87 More Wooster Square Apartments Planned

No corporate welfare and 50% section 8 housing should be and will be demanded. Like I said this city is a cash cow that the wrong people are milking.

Lol Ben Trachten.
Good work, buddy!

Wendy

50 percent affordable; ugh (No way you're getting my vote)

While I am really sympathetic to the plight of the rent-burdened, the obligation to fund the gap between affordable and market should not fall on the developer. The way that developers close that gap is with low interest State loans and those have dried up. Construction costs are too high to make the financials work. Really, talk to some people that know; don't just drop the one-line zingers. You encourage the crusaders out there and give false hope.

The developers that offer affordable housing eventually a)require bailouts (ninth square); or b) require new loans to update their properties (that project on edgewood and Antelion Manner); or c) let their buildings fall apart because there isn't enough free cash to make reasonable repairs and you get demolition by neglect (Church Street South).

If corporate welfare is the Property Tax Assessment Deferral, its available to all residents for any project that improves the value of an investment property by more than 35 percent. As a taxpayer, I am fine with this type of program to encourage development. What is surprising is that more people don't take advantage of these types of programs. Any 3 family renovation could apply.

I think this will be a great development for the Mill River District. It is bicycle friendly. It adds green space. Accommodates modern storm water requirements, heat reflectivity and lighting. It doesn't displace residential tenants. It will be mindful of the commercial tenants. It checks all the boxes of thoughtful development that is in context with the surrounding area. Hopefully more buildings in this area will be updated and integrated into the Chapel/Downtown corridor.

Sorry, Wendy you're too late. The site plan and special permit approved last night was the last chance zoning officials had to review the project. If the city were to adopt an affordable housing requirement (which I'm OK with), it would not apply retroactively. Similarly, if the city were to drop the property tax phase in when the current law expires, the tax law change would apply prospectively.

I thought this building and land-- which housed the Schollhorn plant of Sargent and Company was a contaminated brownfield that had to be remediated. This is why no housing was put in there for so many years. What happened to that????

About Schollhorn: "The William Schollhorn Company of New Haven, Connecticut was a well-known maker of parallel-jaw pliers and other tools in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The company was incorporated in 1891 and remained active through the first part of the 20th century, and was eventually acquired by the Sargent Company in 1948.

Schollhorn is probably best known for its distinctive parallel-jaw pliers, produced under the numerous patents issued to W.A. Bernard. These pliers featured precisely-formed sheet metal handles with embossed designs, a type of construction that offered lighter weight and lower cost than comparable forged handles. "

@Wendy


The issue is not people who have section 8, developers love section 8 because someone is paying the rent gap with this subsidy. The population that needs to be served are the residents without subsidy who are at or below certain AMI levels (40%-80%).

Just saying 50% section 8 tells me that you don't understand how this stuff works. Not even on a superficial level. You might mean well but you make no meaningful contribution to the discussion at all.

The city and alders need more education about the true impacts of "affordable" and "inclusive" zoning because what I've heard lately is mostly spin and optimism.

Do we really have a lack of affordable housing when you can rent a decent two bedroom in Westville and fair haven and the hill and other areas for $1200 per month? What are people expecting. that's affordable to two people earning minimum wage working 40 hours per week.

Ben, the key question is "affordable for whom". A $1,200/month apartment is just barely affordable for a couple working full time at minimum wage jobs, using the 30% of income metric. That couple would make just over $42,000 per year. But the median household income in the city is about $39,000. A majority of city households cannot afford that apartment. A single parent working full time at a minimum wage can afford about $500/month. I don't think such apartments exist.

I take your central point. The financials do not work for low-, as distinct from moderate-income housing, at least for new construction. For the numbers to work, the state and/or federal government will have to substantially expand housing assistance. I think the city's proposed zoning incentives for affordable housing will help, but will have only a modest impact.

@kevin

Completely agree that the question is "affordable to whom" and I feel like a broken record making this point over and over.

In my opinion we do not have an affordability crisis. For people at or above 80%AMI there are many safe and sanitary housing options. The gap between market rate and affordable to an 80%AMI Occupant or family is almost nonexistent. When you dip down into the below 50%AMI, the really poor people, finding housing without a subsidy is not going to be easy. Maybe it's not even possible. And private developers can't be expected to house these tenants. The numbers don't work. We need the housing authority and the nonprofits like MHASCCT to fill those gaps and build more units with services in place. Like West Village Apartments (former YMCA right next to Novela). I think they got a boatload if state money years ago to renovate and they have project based vouchers in place to pay the gap between the tenant portion and the market rent. I think market for a 300 sq ft studio is like $850 per month. That's the solution.

Changing the zoning code to allow as of right accessory apartments is also an idea. but dumping the burden on developers; bad plan.

No. Ben, I do understand what I'm saying and yes, section 8 is good for landlords because they get the rent and on time. Currently there is a very LONG list of section 8 people in New Haven waiting for housing. I believe in rent subsidies and yes, aside from the lucky citizens who get section 8 status, there are many more who are simply too poor to afford anything viable in this city. Section 8 ( a federal subsidy) is not even on offer here at the moment. Other housing solutions must be looked at and will cost the city $$. In the meantime, NH owes half a Billion to creditors and bondholders. Read the budget book and weep.

Ben Trachten is clearly pushing is 'angle' as a connected 'development asset'.
He hinted at it when he first started getting called out and 'appearing' in this comments section.

I've never been called an "asset" before so I must be moving up in the world. It sounds menacing and I like it. But, no. Sadly, every comment I make comes directly from me. I don't comment to advance my clients' interests (though we probably align in terms of values on most issues) and I'm not the tool of a secret coven of developers with evil gentrification plans. Every syllable of my comments is the real me. And I am a long-time resident of this great City; 37 years now.