Developer Buying Salvation Army Properties, Aims To Convert Hovels Into Upscale Complex

Paul Bass Photo NHPD “Alpha Dog” had a plan: Steal electricity for a squatters’ crash pad. Developer Robert Smith has a different plan for the property: Build new market-rate apartments and a mid-block “mews.”

Alpha Dog put his plan into place at abandoned Salvation Army buildings downtown. Then cops discovered his hidden lair last week, plus a dismembered human torso, and locked him up.

Smith will now get his chance to put his more permanent plan for the same buildings into place: He has won a competition to purchase the Salvation Army buildings and surrounding property. He plans to transform the one-time centers for down-and-out addicts and secondhand clothing into the kind of upscale housing he and others have already started building on the block.

The dreams and fates of Alpha Dog — as he was referred to — and developer Smith reflect the dramatic reversal of fortune taking place on the block bounded by Crown, High, George and College streets, perhaps the most rapidly upscaling block of downtown New Haven.

Developer Central

Smith, who runs the Milford-based development firm Metro Star Properties LLC, has been one of several developers transforming that block, a bridge between the Central Business District and the Yale/Yale-New Haven medical area. Smith’s crews are hard at work building 12 studios and lofts above a mid-block garage next to Bar restaurant ...

... and 24 apartments (including a top floor being added on Tuesday) plus ground-floor retail in a conversion of a former garage at the block’s western corner.

Meanwhile developer Robert Landino is finishing up a $50 million 160 luxury-unit Centerplan development at the corner of College and Crown (above). Pike International bought and restored a building on the block at 250 Crown, which it rents to Yale’s Baker’s Dozen singing group. Yale owns another building.

Two properties have stood out as reminders of the old Crown Street. The Salvation Army owned both of them: A secondhand clothing store at 274 Crown St. And an adjacent, three-story brick building that abuts the rear of that property, set back from the street at 301 George St. The building previously housed an adult rehabilitation center for struggling addicts.

The Salvation Army cleared out of those buildings last summer. They’ve been vacant ever since.

Banking on a hot downtown rental market for professionals, students and empty nesters, both Landino and Smith joined a competition to buy the properties from the Salvation Army. Both told the Independent they wanted to continue building the kind of housing (and in Landino’s case, retail) that they’ve already started creating on the block. “My original vision was to buy the entire block. I had started talking with Salvation Army at that time. When they weren’t ready to sell, it stopped me in my tracks,” Landino said.

When the buildings were ready for sale, Smith won the competition for an undisclosed price. “Our closing is in 30 days,” he said Tuesday.

On July 15 Smith also bought the next-door Regency apartment building at 297 George, where he said he plans to “improve the exterior aesthetics of the building by modernizing the exterior finishes.” He paid $5 million for the Regency, according to land records.

The Salvation Army property, which widens from its Crown Street storefront to a larger swath of the middle of the block, covers a total of .81 acres. Smith plans to build rental apartments on the property. “We have not finalized the design or unit count at this time. We are planning to rehabilitate and incorporate some of the existing structures into our plan,” he said.

Diana Stricker Photo Smith (pictured) said the project will “reflect the existing historic and architecturally rich environment that New Haven possesses.”

He said he plans to fill the block with apartments in several modes. He plans to construct a “mews,” or alley, from Crown to George street as part of the project. (His team, meanwhile, is busy redesigning part of Branford, too.)

City Economic Development Administrator Matthew Nemerson applauded Smith’s initial plans for the George/Crown property. He said the plans include restoring the vacant, old brick church attached to the former adult rehab center in the middle of the block.

“It’s a very interesting, sophisticated project that will tie together his other properties on Crown and his other properties on George,” Nemerson said. “The fact that he’s saving the church, which is very expensive — is really very commendable. He’s going to bring it back to its old glory. And you’re going to keep this recessed pocket jewel off George Street.”

Alpha Dog’s Plans

City officials did not applaud Alpha Dog’s plans—once they learned of them.

Alpha Dog is a 46-year-old homeless man with an enterprising gift, at least when it comes to commandeering vulnerable, vacant real estate. (We’re not naming him because of his pending charges, to which he has not entered a plea.)

In and out of jail for at least ten years, according to the state judicial website, “Alpha Dog” is the man who law enforcement officials believe kept the lights on at the vacant Salvation Army buildings where he and other members of the homeless community squatted.

He was found guilty in 2010 on three threatening charges in Waterbury, for which he received a one-year suspended sentence. In 2012, he was arrested on a sixth-degree larceny charge; he subsequently pleaded guilty and received a 13-month sentence.

He also pleaded guilty in 2014 to a felony weapons charge, for which he received a six-year sentence to be suspended after 13 months followed by three years of probation. Alpha Dog was released from MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield on Feb. 27 after shuttling nine times among different jails over a year and a half. (While it’s common to be transferred in the presentencing stages of a case, it’s not common for inmates to be transferred multiple times over a year and half, said a corrections spokesperson. The department did not have available explanations for the transfers.)

Freed and still on parole, the Alpha Dog apparently found his way to the abandoned Salvation Army properties, which homeless people, drug users and prostitutes were able to break break into with seemingly little problem.

The man set himself up as the “alpha dog” in charge of the operation, one homeless man living there told police investigators, as recounted in an arrest warrant affidavit written by veteran New Haven homicide detective Michael Wuchek.

He found a way to jimmy electricity. He got a walk-in freezer to work. He “walk[ed] around with a 2x4 piece of lumber” and gave orders.

Around a half dozen or so people were believed to have been living in the George Street building at any one time, with others passing through and crashing, or engaging in illicit activities.  Police have been called to the location from time to time on burglary and trespassing complaints. They had asked the property manager to board it up better.

But the full scope of Alpha Dog’s operation might have remained had it not been for a grisly discovery made down the road near the State Street train tracks.

Sleep Interrupted

Courtesy Photo It was there on the morning of July 15, (the same day that Robert Smith was acquiring the adjacent Regency apartment building), that police came upon two severed human legs hidden in brush along a fence atop an embankment above the tracks. A state forensic lab has since matched the DNA from the legs to Ray Roberson, a homeless man nicknamed “Boo Boo”, who had a gift for painting, but struggled with alcoholism, his sister, Sherell Nesmith, told the Independent last week.

Later on July 15 police came upon two severed arms nearby. The cops are awaiting state lab results on the arms’ DNA to determine if they also belong to Roberson, or someone else.

Meanwhile, state and local police have been hunting for the rest of the body Roberson’s body, and clues to who might have killed him. That search brought them last Wednesday to Robert Smith’s future mews, and Alpha Dog’s former home.

That day a “concerned citizen” told downtown beat cop Pate Ballolli that “he had heard that ‘the guy that got chopped up’ lived in the basement of the abandoned Salvation Army building on 301 George St. with a very large unknown white male [who had] chopped him up with an axe,” according to the warrant affidavit.

Ballolli and fellow patrolman Officer Dan Hartnett entered the building Wednesday through an open door and found three people there, one of whom had been living inside for a week. One of the three spoke of “very handy” “alpha dog” who got electricity going and “walk[ed] around with a 2x4 piece of lumber and orders everyone around.”

Soon the city and state cops investigating the Roberson’s dismemberment came on scene, launching what would be days of searching the two former Salvation Army buildings.

It didn’t take long for state cadaver dogs to hit on something.

They found a dismembered torso, in a back room of the adjoining Salvation Army building with the Crown Street address. Law enforcement officials are now waiting on state lab results to confirm whether the torso belonged to Roberson.

While the search of the Salvation Army buildings didn’t turn up any more dismembered parts, investigators did find one other surprise at 301 George: the “Alpha Dog.”

“They checked the furnace room and found a door that was covered by a bed sheet,” according to the affidavit. “The door had no knob and only a deadbolt and was not secured. They opened the door and found another room. Inside the room was a white male sleeping on a bed. They detained the white male in handcuffs without incident.” The room had “power and a working light, T.V., and fan inside.”

Alpha Dog was subsequently charged with sixth-degree larceny, third-degree burglary, and third-degree criminal trespass in connection to his squatting at the former Salvation Army buildings.

Police also questioned him about the Roberson case. He admitted that Ray Roberson had lived there with him, according to the affidavit. He denied having anything to do with Roberson’s murder. (Roberson’s sister Nesmith told the Independent she learned that her brother had been staying before his death with other homeless people in “this place [that] had a walk-in freezer. Those were his last words to his friend: Whoever he was staying with was able to jimmy the electricity on. They had this nice freezer.”)

The arrestee made a court appearance and remains at the Whalley Avenue lock-up on $500,000 bond, at least until his next scheduled court date on Sept. 1. But even if he should manage to favorably resolve his legal troubles and go free, Alpha Dog will most certainly have to find a new home.

By the time Alpha Dog has his court date, Robert Smith hopes to have concluded the deal with the Salvation Army and started the process of transforming the former outpost for the down and out into a magnet for New Haven’s newest wave of urban pioneers.

Tags:

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: vc man on August 5, 2015  7:17am

Cue the ensuing thread about gentrification. Annnnd, GO…

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 5, 2015  8:08am

Nothing new.The Salvation Army has sold there soul to the gentrification vampires across this country.They are selling and kick people out.Good thing no one was living in this building.

Salvation Army deal blocked

Eric Schneiderman claims displacement of seniors violates tenant protection laws


http://www.westsidespirit.com/local-news/20141110/salvation-army-deal-blocked


Salvation Army Sells NYC Center For $30M
By The NonProfit Times - March 6, 2014

http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/salvation-army-sells-nyc-center-for-30m/


When the buildings were ready for sale, Smith won the competition for an undisclosed price. “Our closing is in 30 days,” he said Tuesday.

Trust me,He paid a good penny for those buildings.Again nothing for the working poor or poor.

posted by: robn on August 5, 2015  8:12am

Even using the definition of “gentrification” loved by leftists to claim that it is the unfair displacement of poor people by wealthier people, that isn’t happening here because the block is abandoned. Why does is the author propagating a myth? (and telling a falsehood)

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 5, 2015  8:25am

posted by: robn on August 5, 2015 9:12am

Even using the definition of “gentrification” loved by leftists to claim that it is the unfair displacement of poor people by wealthier people, that isn’t happening here because the block is abandoned. Why does is the author propagating a myth? (and telling a falsehood)

The displacement of poor people happens when they can not pay the high rents that “gentrification” brings with it.

posted by: Anderson Scooper on August 5, 2015  8:37am

Good gosh NHI, new apartment developments going up on vacant lots downtown does not amount to gentrification. e.g. 360 State, College&Crown;, the Novella, LWLP, etc.

The conversion to residential of existing commercial properties downtown isn’t gentrification either. e.g. the Eli, Temple Square, the Liberty, 900 Chapel, the Union, Strouse-Adler, etc.

These downtown developments are not gentrification in a true sense simply because poorer residents are not being pushed out of housing units by an on-rush of yuppies wealthier folk,—usually fueled by the targeted, collective action of real estate investors and speculators.

Enough on this, (and cue Three-Fifths), but please let’s save the gentrification concerns for when people actively try to flip parts of Dixwell, or the Hill. To me these new apartments should all be seen in the positive light of helping Mayor Harp keep homeowners’ property taxes from going up, and of furthering a downtown that is safe and attractive, and rapidly becoming a showpiece that benefits everyone who lives both in New Haven and Greater New Haven.

posted by: anonymous on August 5, 2015  9:01am

Building more housing units is the only way to prevent gentrification. Housing demand is skyrocketing in cities as people live longer lives and suburban style development becomes financially unsustainable and impractical for the vast majority of people, who no longer have families living with them.

posted by: RhyminTyman on August 5, 2015  9:51am

3/5 you ignore the fact that this building will add units to the city there by force rents down across the city. If you want cheaper rent you want more units.

posted by: LookOut on August 5, 2015  9:56am

replacing tired old buildings filled with squatters and body parts with safe housing that creates a vibrant neighborhood.  More folks move in and the tax base increases and the city provides more services which can attract more residents and businesses.  Maybe there’s hope for New Haven after all.

Where can I sign up for more Vampires?

posted by: Scot on August 5, 2015  9:59am

All this development is very exciting.  One thing I wish the city would try to encourage is more local ownership.  That is I wish some of these developments were units that families/individuals could purchase, rather than massive units owned by single corporations. That way more residents of the city would have ownership in the city.  If all of the buildings downtown are owned by an oligopoly of out-of-state corporations, the wealth associated with the real estate flows out of state.  If New Haven thrives, the rents will be high, meaning New Haven residents will have a high cost of living, yet the proceeds from that success could flow out of town, and potentially out of state. 

Right now, both developers Landino (Centerplan based in Middletown) and Smith (Metro Star based in Milford) are fairly local, which is good.  However, a couple years ago Smith sold a huge chunk of real estate he developed in Milford to a company in Arizona. http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20130302/arizona-firm-buys-70m-in-downtown-milford-properties-city-nets-108k-in-taxes
I would hate to see that happen in New Haven.

I hope this is something Nemerson, etc is considering going forward as various companies submit development proposals.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 5, 2015  11:00am

posted by: Anderson Scooper on August 5, 2015 9:37am

Good gosh NHI, new apartment developments going up on vacant lots downtown does not amount to gentrification. e.g. 360 State, College&Crown;, the Novella, LWLP, etc.

Look up what is gentrification:Gentrification is a general term for the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban district, a related increase in rents and property values, and changes in the district’s character and culture.

These downtown developments are not gentrification in a true sense simply because poorer residents are not being pushed out of housing units by an on-rush of yuppies wealthier folk,—usually fueled by the targeted, collective action of real estate investors and speculators

Not true.How about the middle class?

The middle class is struggling to make the rent.

Making the rent is a common struggle for the poor. But it’s becoming increasingly difficult among the middle class.

One in five renter households making $45,000-$75,000 a year are considered “cost-burdened,” meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent, according to Harvard’s State of the Nation’s Housing 2015 report.

The middle class in these cities either are going to have to move out of town or sleep in shifts 10 to a bedroom.The idea is that housing supply should very much outweigh demand. Housing should be turned into a readily available, cheap commodity. These local governments and builders are all producing “luxury” homes, which are too big, unaffordable, and wasteful, but it lines their pockets very nicely. Most of us can’t afford that. We need quite the opposite.  Plenty of affordable, practical, and efficient homes that most of us can afford.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/24/real_estate/housing-middle-class-rent-affordability/

Keep a eye on the rents downtown and also look at who will be moving in to those apartments down town.

Part One.

posted by: Dwightstreeter on August 5, 2015  11:07am

More buildings do NOT equate to producing lower rents, Mr. Tymin.

The RMS building at Howe and Chapel was supported by some in the mistaken belief that “market rates” cited by Salvatore meant “affordable”.

Builders are not building for the masses. The money is in high end transient housing. And these people are unlikely to become involved in local issues.

Ownership is important because people invest in the schools and their neighborhoods.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 5, 2015  11:23am

Part Two.

Enough on this, (and cue Three-Fifths), but please let’s save the gentrification concerns for when people actively try to flip parts of Dixwell, or the Hill.

The vampires are all ready there.

Why is Gentrification a Problem?
Stephen Sheppard
Professor of Economics
Williams College

http://web.williams.edu/Economics/ArtsEcon/library/pdfs/WhyIsGentrificationAProbREFORM.pdf

posted by: RhyminTyman on August 5, 2015 10:51am

3/5 you ignore the fact that this building will add units to the city there by force rents down across the city. If you want cheaper rent you want more units.

Have not heard from you in a long time.Any way what you say is not true.All studies show that since the recession,the demand for rentals has continued to rise steadily, and real estate experts are predicting that rents will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.The 2014 Property Owner and Manager Report claims that 85 percent of property managers raised their rental rates over the past year,according to a report from Rent.com released earlier this month.Trust me the rents will be going higher in this state.

My Bad,I forgot.What happens if we get another Real Estate Bubble Burst? Then what.

posted by: HewNaven on August 5, 2015  11:25am

Paul, you have a gift. This is great story-telling! Well done.

posted by: robn on August 5, 2015  11:34am

3/5,

To my knowledge there has never been an economy in the history of the world in which an increase of supply of goods or services has resulted in higher prices.

posted by: Bradley on August 5, 2015  1:11pm

Based on this and previous threads, I think 3/5tns is conflating gentrification and rising rents. Some areas of New Haven are gentrifying. For example, Mansfield Street is seeing middle income folks replace poorer folks, who already have relatively few housing choices. Unlike New York City, this type of gentrification is uncommon here. East Rock, Westville, and Wooster Square, inter alia, were predominantly middle income when I moved here 25+ years ago and still are. Conversely, Dixwell, Newhallville, and Fair Haven were predominantly lower income and still are. 

On the other hand, rents are increasing faster than inflation across the city and in many other cities. It is traumatic to be forced to move when you have few alternatives, whether this is due to development or rising rents, but they are separate phenomena.

posted by: Adelaide on August 5, 2015  1:19pm

As a renter, I couldn’t be happier! It will give us more choices as to where and how we want to live. Is it expensive? Probably. Do I wish rents in New Haven were affordable? Of course. Will I rent one of these units next year when my lease is up? ABSOLUTELY!! Living here in The Hill is a garbage filled, overgrown, no police, drug infested, drunken, music blaring, kids screaming running up and down the block until 2A.M., non english speaking howling nightmare!
As far as ownership, I was a homeowner for 13 years and just because I now CHOOSE to rent does not translate to my being an irresponsible person, just like being a homeowner doesn’t automatically make a person a responsible one. If that were the case, then most of the houses and yards on Sylvan Ave. and Elliot St. would be in a whole lot better shape than they are! As far as this 3/5ths guy, it really is better to just ignore him, he goes away faster that way!!

posted by: cunningham on August 5, 2015  1:22pm

For whatever it’s worth, my rent has been steadily increasing (outpacing inflation and mill hikes) even as the number of rental units in town has increased.

posted by: Bill Saunders on August 5, 2015  2:12pm

Robn,

I have never heard of a City in the world where the rents have gone down over time, except maybe Detroit.

posted by: robn on August 5, 2015  3:42pm

BS,

In the case of apartment rent you’re probably right that it would take a shockingly large number of units coming on line to create enough of an impact to panic landlords and lower rents (I think its a psychology of insistence that worth couldn’t possibly be lost and its moreso in Yankee country than elsewhere). However, more coming on line certainly can stabilize rents and certainly will not be a contributing factor toward their rise.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 5, 2015  6:54pm

Again,Look up what is gentrification: Gentrification is a general term for the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban district, a related increase in rents and property values, and changes in the district’s character and culture.It is a process that starts in stages,Then over time it grows. First you have greedy wealthy real estate developers who build luxury condominiums and public spaces for the benefit of new residents,with very little consideration,if any,for providing affordable housing to the long-time residents of the area.Then you have Gradual displacement of people,small business,As rents continue to rise and the poor and working poor in the neighborhoods will continue to be swallowed up by gentrification.New Haven and even West Haven are in the first stages.So it will take some years before you see the full effects of gentrification. It took Harlem and Bedsty about Ten years.I will say this.I do not see these buildings filling up with Tenants due to the fact that what does New Haven Have to offer.


posted by: Adelaide on August 5, 2015 2:19pm

The Hill is a garbage filled, overgrown, no police, drug infested, drunken, music blaring, kids screaming running up and down the block until 2A.M., non english speaking howling nightmare!

Wow.non english speaking howling nightmare!

You may want to explain that one.

posted by: Bradley on August 5, 2015  7:53pm

In defense of 3/5ths, there can be a relationship between developments like this and the (very real) problem of housing affordability. The rents these developments charge send a signal to existing landlords in the neighborhood. In some cases these landlords will increase their rents legitimately after making improvements to their properties. In other cases, they will simply increase the rent.

The “filtering” phenomenon RhyminTyman notes is real. But it takes time and its effect is not always local. I suspect that adding hundreds of units that are being marketed to people with middle and upper incomes will more likely restrain rent increases in East Rock than in Dixwell. In the long run, the impact will spread theoughout the city, but as J.M Keynes said, in the long run we shall all be dead

vc man has the best post of the day, if not the week.

posted by: RhyminTyman on August 5, 2015  8:47pm

Bradley it will take time. So first East Rock gets cheaper, then Wooster, and Westville. Now someone rent let’s say in the Heights can afford one of those neighborhoods they move. So now you have middle class people moving into slightly nicer areas, as those who previously lived in those areas moved into nicer areas themselves. Every area will have to get cheaper if you add more apartments at the top because people are going to move into the nicest place they can afford regardless of income level. So yes eventually even Dixwell should be cheaper, if you keep building.

posted by: BetweenTwoRocks on August 6, 2015  6:52am

Gentrification is totally a thing. And if it’s a choice between that and just leaving abandoned buildings for squatters where someone could just leave a torso, I say bring on gentrification. Downtown isn’t going to be an affordable middle class household anyway. There are other neighborhoods that have schools and city services, etc.

Not sure how having a place for homeless folks to squat is in the city’s best interests. Or what 3/5ths thinks we should do besides just… killing new developments for the sake of keeping property values low?

posted by: Bradley on August 6, 2015  7:00am

RyminTyman, I agree, but it may take ten years or more for the filtering process to affect Dixwell. By that point, many if not most of today’s renters will no longer be there.

I think the developments are good for the city as a whole. But the imbalance between housing supply and demand, which is the primary source of housing in-affordability, is a regional phenomenon. Adding several hundred units in New Haven will help, but only at the margins.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 6, 2015  7:18am

posted by: Bradley on August 5, 2015 8:53pm

In defense of 3/5ths, there can be a relationship between developments like this and the (very real) problem of housing affordability. The rents these developments charge send a signal to existing landlords in the neighborhood. In some cases these landlords will increase their rents legitimately after making improvements to their properties. In other cases, they will simply increase the rent.

Correct.But these developments will not be mix income.I wonder how many people who are for these developments can afford to live in them?

My bad I forgot.Maybe you or someone else can tell me why this state does not have Rent control Rent stabilization and the   Mitchell-Lama Housing Program .

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 6, 2015  7:21am

posted by: shadesofzero on August 6, 2015 7:52am

Not sure how having a place for homeless folks to squat is in the city’s best interests. Or what 3/5ths thinks we should do besides just… killing new developments for the sake of keeping property values low?

You need mix income developments like this.

http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/City-Point-Towers.pdf

Notice that a studio cost 500.00 month and a 1 bed room for 538.00 month.

http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/renter-resources/160-Madison.pdf

posted by: Mister Jones on August 6, 2015  9:48am

How does this happen, hiding almost in plain sight?
“Police have been called to the location from time to time on burglary and trespassing complaints. They had asked the property manager to board it up better.”

That’s it? Salvation Army and its “property manager” share the blame for the neglect that allowed this to become a murder scene. And what about the electricity? Did Alpha Dog bypass the meter, or was the SA paying the bill? “The Salvation Army cleared out of those buildings last summer. They’ve been vacant ever since.” Was SA still heating the place over the winter, or were pipes drained and water service shut?

UI and RWA are relentless when it comes to billing and disconnect notices for the rest of us, so it seems to me there’s a bit more to the story.

posted by: Bradley on August 6, 2015  10:42am

3/5ths, 360 State has some low and moderate income units, Winchester Lofts some moderate income units, and Live Work Play has promised to include both low and moderate income units. In each case, the numbers are modest, but they are something.

The New York projects you’ve cited are lovely. But they have drawn hundreds of times as many applications as the number of affordable units they have provided. Proportionally, they have had even less impact on the New York market than the affordable units in the New Haven developments have had here.

To answer your questions. Mitchell-Lama works but costs lots of money in the form of tax breaks. (I will agree in advance with your likely rejoinder that the legislature has approved tax breaks for a wide range of more dubious programs.)

There is a broad consensus across the political spectrum that rent control in New York was disastrous. Few if any municipalities have established similar programs in recent decades. It currently applies to a relatively small (and declining) number of units in New York. Rent stabilization applies to a much larger number of units and has had mixed effects. But, to the best of my recollection, no legislator here in Connecticut has proposed authorizing municipalities to create a similar program, at least in the last 30 years.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 6, 2015  3:05pm

posted by: Bradley on August 6, 2015 11:42am

No legislator here in Connecticut has proposed authorizing municipalities to create a similar program, at least in the last 30 years.

I wonder Why?

posted by: Bradley on August 6, 2015  7:12pm

3/5ths, perhaps because the legislators (Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, from cities and suburban towns) thought it was a bad idea.

posted by: anonymous on August 7, 2015  8:31am

“Adding several hundred units in New Haven will help, but only at the margins.”

Yes, but that’s why we need to be producing tens of thousands of new units in New Haven - a couple thousand every year at the very least.  Adding transportation routes, and adding massive quantities of new housing near transportation routes such as those found in New Haven, should be the Governor’s top priority.  We need to change land use and tax policies to help enable this.