costs are high.  The cost of land is high.  Get over it.

Unfortunately, the cost of not performing services and making neighborhoods is even higher.  As a statistical certainty, we can likely write off a significant chunk of the youth who come from Farnam Courts if for no other reason than their surrounding.  If you change that and give people something to aspire to and uplift them, you might begin to break the cycle of intergenerational entrenched poverty.  The cost of action are high, yes.  But the cost of inaction may be higher.

posted by: Dwightstreeter on July 18, 2014  4:38pm

Many observations about the poor (I refuse to use the evasive term “inner city”), some not too flattering, have been shared by commenters here, but mostly there is a sense of caring and a wish for something to be done that makes economic sense.

I urge readers to check out last month’s Atlantic for the mind-bending article by Ta Nehisi Coates on The Case for Reparations. Here is the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

Besides ending our collective denial for the US’s destruction of the African American family during and after slavery, the defeat of Reconstruction, lynching, terrorism to prevent voting and maintaining segregated housing policies until fairly recent times, we need to have our own “truth and reconciliation” and stop lecturing people and get our collective feet off their necks.

Then make Yale with its $22 billion endowment and YNHH (the new Pac Man of hospitals) and all the big “non-profits” pay their fair share of real and personal property taxes to lower the burden on the residents of New Haven.

You would think that after 50+ years of social and zoning tinkering in New Haven that some one might have figured out that nothing has worked to solve the issues of chronic poverty and the violence it generates.

This is my Wish List.

posted by: FacChec on July 18, 2014  5:06pm

@posted by: Atticus Shrugged on July 18, 2014 4:12pm

Atticus, you are clearly playing in the clouds with your comparison of Work Live Play construction cost, to the cost of constructing public housing units.

First, if you had careful read Noteworthy and my own post above you would see that we both tried but failed to get Ms Walton to respond to the question of overall construction cost for the Farnam Courts development. Lacking that you and others have thrown around fictitious numbers as unit cost to support your arguments…inaccurate….

Secondly, the live project cost you invented is inaccurate as well. According to the NHI story of Nov 4, 2013, the estimated total project cost follows:

“What does $395 million buy? Some 76,900 square feet of new shops, 785 parking spaces, 719 new apartments, a new 160-room hotel and 4.6 acres of office space.

Those are a few of the figures that the city has submitted to the Board of Aldermen, as lawmakers now consider whether to approve a new plan to develop the old Coliseum site.

The total project cost of $395 million would include $32.5 million in public dollars. The rest, $362 million, would be private funding from LiveWorkLearnPlay”.

Follow all past stories about live here:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/taglist/LiveWorkLearnPlay

To compare a $40M phase I public housing project of 120 units to a $362M commercial development with 720 units of housing and 160 hotel rooms makes no sense what-so-ever.
See also here:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/liveworklearnplay_gets_a_big_ok/
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/live_work_learn_play_by_the_numbers/

posted by: 1644 on July 19, 2014  9:42am

Atticus: $450K is not high?  Get over the absurd waste of my tax dollars?  The corruption in the Democratic party may mean I cannot stop it, but I can certainly complain.  High cost of land?  The land is already owned by the government, plus its in a bad neighborhood.  How much can it really be worth?  For $400K one can buy a 2-3K square foot house in good condition on .5 to 1 acre in Milford, Branford, North Branford, North Haven, Hamden, etc.
Dwightstreeter: The Black family actually did pretty well between slavery and the “60’s.  The Great Society reparations caused the breakdown of the Black family (see the Moniyhan Report), which has since spread to white families.  Being a single mother and out of wedlock births used to be rare, now they are accepted and supported by society and government.

posted by: McMansion man on July 19, 2014  2:48pm

Three fifths

I agree with everything that you posted.

posted by: Atticus Shrugged on July 21, 2014  9:45am

@ Fac and @July, it is not just the cost of construction.  There is also the cost of tearing down the existing structure, which probably contains lead, asbestos, and other chemical hazards.  Conversely, LWLP is new construction on a vacant lot.  So, yes, I still think the figure is not terrible.  But if you want to tear down the existing structure with reckless abandon and have no environmental protections, I’ll buy you a sledge hammer.  Have at it.

Events Calendar

loading…

SeeClickFix »

Other
Nov 1, 2014 7:59 am
Address: Quinnipiac Ave New Haven, Connecticut
Rating: 4

I'm sick of tow truck drivers driving like maniacs. "Unlimited Towing" is the worst. I...

more »
Parking Violation/Abandoned Auto
Nov 1, 2014 7:13 am
Address: 62 Livingston New Haven, Connecticut
Rating: 2

A black Chevy Suburban had been parked in the illegal, no standing, zone for 4 days and...

more »

PosterWallAdd your Poster

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design