115 Short-Term Apartments Planned

Oh boy. Are these more $1500 studios? Why don't we just put a big sign over downtown:

<b>Working Class residents NOT welcome!</b>

Too many car parking spaces and not enough bicycle storage planned here. Can this be fixed?

HewNaven:
There is a demand for 40,000 or more of these to be added in New Haven over the next couple decades. If we don't meet this demand, then the tens of thousands of middle-income people looking for housing are just going to take over the rest of New Haven, and push everyone else out to overcrowded, split up homes far out in the suburbs.

Using FEAR TACTICS to make apologies on behalf of high-end developers is pretty deplorable, but there you have it. Thanks, anonymous!

@anonymous

Give me a break.middle-income people AKA working poor can not Afford these rents.
Why Middle-Class Americans Can't Afford to Live in Liberal Cities

Blue America has a problem: Even after adjusting for income, left-leaning metros tend to have worse income inequality and less affordable housing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/why-are-liberal-cities-so-unaffordable/382045/


The middle class and poor in new haven either are going to have to move out of town or sleep in shifts 10 to a bedroom.The current admin Along with sell out Judas Goat Leaders does not seem to care about the middle class and poor when it comes to housing.


In Many Cities, Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class


By SHAILA DEWANAPRIL 14, 2014


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/business/more-renters-find-30-affordability-ratio-unattainable.html?_r=0

Yes, this is a travesty because that parking lot and car rental company was such a gem of downtown. Get a grip.

posted by: vc man on November 23, 2015 10:34am

Yes, this is a travesty because that parking lot and car rental company was such a gem of downtown. Get a grip.

Get a grip.What happens when these apartments remain empty due to those who can not Afford these rents.

Fear tactics? Just pointing out the facts. New Haven needs to be building new housing, of any kind, much faster than it is otherwise people will keep getting pushed out or pushed into crowded shared apartments. When you don't build enough housing you get situations like Goatville and Mansfield Street where all the lower income people get pushed out.

Developers like these should get an award, and a tax credit.

If we didn't require them to use this expensive downtown land to build parking spaces, they could instead build units that were more affordable. It's odd that New Haven's laws prioritize housing for cars over housing for people.

Anonyous- I count about 15 parking spaces for 115 units with storage for 40 bikes- am I missing something? The article also says 2 parking garages on Crown are being converted into apartments. Isnt this what you're asking for?

OH MY GOD, 3/5s. That Atlantic article that you posted, read it all the way to the end. It says that "blue" cities drive up housing prices by restricting housing supply. It says this is the result of well-meaning, misguided "liberals". It all but calls you out by name.

The article you posted shows that liberal cities have, on average, much higher housing prices. But why? Read on:

"There is a deep literature tying liberal residents to illiberal housing policies that create affordability crunches for the middle class. In 2010, UCLA economist Matthew Kahn published a study of California cities, which found that liberal metros issued fewer new housing permits. The correlation held over time: As California cities became more liberal, he said, they built fewer homes. All homeowners have an incentive to stop new housing," Kahn told me, "because if developers build too many homes, prices fall, and housing is many families' main asset."

Here is the link again: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/why-are-liberal-cities-so-unaffordable/382045/

Want more evidence? Read (vocal liberal) Matthew Yglesias's short e-book "The Rent is Too Damn High" At Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1448300505&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=yglesias rent. (Ignore the one-star reviews from right-wingers who hate Yglesias for his other writings.)

"As California cities became more liberal, they built fewer homes."

Yep - sounds a bit like some people on the New Haven Board of Alders, the "neighborhood activists" that they represent, and other people who spend most of their time trying to stop or hold hostage new development instead of trying to make it easier for developers to build more apartments on the same limited space without requiring more parking.

They are to blame for much of our rising housing costs and homelessness problem -- a problem that will be getting significantly worse in about 5-10 years as the population keeps growing due to retiring workers, who will be living much longer than the previous generation and (mostly) tend to stay living in their homes, requiring younger workers to move to the region to fill the many tens of thousands of positions that will open up.

Well, then.

Here is a perfect example of what we NEED and yet some of you still complain.

Short term renters are the REASON why this town is losing it's middle class.

We lose out to those who are willing to pay a little more for convenience.

Now they have an alternative! Hopefully this spills over and opens up units for long-term tenants in East Rock, Wooster Square, etc.

Which will have a trickle down effect until those TRUE low income tenants get a chance at hardwood floors, double paned windows... etc.

This is HELPING New Haven stabilize. Also, this is taking an UNDERUTILIZED lot (without housing of low-income tenants) and making it a storefront and housing AS WELL AS historical preservation of a nice home.

This is great news for all of us.

Not mentioned by anyone is the fact that the federal gov't stopped subsidizing the building of low and middle income housing back in Reagan's time.
Without federal funds, the states, already overloaded with education costs, couldn't fill the gap.
As a result, developers build high end housing for those who can afford it. "Market rates" is code for luxury housing at luxury prices.
Yes, the poor and lower income workers will be forced out of parts of New Haven. The City planners and officials know this and do not have a problem with it. The politicians get their campaign contributions from developers AND unions, both of which are out for short term gains.
Stamford used to be a mix of people and incomes similar to New Haven. Now it is busting out all over with high end developments that have re-designed neighborhoods, but simultaneously have forced out the ethnic minorities, both Latino and African-American, along with some white working class too.
What happens when people are displaced by rising rents and taxes and long term jobs have gone forever?
I think the misery index increases.

posted by: Esbey on November 23, 2015 12:44pm

OH MY GOD, 3/5s. That Atlantic article that you posted, read it all the way to the end. It says that "blue" cities drive up housing prices by restricting housing supply. It says this is the result of well-meaning, misguided "liberals". It all but calls you out by name.

This fits New Haven.Who runs New Haven.I yet to hear any mix income housing being build.Also like I said read this.

In Many Cities, Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class


By SHAILA DEWANAPRIL 14, 2014


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/business/more-renters-find-30-affordability-ratio-unattainable.html?_r=0

This is hapening in New Haven.

<blockquote>Fear tactics? Just pointing out the facts.</blockquote>

anonymous,

Your facts look a little funny. I think you meant your OPINIONS. Facts usually have citations.

Then again, any one with the will and power could massage the data and/or interpret favorable pieces of data and ignore others in order to support an argument they've put forth. So, why don't you go ahead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/business/more-renters-find-30-affordability-ratio-unattainable.html?_r=1

Great article!!

If the median rent in New Haven is $900, assuming utilities cost $100... one would have to earn $3,000 each month meet the federal standard for living in AFFORDABLE conditions.

No employer (except maybe yale) is paying working class people enough to afford to live in this city. And most of their employees live outside the city (y'know where it's quieter and safer).

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

It's really simple math. You can all do it. I believe in you.

3/5s: What happens when these apartments remain empty due to those who can not Afford these rents.

What happens is the owner of the property pays property taxes whether they are rented or not. Property taxes which I'm sure are higher than the previous PARKING LOT. Additionally, those who do live there will hopefully spend money in the area and stimulate the local economy. As a decidedly middle-class homeowner in New Haven, I'm tired of being treated like an ATM by city, state and federal governments. If my taxes go down, turn all of downtown into the most luxurious taxable real estate possible and I'll be thrilled.

VC man: you can take pride in subsidizing Yale and YNHH and all wealthy non-profits that hoard their endowments while throwing nickels to the public.

DwightStreeter: Of course that's a key point, but maybe it is not even worth pointing out given how unlikely it seems that New Haven would ever be able to reverse decades of federal policy on its own. I think that 99% of housing in the region will continue to be privately operated, so we might need to at least have a "Plan B" that works within those boundaries.

HewNaven:

Households are getting smaller, so more numerous per unit of population. The proportion of families with children has been cut in half; many women of childbearing age will never have a child. People are living a lot longer, well after the point when they leave the workforce. Every reputable institution in the country projects significant (i.e., continuing) population growth, particularly in urban areas, over the coming decades. People increasingly want smartphones and internet access, even more than they want cars.

These are all major reversals of past trends, and are important facts to consider because they will dramatically change New Haven.

Unless we nationalize more than half of the housing units in New Haven (something that Finland does well but not sure it would happen here), we are going to need a lot more of them around here. The current "downtown building boom" is nowhere near sufficient.

Adding a few "workforce housing units," or rebuilding Church Street South as a giant housing project for a couple hundred poor families as some misguided people would advocate (next to the most polluted air in Connecticut), won't make a difference.

HewHaven and Dwightsteeter, yes you are correct that wages are too low for many folks to afford a decent home and that the federal government should subsidize housing for the poor. These important facts should drive the national debate on economics and employment.

But we in New Haven do not control national policy, whereas we directly effect local housing supply via zoning and land-use decisions. The question in this thread is whether allowing downtown market-rate housing, built on parking lots (or rental car lots) hurts or helps the poor and middle class. Recall that there is a tidal wave of new demand from relatively well-off folks who want to live in or near downtown neighborhoods. New Haven can't legally prevent them from buying up the existing housing stock, removing it from the pool of housing for the middle-class and poor & thereby driving out current residents. This conversion of existing housing has already driven the poor and bohemian classes out of San Francisco, Greenwich Village, etc,. even as local "liberals" have selfishly prevented most new construction.

theNewNewhaven explains exactly how new downtown housing helps the middle class. It channels the existing demand away from existing housing in near-to-downtown neighborhoods and into the new "luxury" downtown apartments. If downtown housing supply were to be choked off, then rents would rise much faster in other areas, with the poor eventually forced out, as has already happened in so many other "liberal" cities.

This is to say nothing about the taxes and jobs created by new private development!

I have yet to hear a coherent theory about how replacing "homes for cars" with "homes for people" hurts people overall.

Ehh.. It's a good plan for the residents who work and go to school nearby since many of the people in the area either walk, travel by bicycle, or take the bus, etc.. I don't think a parking lot is needed. I think the space can be used as a indoor pool/gym or something like that. By the way, will there be installed streetlights or a pedestrian crosswalk with flashing lights at the corner of George and High?

3/5s: What happens when these apartments remain empty due to those who can not Afford these rents.

Uhh...the rents go down.

HN,

The US census notes that the median household income in NHV is $37,428. Thats almost exactly the $3000/month figure you noted which would allow someone to meet the federal standard for living in affordable conditions.

robn and anonymous,

I'd request that you go ask someone making $37K what they think about housing prices, but it's obvious that you don't know anyone like that. How's the air in your bubble?

<blockquote>Households are getting smaller, so more numerous per unit of population. The proportion of families with children has been cut in half; many women of childbearing age will never have a child. People are living a lot longer, well after the point when they leave the workforce. Every reputable institution in the country projects significant (i.e., continuing) population growth, particularly in urban areas, over the coming decades. People increasingly want smartphones and internet access, even more than they want cars.</blockquote>

anonymous,

Those phenomena you listed will make our rents go down? What incentive does a landlord have to lower someone's rent even if those trends continue? Where is the competition for housing poor and working class residents? East Rock rents will remain East Rock rents and the same for Fair Haven, the Hill, Newhallville, etc.. You're not fooling anyone.

In New Haven, either you're too poor to afford rent and you're living in a subsidized unit, or you live in one of the nicer neighborhoods because you can afford to do so. There's nothing in between for working class people. And, sadly, that seems to be the kind of city that many people want, and they even celebrate their advances toward that goal (just read some of these comments).

BTW, ask any impoverished person in New Haven. Each would LOVE to have a personal car. The truth is that they can more easily afford a smart phone and internet access. It's CHEAPER. It's not going to get them to a job any faster. You're grasping at straws.

"Those phenomena you listed will make our rents go down?"

Hew, that list was a response to your post. Those trends have made rents go up significantly over the past decade, and they will continue to make rents go up (much quicker than they are now) if they are not addressed through the addition of many tens of thousands of new housing units.

If we produce more higher-end units to meet the current demand, then the units that were higher-end 10 years ago will become more affordable. This phenomenon of new units coming online and making existing ones more affordable has happened in the New Haven area and in other cities for the past 200 years; why would it change? The difference now is that we aren't producing nearly enough of anything, so nothing is becoming more affordable. Everything is becoming out of reach for most people.

Very interesting concept. A residential manifestation of the Bourse co-working site. Wish them luck.

@Hew "Using FEAR TACTICS to make apologies on behalf of high-end developers is pretty deplorable..." Some find an obtuse, oversimplified view of development pretty deplorable. To each their own.

@anonymous "It's odd that New Haven's laws prioritize housing for cars over housing for people." Agreed. Entitlement efforts work to address this on a case by case through variance as well as comprehensive basis through reform zoning laws. Fewer variances and zoning laws would be an achievement worthy of this century.

@Esbsy "In 2010, UCLA economist Matthew Kahn published a study of California cities, which found that liberal metros issued fewer new housing permits. The correlation held over time: As California cities became more liberal, he said, they built fewer homes." Thank you for bringing it to our collective attention. I will seek out and read the Kahn work.

We ought to be cautious here as correlation is sometimes mistaken for causation. The underlying cause to lower development is higher barrier to entry. Barriers manifest themselves in policy choice. Liberal communities tend to be more heavily regulated and thus have higher barriers. Some are prudent, some are painful, some are both. All have cost and all inhibit building to some degree or another.

Sometimes a desire for less housing stems from the political necessity to take pressure off education systems. Policy choice discourages building in order to put less students in the system. Here is an interesting article from last week on that topic: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/11/20/with-restrictions-types-units-affecting-projects-housing-construction-plunges/oJFoASH17KgVo9iD3QLyQK/story.html

@renewhavener,

Welcome to the discussion! What a smart set of comments! thanks

I surely agree with the causation/correlation comment; the Kahn article works very hard on that issue.

And I agree that we may want some kinds of supply restrictions even though they drive up prices. For example, I do not want to build skyscrapers in the heart of Paris. That restriction is, in fact, driving the working classes out of one Parisian neighborhood after another, but in this case I prefer the side of historic preservation over economic equality. The least Paris can do, though, is to allow as much housing as possible on the edges of the city and tax the rich to improve infrastructure there (they are doing some of this, not enough.) And, historic Paris does feature pretty high housing density, mostly through solid mile after mile of small apartments in what were at one point (in the 19th century) the tallest economically possible buildings, most built on the fresh rubble of what had been the medieval city.

On the block of New Haven under discussion, though, I do not favor preserving the hideous "housing for cars" at the chain-link fenced-in Avis lot on High and George. Paris, it ain't.

Housing for People, Not Cars!

HN,

I was quoting your figures for affordability and "doing the math" with US census provided median income. Is your problem that you were trying to be snarky about the affordability of local rents and I busted you with your own figures?

There is a seeming void in the marketplace for short-term furnished because there is no money in them. This is largely because of the summer exodus of thousands of Yalies, leaving numerous summer sublets available at deeply discounted rents. (Usually 2/3 on the dollar.)

Combine the fact that four months of the year suck for this type of operation, with the costs of furnishings, and transitional vacancies, and you end up having to charge at least double a normal rent just to break even against renting the unit out as a normal vacant apartment with a year-long lease. As a result, anyone I know who has tried short-term furnished renting has always ultimately backed away from it.

Again, the problem is that from May-August there are so many discounted, furnished units to be had.

robn,

Do you even understand what the MEDIAN INCOME means?

It means there are 50% of New Haven households earning above 37K and 50% earning below 37K. It is the exact middle, by ONE measure. It doesn't mean that when you walk down a street the AVERAGE person is making 37K.

But, then again, why don't you just ask someone at a bus stop what they think about housing costs in New Haven? I hear not owning a car is trendy now. You can ask them about that too.

Esbey, with regard to your first post, are you suggesting that people read articles before posting them on the NHI? How odd!

On a more serious note, the market for short-term residences is almost entirely separate from the apartment market. If you are in town for two months, you are not going to sign a 12-month lease and hope you can find a sub-lettor; if you are long-term you are not going to pay rents that are even higher than those charged by the new developments downtown. This project, if approved, would have little if any impact on the broader housing market. It would do nothing to relieve the shortage of affordable housing for low and moderate income people. On the other hand, it would not make that market any tighter.

AverageTaxpayer, the fact that there are lots of units available in the summer does not help you if you are looking for a short-term rental during the rest of the year. Moreover, I suspect that the developers are looking to market to established professionals who might not be too impressed with student housing.

HN,

I'm pretty sure I understand the difference but I'm not sure you do. You'll find that in a poor city like ours, the median will be far below the average, reinforcing my point that using it as a benchmark to compare to your figures about affordability means that it regards more people than the average.

ROBN,

HN,

I guess what I did wrong was to compare factual data with the figures you listed earlier, thinking that they were factual rather than hypothetical.

"It's obvious to me that property owners are GOUGING renters in New Haven."

Yep, and the only realistic way for New Haven to prevent that would be to make it easier for developers to build a lot more housing, e.g., by eliminating all parking requirements.

HN,

Lets get the numbers straight. Even though your link leads to housing costs that appear to include all of New Haven County I'll take the $1350 avg rent figure at face value. HUD defines "affordable" housing as a rent which doesn't consume more than 30% of income (gross income, not take home pay which you pulled out of thin air). That means ones combined household income has to be $54K to have a $1350/mo apt and have HUD consider it affordable. The median combined household income in NHV is $38K (about $12K below national avg and; get ready, $32K below CT avg.).
So we've proved what we both already know...that rent in New Haven is high. What astounds me is that you don't accept the premise of supply and demand, and ANONYMOUS' correct observation that no matter the price point of new housing stock, ANY more housing stock will reduce rent pressure in the rest of the city. (please don't say that an out-of-towner would take it and its net zero because that out-of-towner might just as well have taken existing stock, further exacerbating rent pressure.)

@bradley, all good points

@HewHaven, I think folks are arguing past each other. I agree that median-income New Haven families won't be living in new market rate apartments in downtown New Haven. This is the most expensive land in the city and these are the newest apartments. Similarly, those families won't be eating the most expensive cuts of meat at the supermarket, nor driving the fanciest cars.

Almost everyone here shares a concern that these families do have a decent play to live, a decent job, enough food to eat, etc. The question is what decisions can we make, here in our little corner of the country, to get the best outcome that we can. Specifically, in this thread and many others, we discuss whether it would help to oppose building new market rate housing, understanding that the realistic alternate use of the land is not low-cost housing, partly because (in contrast to years past) no level of government is willing to pay for it.

One thing we could do is try to lower the cost of building housing. Anonymous suggests getting rid of parking minimums. We could also comb the building codes to be sure that every cost-increasing rule is really related to genuine concerns (safety) and is not simply following some outmoded notion of how we have always done things. Maybe wood-frame buildings could be built slightly taller (not personally sure.) We can see if lot size restrictions, or restrictions on multi-family building, are really necessary in every case.

We can decide if we can change the incentives that "slum lords" have to let simply let housing decay while renting it out until it collapses. What is the right amount of enforcement to stop this from happening? (Without raising costs so much that folks abandon the property immediately?)

We can ask for state laws to more severely punish banks who let foreclosed properties decay.

ROBN,

I don't think it's a simple matter of SUPPLY and DEMAND because there are no units being built for anyone who makes less than 75K.

Let's think about this together:

New Haven as a ton more units coming on line at the higher end (e.g. $1500 for a studio). We all can agree about that.

New Haven has a ton of people currently living in East Rock and commuting downtown because it's the nicest and most convenient choice for that.

You and anonymous suggest that those people will MOVE OUT OF EAST ROCK to a new apartment downtown and by some strange MIRACLE those formerly rich landlords in East Rock will be forced to lower their rents and take whoever they can get including Section 8 tenants, etc.. what are you two smoking!?

People who are being honest, like me and 3/5, realize the truth:

That all these new apartments downtown are actually being filled by NEW RESIDENTS, people who haven't formerly lived in New Haven (i.e. transplants) and the vacancy rate in East Rock hasn't changed one bit !!! If anything, New Haven is more attractive than ever for young professionals and those making enough to live in new construction, meaning it will become more expensive than ever for working-class people.

Don't try to oversimplify this with a rudimentary classical economics argument. You're just proving that you don't really understand the city or the people who inhabit it.

<blockquote>We can decide if we can change the incentives that "slum lords" have to let simply let housing decay while renting it out until it collapses. What is the right amount of enforcement to stop this from happening? (Without raising costs so much that folks abandon the property immediately?)</blockquote>

This city certainly has a long way to go in ensuring residents have safe, affordable housing conditions and in not turning a blind eye toward negligent property owners who seem to prosper in our poorest neighborhoods. There have been dozens of articles about some of these operations and LCI nor anyone else can seem to do anything.

HewNaven, I own a small 2 family home in East Rock. I bought the house several years ago as a first time homebuyer. I'm about as blue collar as it gets. The year after I bought it my taxes went up 3k for a total of 10,200. When you say renters are being "gouged" in this city, I counter that homeowners are being squeezed by ridiculously high taxes. If more development downtown will bring down my taxes, or at the very least not raise them, I'll be happy. But if the tax and spend mentality of government continues, the rent I charge is going up as well.

<blockquote>"It's obvious to me that property owners are GOUGING renters in New Haven."

Yep, and the only realistic way for New Haven to prevent that would be to make it easier for developers to build a lot more housing, e.g., by eliminating all parking requirements.</blockquote>

Why are you and others so callous? Price gouging, to me, is more akin to a crime, or at least a moral outrage. Yet you, and others, are willing to sit back and hope that market forces might POSSIBLY resolve that problem (because history always repeats exactly the same way). Such a lame reaction to injustice in your own community.

vcman,

I'm certainly not referring to anyone middle class in my attack on price gouging. My sympathies lie with you.

Perhaps anyone who is not rich in New Haven is suffering in some way. You should agree. It's a tale of two cities: the haves and the have-nots. And if some people can proclaim it the 'greatest' city then I should certainly be allowed to say that I disagree. Surely the greatest city embraces debate.

HewNaven, you can call it price gouging or something else, but the fact is, if you pay to buy and renovate a building, you need to charge a certain rent otherwise you will go bankrupt. Over time the underlying costs dictate the rent. Rents in San Francisco are also rising very quickly, but so is the underlying cost of the land there. The city could reduce demand (and thereby cost) by building more housing, making AirBnB illegal, eliminating cars and investing in transit, etc, but so far the voters have not really approved those measures. Building a few public housing projects won't solve the problem and while it might help a couple hundred families, it may make matters even worse for the other 40,000 low-moderate income families if it restricts new housing supply.

Investing in transit, biking, walking, and promoting a heck of a lot more construction is the only way out of this national security emergency, given the tidal waves of changing demographics I listed above.

Harp should bring back Bruce Becker and beg him to build 40 more of those towers.

Massively raising the minimum wage might also help, but only to a small degree -- and seems highly unlikely.

I only have one FINAL word:

The affordable housing crisis that I've alluded to affects all of us. If you're living in shitty conditions and paying too much for it, that is an obvious pain and injustice that you feel EVERY single day. More importantly, that pain will manifest as an act of crime, vandalism, or violence, depression, suicide, drug abuse, etc. just to name a few examples.

HN, with respect to your response to Robn earlier this afternoon, you are overstating your case. Some of the people moving downtown are certainly transplants from other towns and regions, some of them are from East Rock and other city neighborhoods, or would have moved there if the new housing had not been available. I know several East Rock lamdlords who collectively have well over 100 units. They tell me that the East Rock Market has definitely softened in recent years, with the addition of 360 State Street and other complexes. The housing market does not operate the way it is described in Econ 101. Market forces are not sufficient by themselves to address the shortage of affordable housing for low and moderate income households. But adding units, even at the rents being charged by the new projects, will help. In particular, Yale and other employers currently rent apartments for their guests and short-term employees. If the project described in this article goes forward, they will drop some of these units, freeing them up for other tenants.

I agree with Bradley that the government should be actively investing in a lot more low-income and workforce housing (as well as other infrastructure) to help solve the crisis. In fact, the government probably needs to quadruple its investment in these types of infrastructure if it wants to help meet the demand for housing among lower income families. (One of the main concerns is how and where they would go about doing so, given that town boards reject such projects and that the cost to place such units in desirable and convenient areas is sometimes much higher than the cost of placing them in a place like, say, Meriden).

The point is more that that holding up privately-funded projects in New Haven, or otherwise making housing decisions in a way that slowed down overall housing construction, would be very counterproductive, especially given that rents are continuing to rise and are too high for almost everyone, not just low-income families.

The city should be lobbying for the state and federal government to actively invest in more housing, but it's first priority should be doing whatever it can to ensure that the private sector creates a lot more housing, of any kind.

I agree New Haven needs short-term housing for Yale's ceaseless tide of ephemeral residents, but that being said, where are people earning less than $52,000 a year going to live? The numbers come down to this: 52K becomes about 2500 per month after taxes for most people and 1500 studios, followed by record-high electricity rates, cable, wireless, a slight entertainment budget and groceries, and a person earning $52K has just become a paycheck-to-paycheck, barely surviving resident. Why do working-class people have to schlep in from Branford because they can't afford to live in New Haven? We need balance. Why all this high-end, cater-to-Yale housing units now? Something has changed, and people cannot afford to live in this great city, which is not going to get better with all these wealthy short-termers, but rather a spike in crime is likely going to ensue. People that have no commitment to living here have no commitment to becoming a part of the fabric of the city. This is not good.