Tenants Seek A Ticket Back Home

People wake up.You are not coming back. The deal has been cut already for the gentrification vampires to take Church Street South. Church Street South is the most prime piece of real estate in New Haven.IE: Highway and train station at your door.These gentrification vampires along with sell out judas goat leaders and politicians are heartless.In fact in New York the gentrification vampires are now pushing out Cats.

Now Displaced by New York's Gentrification: Feral Cats



The Appraisal

By MATT A.V. CHABAN MAY 23, 2016


There are believed to be about 500 feral cat colonies in New York. Many, like West Street Whiskers in Greenpoint, are now under threat from gentrification and encroaching city development


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/nyregion/gentrifications-latest-victims-new-yorks-feral-cats.html

Why would we put these families back here? This is not an appropriate location at all, especially considering the need for more transit oriented development in New Haven. The vast majority (all?) of the residents here don't even use the train station and as it stands right now this development blocks critical walking access to downtown. I'm hoping for a gateway to downtown, mixed retail (a decent grocery would be nice) and a mix of residential that would appeal to those who commute daily to work, as well as those who work downtown.

Would preface this comment by saying am no supporter of Northland. Have heard of their reputation elsewhere in CT and think the way they go about their business is miserable.

What confuses me however is the assumption of entitlement to a communal turned private asset. NH sold the property in an arms length transaction to Northland, and as such gave away most of the control they might have otherwise retained in determining how best to proceed forward.

Moreover, what is still unresolved at the core of this matter is what subsidized housing is meant to be? Ought it be a step in the journey toward independent living or a terminal destination? Have not heard Mark's, Neal-Sanjurjo's, DuBois-Walton's or Harp's position on this with any meaningful clarity. That debate and the concerns around it were discussed in detail here:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/affordable_housing_brainstorm/

Exploring the article: "[Ms. Steed] has lived at the crumbling CSS public-housing complex for 22 years". It continues, "Her friend and co-worker has been living at Church Street South since 2007." This level of persistence suggests an orientation towards perpetual occupancy.

The article continues, "[Dubois-Walton] said she "can't imagine" how the city would get through the process without building five-bedroom apartments, if former tenants need them." Suggests that the City is somehow in control. The implication that there will be more and higher level of participation in the redevelopment process or that USD 30MM somehow buys a measure of influence over a project that, if realized, will soar into the hundreds of millions also seems to reinforce that orientation.

Believe we ought to be fostering independence, and am at odds with the idea of subsidized housing as a permanent condition. Glad to see something being done for these residents in the short term, but do not believe a CSS 2.0 ought necessarily be a final solution.

so 3/5ths...are you recommending that we replace the crumbling Church St South complex with a home for feral cats? If so, it would be best if you could find a government program to support the projects because it won't be popular among private developers - or maybe you have a plan to monetize cats?

Do people believe that they should get a new apartment at the same price that they paid for a nasty one? If that's the expectation, they need to go ahead and give up on that dream.

These tenants have been through a vetting process allowing them goverment assistance for housing and it seems clear they should be accomodated somewhere, but not neccesarily here. Tenants have many rights, but eternal renewal of a lease is not one of them.

Told ya so....when this all first started......Northland let this property rot for this very reason. That is why they got this property....they are the hitmen. And as a bonus they will be getting a 30 million dollar grant to rebuild...after collecting rent and putting little to no money into this property. talk about a pay off...Northland the great gentrifyer. Congrate's on your win. And yes I do think the plans are a better use for the land....but what has happened here is well pretty scummy. Sorry.

DuBois-Walton you and I both know that there will be no 4 or 5 bedroom places here maybe not even 3 bedroom ...this will be mostly studios and 1 bedrooms. 1000 units, where a few hundred are right now...with stores and I am sure offices. I think DuBois-Walton just feels for these people (that is not a bad thing Karen). But it will not happen.

Lets look at 360 state. They have 50 "affordable" units......Per there agreement with the city. what is "affordable" even the story says that there is room for interpretation on that. You can be a Yale student and get one of those "affordable" apts. Affordable means below market value, and some kind of maximum income to get the cheaper rate. 360 states 3 br are around $4000.00 is section 8 going to cover that??? hmmm When you offer up just studio and 1 bedrooms....they will most likely fill the "affordable's" with students, seniors, disabled people in the studios. This will cover their obligation to the feds.

In the mean time..... look for a new place to call home. Let go of a dream that many never happen....and take them up on the 5 years of help they are offering.....think of what can help you and your family get back into the swing of things. Good luck to all and hugs.

Wow, folks here are commenting on the tenant subsidies, but it is amazing to me that they don't seem to have an issue with Northland getting a government subsidy to first drive those apartments into disrepair through deliberate actions, and then attempting to shut the previous tenants out when they are rebuilt.

Let Northland rebuild with their own money instead of getting a $30M welfare payment from the government, on top of what they have already received all of these years. They don't have an "eternal right" to government handouts.

NLF,

I'd agree with what you're saying. Not really sure why the feds are giving $30M anyway if the focus of the mixed use development is away from the poor towards workgin and middle class.

Northland bought the property in 2008 (does anyone know who the previous owner was?) with the intention of quickly redeveloping it into a market rate, mixed use development. Plans were stalled during the Great Recession as financing was difficult to come by and there was a falling out with the same City officials that initially supported Northland's efforts. Also remember that Northland originally won the competition to redevelop the Coliseum site as well but that never materialized either due to the Great Recession. However, in 2012, Northland unveiled a preliminary plan to redevelop the site with something like 600-800 units and 200-400,000 square feet of commercial space. This plan was rejected by the City under the argument that there wouldn't be enough affordable units.

Northland did invest some in the complex in 2013, but nothing significant was accomplished. Northland has continued a decades long pattern of neglecting low-income housing units that isn't much different from the neglect that HANH inflicted on its public housing units prior to its restructuring in the late 1990s, or the mismanagement of many low-income housing cooperatives throughout the City like Trade Union Plaza on Dwight Street. I think people would be hard pressed to find a successful low-income housing complex - public or private - that has met the kind of stewardship goals of routine maintenance and longevity that we all might want. In this way, I don't see Northland as uniquely neglectful, though that doesn't excuse their contribution to the deterioration of the complex.

Renewhavener, I think you misunderstand Ms. Dubois-Walton's statement. HUD is the funding agency and will decide which applications under the CHOICE program will be funded. I, and I suspect Dubois-Walton, believe that HUD would be unlikely to approve an application from the city/Northland unless it took care of the current CSS residents, including those with large households that need more than three bedrooms.

Fairhavenres, the issue is not whether "we" (the city) will put these families back at CSS. The issue is whether these families will have a reasonable opportunity to move back if this is their choice. Under the proposal, the new development would consist of 700 units charging market rents (which would likely be quite high given its location) and 300 units that would be subsidized. There is ample evidence that well-to-do people, who could support the type of retail developments you describe, are willing to live near subsidized housing. The fact that much of the housing in Ninth Square is subsidized did not preclude the owners of 360 State Street from charging and getting amazingly high rents.

Jonathan Hopkins is correct - it is very difficult to operate low-income housing on a sustainable basis. It is virtually impossible to make the numbers work when the residents are very low income, as is the case for most CSS residents. As Jonathan notes, this does not excuse Northland's negligence. But most of us stopped believing in the tooth fairy a long time ago.

The following is the existing unit type breakdown of the existing 301-unit complex as I understand it:

10 one-bedroom units
97 two-bedroom units
151 three-bedroom units (54 flats, 97 duplexes)
9 four-bedroom units
34 five-bedroom units

With HUD paying $3.7 Million to Northland annually in rent, that breaks down to an average of $1,025 per unit per month in paid rent. With over 80% of the units consisting of either two- or three-bedrooms, I'm not so sure that Northland can believably argue that the numbers didn't work to maintain the housing complex.

While I have a hard time finding an example of a low-income housing complex that has been adequately maintained, I'm not necessarily convinced that it's because of some inherent difficulty in operating low-income housing complexes. My gut feeling is that it's primarily a result of mismanagement and purposeful neglect in order to achieve an intended outcome, which in this case is demolition and redevelopment.

It's possible, however, that by the time Northland required the property that substantial renovation work was required on the complex that would have been financial unfeasible without heavy subsidy, but then that just points the blame at previous owners who didn't invest in routine maintenance rather than an inherent financing flaw in low-income housing.

@JH,

To your question of ownership:

CSS was purchased by a concern named Church Street New Haven LLC. This entity exists as a wholly owned arm of Northland Investment Corporation, more specifically as an entity deployed under an investment fund named Northland Fund II Limited Partnership. Ownership was recorded on July 3, 2008 and Northland et al thusly took title from their predecessor a firm named Cinque Green Limited Partnership. CG L.P. was backed by TCB Church Street South Corporation which has (had) the same business address as The Community Builders, Inc.: http://www.tcbinc.org/. Point of Reference for those interested to investigate at the City Clerk's Office, check Book 8240, page 177. What is tangentially of interest here is both Cinque Green L.P. and TCB Church Street South Corporation were formed prior to the acquisition, but did not dissolve post divestiture.

Cinque Green L.P. purchased the property on December 24th, 1998 for $3,975,000, per Book 5420, page 66. The prior owner is noted as "unknown" having acquired the property on December 29th, 1983, per Book 3121, page 113.

A review of the City Clerk's records for that Book / Page referencing the December 29th, 1983 transaction indicates that the party to which the property was conveyed was Church Street South Limited Partnership. CSS L.P. was co-addressed with HRA Realty in Hamden, which has since merged into HRA Holdings.

CSS L.P. / HRA acquired the property from none other than Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

So the chain of custody if you will from past to present is 1983 HUD-to-CSS L.P. bka HRA Realty; 1998 CSS L.P. to Cinque Green L.P. bka The Community Builders; 2008 Cinque Green L.P. to Church Street New Haven LLC bka Northland Fund II L.P. aka Northland.

Could go back further, even to pre-eminent domain, but let's just not. If you care to, here is a piece that seeks to cover that era:
http://gis.vgsi.com/newhavenct/Search.aspx

Other clinical points of interest include the lineup of addresses that account for Church Street New Haven LLC's holdings as they appear in the City Appraiser's database located here:
http://gis.vgsi.com/newhavenct/Search.aspx

They are:
1 Tower Lane,
86 Orange St. South,
91 Columbus,
94 Columbus,
89 Union, and
169 Union

Total Land Area 8.28 Acres
Total Structures: 26 EA
Total Gross Square Footage 374,179 SF
Total "Livable" Square Footage 312,182 SF
Efficiency 83%
Units: 301
"Livable" Square Footage / Unit: 1,037 SF

@JH, to your point about maintenance. Understand corp landlords budget between $0.35 - 0.50 / SF / Annum for 'Maintenance' and around $0.15 / SF / Annum for 'Grounds'.

374,194 SF x $0.50, say $188,000 & 8.28 Acres x 43,560 SF / Acre x $0.15 / SF, say $54,000

The mortgage documents recorded shows they are carrying USD 4.8MM at LIBOR due monthly and maturing this year on August 3, 2016 (extended). Let's just calc that quickly at say anywhere from $850,000 - $1,000,000.

Insurance? Hard to imagine what this might be and have little background in understanding the underwriting that might accompany subsidized housing. Let's swag that at say 150,000, but am probably way, way off here.

Taxes, a couple hundred thousand maybe, say $200,000 / Annum.

These are all likely wrong, but let's say all-in they cost out at USD 1.6MM, for a gross margin of USD 2.1MM. Seems like a lot.

Here are two reasons why it isn't:

1.) USD 2.1MM is only $5.61 / SF amortized across the whole facility. You could not even paint and carpet it annually for that, let alone repair roofs and windows, replace appliances and hvac equipment. etc.

2.) The model above just looks at CSS in isolation and does not factor in other expenses at the enterprise level, leasing, admin, interest and taxes, etc.

Not sticking up for them by any means, they are clearly land banking and speculative. Cashflow is simply too low to renovate and get ahead of the maintenance.

Time to hit reset.

renewhavener,
Thank you!

University Village, Church Street South's market rate doppelganger located at 65 Dwight Street, charges an average of $650 more per month per apartment for rent than Church Street South receives in rental payments from HUD ($1,671 versus $1,025).

Curiously though, HUD is supposed to pay fair market rent for Section 8 apartments, which in the New Haven-Meriden region averages out to $1,432 per unit per month for Church Street South's apartment types. I wonder if HUD is stiffing Northland on that extra $500,000 annually due the deplorable condition that the complex is in.

If Church Street South were placed on the National Register of Historic Places, it would qualify for historic preservation tax credits. I suspect that if Northland were to substantially renovate Church Street South HUD would be more likely to pay the fair market rent for the units, thus allowing the complex to be run successfully.

I imagine that it's less costly to manage a low-income complex than a market rate complex like University Village due to lower vacancy rates (waiting list for Section 8 apartments), no marketing costs, and less expensive furnishings and interior finishes.

The government stiffs the private enterprise because it can. What are you going to do? Go do business with some other government? Start a movement to change the direction of votes in an 18:1 one party town?

The city government on the other hand can't just pick up the project themselves. They couldn't buy a hamburger off the dollar menu without spending $20. They can't shop for someone else who will do the project as they want it done because it's a money loser. If people weren't so desperate for investment opportunities right now none of these developers would be rolling the dice on these projects.

So the property owners and the government play chicken with the landlords letting their property rot and government stomping out development that doesn't support their agenda.

When elephants fight it is the grass that suffers. If you want to stop that you can change your government into something that is effective (something that is not literally the same old broken machine) or you can work to get businesses to favor losing money instead of making it.

Again people wake up.You are not coming back.The gentrification vampires have this lock down.

Hearing Monday on plan for 1,000-space garage at Union Station in New Haven

By Mary O'Leary,


The need for more parking has been evident for over a decade and various proposals have been offered in recent years to accommodate that as well as how it fits into future development at Church Street South, the Hill and the former Coliseum site. Hundreds of units of housing are now separately planned as part of developments in the Hill and at the nearby former Coliseum site, which currently is used for the overflow from the Union Station garage, as well as by commuters to employers downtown.After decades of neglect, plans are also proceeding for new apartments to replace nearby Church Street South, a key transit-oriented development.

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20160605/hearing-monday-on-plan-for-1000-space-garage-at-union-station-in-new-haven

@JH, you're welcome. Think the internet has helped title researchers as much or more than consumers in my opinion.

To keep discussing:

"Curiously though, HUD is supposed to pay fair market rent for Section 8 apartments, which in the New Haven-Meriden region averages out to $1,432 per unit per month for Church Street South's apartment types. I wonder if HUD is stiffing Northland on that extra $500,000 annually due the deplorable condition that the complex is in."

Perhaps. Not within my purview to speculate, but this would only add only about a $1.35 / SF to the mix. Would it move the needle?

"If Church Street South were placed on the National Register of Historic Places, it would qualify for historic preservation tax credits."

So this would involve greater use of transfer payments, so we all pay taxes so Northland can get more credits. Would be hard to support this conceptually and with all due respect, just because it is old, does not mean it is historically significant. Even the Downtown Crossing project seeks to right the wrongs of past central planning. Can't imagine preserving this legacy.

"I suspect that if Northland were to substantially renovate Church Street South HUD would be more likely to pay the fair market rent for the units, thus allowing the complex to be run successfully."

A comprehensive reno would be USD 50MM or more. To get what 500K a yr. more? That's a 100 year simple payback. No sale.

"I imagine that it's less costly to manage a low-income complex than a market rate complex like University Village due to lower vacancy rates (waiting list for Section 8 apartments), no marketing costs, and less expensive furnishings and interior finishes."

Can't forget risk in the discussion. Would note the model above and how much insurance may or may not be and how much administration cost there may or may not be. If one believes in the efficiency of markets, then intuitively if it were easier, would not more landlords be stepping forward?

renewhavener,
That $500,000 figure was a typo, it was supposed to be $1.5 M in additional payments from HUD if we use the 2013 fair market rent for the New Haven-Meriden region ($1,432 FMR vs. HUD's actual payments of $1,025 per unit; $407 x 12 mo. x 301 units - $1.5M in additional payments). $5.2 Million, as opposed to the current $3.7 Million, in annual rental payments would put Church Street South close to on par with its market rate doppelganger at 65 Dwight Street, which makes around $1.5 Million in annual revenue if we assume all 77 units are occupied.

Historic preservation tax credits is one route to pursue if one wanted to preserve the existing low-income housing complex as is. Another option would be to convert it to a market rate complex in a similar fashion that University Village was (a former low-income housing cooperative built one year before CSS). Another option is the kind of grant application that the City is currently pursuing.

In my opinion, Church Street South has enough architectural and planning merit to be at least partially renovated as either market rate housing, affordable housing, or a combination. New market rate, and/or mixed income housing and commercial space could be built on the remainder of the site in order to capture the demand for more development on the site.

"Even the Downtown Crossing project seeks to right the wrongs of past central planning. Can't imagine preserving this legacy."
I can't think of anything more ironic than advocating for the wholesale destruction of an entire community in the name of righting the wrongs of urban renewal-era central planning! Now, it's entirely possible that the only viable solution for CSS is redevelopment, but the idea that alternatives to large-scale demolition in New Haven, the mecca of urban renewal, haven't been pursued is troubling. Also, I'd take another look at CSS's design because it valiantly attempts to avoid the conventional pitfalls of central planning architecture.