HANH Bows Out of 759 Quinnipiac Buy

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

by Allan Appel | Jun 28, 2007 7:38 pm

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

Posted to: The Heights

This beautiful, early 19th Century Italianate house at 759 Quinnipiac Ave. with floor to ceiling windows is back on the market—as the housing authority, pushed by neighbors, has changed its mind about converting it to public housing.

Neighbors pleaded at a spirited Housing Authority of New Haven (HANH) meeting Monday that the building not be turned into a two-family home under the “scattered-site” housing program.

HANH Executive Director Jimmy Miller Thursday afternoon issued a statement saying “it would not be in the best interest of the Housing Authority or the potential residents” to pursue the purchase.

Reached by telephone in California, HANH Board of Commissioners Chairman Robert Solomon, said, “When we hold a public hearing, we take it very seriously, and issues raised by people at the hearing are taken under consideration.”

At the hearing, local residents had called attention to the extensive environmental clean up required, including lead paint, asbestos, and standing water in the basement. To say nothing of the costs attendant on maintaining an old and historic property.

Fair Haven Alderwoman Erin Sturgis-Pascale, who had been among the group opposing the purchase, called it an important victory for history and for preservation. “759,” she said “is part of the historic district”—the house is in a nationally designated historic district, not a local one—“and more and more public policy should be cognizant of the maintenance of historical resources even as we try to meet housing and other needs.”

She reiterated that opposition, in her view, was not a NIMBY (Not in My Backyard Issue) issue. She noted Fair Haven Heights Alderman Alex Rhodeen’s suggestions of two other houses in the area as alternative buys for the program. “Don’t get me wrong, ” Sturgis-Pascale added. “I think it would be absolutely terrific for lower-income people to be able to enjoy the pleasures of living in an historic house. But from the track record we’ve seen, I just don’t feel HANH is up for that yet. Ideally it can be.”

Solomon, who was traveling in California, had said at the Monday hearing: “I think we all understand that this is definitely not a NIMBY issue. It’s a question of serious financial and environmental remediation costs.”

HANH’s Jimmy Miller asked for his full statement on the matter to be printed. Here it is:

“The Housing Authority conducted the Public Hearing for the purchase of 759 Quinnipiac Avenue in order to ascertain relevant comments in the purchase of the property. Based upon the comments at the public hearing and the Housing Authority’s further investigation, we have determined that it would not be in the best interest of the Housing Authority or the potential residents. The uncertainties surrounding the rehabilitation of a historic property, along with the uncertainties over the management of such a property helped us in reaching this decision. The housing Authority has cost constraints on the amount that we are permitted to spend for the acquisition of a property and, with the cost for acquisition and initial rehabilitation costs, we are already at the top of the subsidable range. Therefore, it would have been imprudent with all the uncertainties to go forward with the acquisition of property. The Housing Authority feels we can find more suitable, equitable properties with all due haste.”

Comments

posted by: Chris Olesen on June 29, 2007 12:21pm

My wife and I are the owners of 759 Quinnipiac Ave., and we would like to provide our POV on this issue, as we believe that while I am sure for some people like Erin the issue was not a NIMBY issue, it most certainly was for many of the neighbors who complained to us about falling property values and our Alderperson, Alex Rhodeen went so far as to say to us that Public Housing had no business being across the street from $500,000 condos. I am not really sure how he came up with such an inflated price for the ugly complex across the street from us, but that is another story. Funny how no one became so irrate about the “historic integrity” of another house, older than our own, across the street which was sold to a developer who is turning the building into condos and has plans to completely change the exterior of the house. This is most definitely a NIMBY issue being masked as a historic property issue by people who don’t want to be labeled elitists who are really only concerned with their own property value.

We have other comments about the HANH as well that we would like to share. Please call (203) 804-2329.

posted by: charlie on June 29, 2007 3:29pm

Why do we even need public housing in the first place? the private market is much more efficient at providing it, and New Haven has WAAAAAAAAAAY more than its fair share of it already. I think we should slowly phase out (bulldoze) almost all of the public housing here, sell the lots off, and let the suburbs build it.

posted by: Love Thy Neighbor on June 30, 2007 10:19am

“This is most definitely a NIMBY issue being masked as a historic property issue by people who don’t want to be labeled elitists who are really only concerned with their own property value.”
Yup, sure smelled like NIMBYism to me when I read the article about the hearing:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/06/historic_home_m.php
I could be wrong but after reading this comment (from I assume Mr. Ozyck) I’m now thinking that the issue, for some, may not be…er…so black and white:
“Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2007 9:45 PM
The Housing Authority voted not to purchase this home. This home is truly unique and gracious but really needs the love and care of a historically minded homeowner. Fair Haven Heights will surely absorb many of the scattered site houses that are required by a lawsuit from legal Aid and CCA. Other truly non- impacted neighborhoods have failed to integrate scattered site housing. If you believe in ladders of opportunity and rungs of access you need to examine the potential of such a program.
That being said: The housing authority and its agents need to do a better job on multiple fronts. Public housing should be a contributing asset to a community. Attention to aesthetics, environmentals, and stewardship will benefit all. Through the granting of section 8, the housing authority could leverage the multitude of slumlords to do better too.”
I live in Morris Cove so I know a little about NIMBYism…and worse:
When Housing Collides With Race and Class
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DA143AF930A35752C0A965958260

posted by: Edward_H on June 30, 2007 3:50pm

Is there any neighborhood in the city that would welcome anything with the Housing Authority of New Haven’s name attached to it? Say what you like about NIMBYism. The Housing Authority is its own worst enemy when their dismal record of property management is examined.

posted by: Walt on July 2, 2007 6:18pm

Good for the NIMBYS>

If a Huntington St. guy like Solomon wanted to do the same in my neighborhood, I would fight him too,

Congratulations, NIMBYS!!

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form