Thomas MacMillan File Photo
Amid concerns about eviction proceedings already in process, a deal to save a foreclosed housing project on Dwight Street almost failed at the 11th hour. Alderman ironed out last-minute details in an emergency meeting, but questions remain.
That action unfolded before and during the Board of Aldermen’s regular meeting on Tuesday night in City Hall. At issue was a deal to renovate the Dwight Co-op Homes apartment complex on Edgewood Avenue.
The deal, which would save the troubled cooperative from foreclosure by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), has been in the works for months.
Aldermen voted Tuesday night to approve the agreement, which will allow Bridgeport developer Garfield Spencer to come in and renovate the complex and turn it into a mixed income housing project. That arrangement almost went south when aldermen discovered they’d been misinformed about some of the details of the project — including the fact that a number of evictions are underway.
An emergency recess was called, aldermen worked out the kinks. Then the deal went forward with a unanimous vote of approval.
Two long-time Dwight Co-op residents present at the City Hall meeting, who asked not to be named, said they’re still not satisfied with the deal. It doesn’t include any provisions for payment to people who have put years of their income into their homes in the project should they decide to move, they said. Their alderwoman, Dwight’s Gina Calder, promised to lobby the developer to make a a commitment to provisions for people like them.
Dwight Co-op’s troubles are the latest to hit city housing co-ops, which flourished in the ‘60s then crumbled under mismanagement.
Thomas MacMillan Photo
Tuesday night’s last-minute kerfuffle began in the Democratic Party caucus before the meeting. Aldermen received information in that private meeting from Community Development Committee Chair Edgewood Alderman Marcus Paca. They said the information differed from what they subsequently heard from Livable City Initiative head Erik Johnson (pictured) in the public information meeting that immediately proceeds the meeting of the full board.
Will the tenants who are currently living in the complex all be allowed to stay during and after the renovations? asked Fair Haven Alderwoman Migdalia Castro.
Some people will be evicted “based on their ability to bring past due balances current,” Johnson said.
That remark set off murmurs of disbelief throughout the room.
West Rock Alderman Darnell Goldson (pictured) said aldermen were told in caucus that all tenants in bad standing would get a “clean slate” from the new developer.
“People who want to stay have to be in good standing,” said Johnson.
“This is new to me,” said Calder. She asked for numbers on how many tenants are in good standing.
She was told that eviction procedures have already begun on 12 tenants. The cut off was 12 months of unpaid rent.
The deal is time-sensitive, Johnson said. The collective that owned the co-op “did not take care of its obligations,” he said. Tenants chose not to pay their utility bills and other building expenses, he said. The new project will bring high-value affordable housing back to the neighborhood, he said. If the tenants weren’t responsible before, what’s to prevent them from taking the same “free ride” again? he asked.
“I don’t know what I’m voting on anymore,” said Hill Alderman Jorge Perez.
The aldermen ran out of time before the matter could be resolved prior to the start of the formal aldermanic meeting.
As aldermen gathered for the formal meeting, the two longtime co-op residents explained their situation. They’ve lived there for four decades, and they pay full market-rate rent. Based on years of steadfast, paying tenancy, they said, they should by law be entitled to relocation assistance from HUD if they have to move. They said they haven’t been able to get a commitment that they will receive it.
When the item came up before the board, Alderman Paca said that although he was in favor of the deal and most area residents seemed to be also, there were too many last-minute questions to go forward with it. He made a motion to send it back to committee.
“Second!” shouted Goldson, and possibly others.
But don’t we need to pass this now? asked Perez.
“There is a serious time constraint on this,” Paca said.
Meanwhile, DeStefano Administration legislative aide Elizabeth Benton (pictured) was having an animated whisper discussion with Goldson. He later said she was objecting to his second of Paca’s motion to withdraw.
After Johnson then whispered in Paca’s ear, he said he wanted to withdraw his motion to send it back to committee.
Goldson called for a point of order. Since he seconded the motion, the withdrawal also needed his approval, he said.
The second had come from Westville Alderman Tom Lehtonen, Chair Carl Goldfield claimed.
Calder requested a recess to work out the confusion. Goldfield granted it.
Thirteen aldermen and four staffers, including Johnson, retired to a meeting room to discuss the matter.
“What’s the deal?” asked Perez.
Johnson started from the beginning. The co-op is an 80-unit complex that’s been foreclosed upon and is in bad shape, he said. The reconstruction will cost about $6 million. Only $1 million of that is coming from the city and that’s in the form of a loan. The developer will pay back half of that when construction financing comes through, the rest will be paid back over 20 years, with a very low interest rate. Of the 80 units, 20 will be market rate. The other 60, in three groups of 20, will be for three levels of lower-income tenants.
Why is the city supporting the developer in his eviction of people for rent he wasn’t even there to collect? Goldson asked.
That process was already underway under HUD, Johnson replied.
But the tenants cooperative had broken down and they didn’t know where their rent was going; it probably didn’t make sense to keep paying rent, Goldson said. Besides, why should the developer be entitled to connect all that rent?
“There is a foreclosure for a reason,” Johnson said. “They abdicated their responsibility.”
The developer will receive payments of back rent, should the tenants in bad standing choose to pay it, Johnson said. The money will go towards the developer’s construction costs, he said.
How does “Alderman Gina” feel about the deal? asked Newhallville Alderman Charles Blango.
“I’m supporting it,” Calder said.
Back in the full meeting of the board, Calder urged her colleagues to pass the item. She said some issues remain, including finding support for people who want to move out.
“Unfortunately, this needs to happen,” said Goldson.
The item passed unanimously.
As they left, the longtime tenants expressed their dissatisfaction with the approval and said they’ll be working to ensure their interests are protected. “We’ll deal with the alderperson.”
After the meeting, Calder said she plans to talk to the developer about providing moving assistance for people who want to move. The developer’s not required by law to do that, because he’s offering on-sire relocation, she said. That conversation needs to happen, “basically tomorrow,” since work is scheduled to begin in November, Calder said.
“I still don’t support using city money to evict people,” said Goldson.
Unfortunately, that’s part of the deal, said Hill Alderwoman Jacqueline James-Evans.
The alternative was to let the deal collapse and the tenants kicked out by foreclosure, Goldson said. He said that’s what Benton has been telling him for a week.
Thomas MacMillan File Photo
This is horrible! No move should have been made on this project until all the existing tenants were properly cared for, in writing. The developer in my opinion totally rebuffed the arm of the BOA. He has started evictions prior to the vote. Clearly he must have known the outcome in advance. And for all of you members of the Board that supported this move prior to making these tenants secured, you are complicit and should be ashamed of yourselves.