Lawyers: Yale Deal Not Set In Stone

The quotes don't make sense. The City can easily re-open the streets and leave them the way they are.

Just because our traffic engineers are still living in the 1950s, doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't designing "pedestrian priority" streets that successfully mix pedestrians and on-street parking.

An example from Cambridge, Massachusetts: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/1453/harvard-square-streets-more-complete-parking-needs-work/

Bottom line is, we can easily have a street that functions as well as it does now (the current streets are sub-par and should be improved by Yale, or the City, so they better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists), while at the same time adding more on-street parking to support local businesses and shops in Downtown New Haven, and giving control to the City.

Aldermen - please don't sell us short. In 10 years we are going to be begging desperately for more pedestrian and bike friendly streets in this city.

Told you so. At the very minimum, continuation of the deal should require Yale to continue paying all fire fees and golf course taxes (reasonable measures that shouldn't even have to be negotiated for) and to pay the city another one-time fee. That fee would be $1.8M adjusted for inflation.

Who in their right minds would want to re-open these roads? Cross-campus is easily the most tranquil spot in downtown, a public space for all to enjoy, and one that represents New Haven very, very well to out-of-town visitors.

If anything, the City ought to be making a deal with Yale to close down more streets, such as the Elm/Chapel block of High Street, and the next block of Wall Street. Or consider closing York between Elm and Grove.

Also, if I remember correctly, part of the deal included Yale opening its parking lots to the public at night. So do we lose our free parking if the BofA decides to mess up the status quo?

@ Anderson Scooper:

I'm shocked, shocked to find you supporting a multi-billion dollar corporation's attempt to gain sole access to taxpayer owned streets for NOTHING. [While Mike Morand plays "As Time Goes By" in the background].

I'm sure if one of your approved liberal leaders supported my position that Yale should pay a fair fee to keep sole access to those streets, you would be standing on that street with a sign calling for that $20 billion corporation to pay it's fair share.

OCCUPY WALL/HIGH STREETS!

New Haven residents, it is time to take back our streets.

AS and ANON,

The issue isn't the BOA wanting to do one thing or another. The issue is the expiration of a financial agreement with a set time limit.

A couple of observations:

Robn -- the article says that Yale voluntarily pays the city $8 million dollars a year. Your proposal is that Yale be required to pay $1.8 million. I don't understand at all -- what is the practical effect of requiring someone to pay less than they are voluntarily currently paying? All Yale has to do is reduce its "voluntary" payment by 1.8 million and the city gets no additional money. Yale has stated quite clearly that this is what it will do. So your plan nets $0, while racking up legal fees. Indeed, why did the city council pay for this legal opinion -- no interpretation of the agreement would induce Yale to pay more than $8 million.

I feel like folks just can't process the millions that Yale already voluntarily pays because it conflicts with some narrative that folks don't want to give up.

Elicker & Goldson want Yale to pay more than the original agreement called for. It called for a little over $2 million a year. So maybe they can show how powerful they are to satisfy their own egos and force Yale to commit to paying more, like $3 million a year. They win! Since Yale actually pays way more on its own, $8 million, it will save $5 million, and it wins, too! Big men aldermen show their power, everyone wins, right. Do they know how ridiculous they look?

Love aldermen push local tehn hire out of towners. Maybe nobody here to do their bidding. These dudes sure seem powerhouse experts on New Haven law: http://www.rickettslegal.com/page-5#!__page-9

Aldermen using paypal account to settle up?

It's ridiculous that New Haven wants more from Yale. Yale is one of the nation's top educational institutions, with a worldwide reputation for academic excellence. It should be spending its money on educating the world's brightest - not on any kind of payments to New Haven. I understand why Yale wants to play nice and give voluntary payments to New Haven, but that's really outside its purpose. In the face of the BoA's ungratefulness, Yale should stop all payments to New Haven (including New Haven Promise) and spend its money where it should: educating its students and in research. As many have said, if New Haven doesn't like that, we should pack up and go somewhere else and see what happens to New Haven (look at Bridgeport).

@Darnell

The question isn't whether Yale is better off by keeping these streets closed. Instead it should be whether New Haven is better off!

If I had a vote, (and I don't), instead of trying to extort from Yale, I'd be trying to craft another win-win by which everyone is better off. (As they did 20 years ago.) That deal was good for all parties. Threatening to re-open High Street isn't.

Yale will settle this before the Union-backed alders are sworn in. The unions don't back down on anything, not even the smallest concession. They will spin this as Yale vs. the community, and put it in plain view to make Yale look bad. That's how they always do it.

I don't see a reason to reopen High Street, it's a lovely walkway. Wall Street should be given the same treatment. Why upset a finical arrangement that has worked well for the city? Are we so swimming in money that we can afford to blow up this agreement?

Tom, it's nice to know that Canon overexposes grey skies just like Nikon.

@Noteworthy,

While I rarely agree with your comments, your statement regarding Teach For America really takes the cake. It is completely inaccurate. New Haven Promise is funded by Yale and has no relationship to funding or support for TFA. New Haven schools continue to use TFA teachers.
Perhaps what you are referring to is Yale's decision to end it's own teacher training program. That also had nothing to do with New Haven Promise, and more to do with limited interest in the program.
I get that you don't support John DeStefano, but why denigrate New Haven Promise?

I agree with Anderson Scooper....leave these streets closed. Honestly though, I would prefer the BOA direct their energy and attention to more pressing matters in this city - there are many to choose from.

STEVEB2,

Forget the various bundles of money. The deal in question is Yale paying New Haven $1.1M in return for allowing Yale to close down two streets as campus walkways for 20 years. The 20 year time period is up and its time to renegotiate the fee. Plain and simple; Yale doesn't own the land; the city does.

Cookie Monster:

You are right in only one respect: It was not Teach for America that Yale cut funding for, it was the funding to pay our front line teachers to earn Master's Degrees and in particular, to become experts in a selected field of study. In return for free entry into the program, these teachers once trained had to spend at least 2 years in New Haven public schools. Most of them have stayed far beyond that time requirement.

This was considered a premier education that was making a difference where it counts most - in our stunningly under-performing public schools for which we spend about $17,000 per child per year. This is the same public schools who deny New Haven parents early childhood education in order to stuff the classrooms with suburban children so we can pay back the state for the DeStefano/Mayo plan that puts state funding for grandiose buildings ahead of our own children's foothold on education.

Clearly, Yale's decision to end the program was at least in part, to pay for Promise. In re-reading the article this morning, nobody from Yale ever proffered your novel spin of "limited interest."

Further, I didn't denigrate Promise. I just said Yale traded dollars from the Urban Teaching program to Promise. But since your brought it up, I will point out that when you have a failure to graduate rate of 80% or more among NHPS children who attend college, you have a much bigger problem than paying for higher education. Our city children are going to college and failing at it to a degree that stuns even me. Those that are going to college come from the 51% who graduate high school.

You are right about another thing, Cookie. I don't like DeStefano. His priorities are always ass-backwards. He builds overly expensive monuments to education before he builds great teaching/educational experiences in the classroom. He pays for college before students can compete and complete the work. He gives lip service to economic vitality and jobs but still runs a city with 16 to 20% urban unemployment. He complains about prison re-entry and doesn't connect the dots to a lack of jobs and income and poor educational outcomes. There is a monumental failure to lead with principle-based solutions and a resistance to confront our multi-headed crises with anything more than band-aides, bullying and bluster. Except for Irene. You'll always have Irene.

1) "Contrary to Zucker's interpretation, Dickins and Ricketts said aldermen do have the authority to renegotiate the agreement. "There will be no adverse legal impact to the City if it decides to exercise this power," the lawyers wrote."

Perhaps there will be no adverse LEGAL impact, but watch how long it takes for Yale to run to court and try to get a court order barring New Haven from repaving the road. And then consider the potential loss of fire payments, the cost of restoring the street to its original state, and the costly litigation that's likely to come out of this. Of course, the attorneys here probably don't really care about the costly litigation, since they'll presumably be the ones to defend their opinion at a hefty hourly rate and won't have to pay any breach of contract judgment.

Assertions that Yale will just go along and give into a shakedown without giving up fire payments or otherwise scaling back its commitment to the city invite a dangerous game. Maybe those assertions are right. Or maybe Yale will realize that without it, New Haven would be in even direr straits and decide it's time to make sure those pushing for a shakedown understand that.

2) Darnell characterizes this as "multi-billion dollar corporation's attempt to gain sole access to taxpayer owned streets for NOTHING." That is a patently ridiculous characterization on a couple of levels.

First, Yale does NOT have "sole access" to any streets. Anybody can access the portions of Wall and High streets in question here, just not by car. I invite anyone who doubts me to go down there and walk that portion of the streets and see if Yale forbids you from "accessing" them. Second, as this article notes, "Yale gave the city $1.1 million and agreed to a package of other concessions, including yearly voluntary payments for fire services, the addition of the Yale golf course to the Grand List, and an investment of $50 million over 10 years in economic development."

Robn,

The City owns the streets in question, but that's not the issue. My landlord owns my apartment, but he can't do whatever he pleases with it, as I'm currently leasing it--so I have legally enforceable rights to possess it. This is a similar situation, except the question is whether the contract bars the City from exercising its power over the street's use for anything other than traffic-related reasons. Additionally, as I pointed out to Darnell above, these are PUBLIC streets; head down there yourself and walk them. Calling them "campus walkways" suggests that they're closed to the public, which is a rather dishonest implication.

3) Curious says: "Yale will settle this before the Union-backed alders are sworn in. The unions don't back down on anything, not even the smallest concession. They will spin this as Yale vs. the community, and put it in plain view to make Yale look bad. That's how they always do it."

I don't think the Yale administration attended the Barack Obama school of negotiation strategy--why would they kick off what's sure to be a contentious two years with a board dedicated to using government power to enrich union coffers at Yale's expense by preemptively conceding, especially when there's a decent chance that, should the city try to shake them down, Yale could take the city to court and win?

Moreover, if the unions want a PR war, just wait until Yale lowers the boom and steamrolls them on traffic safety--Mills's Minions want to take a productive university-city partnership that has resulted in safer streets downtown and money for the city and risk it in a game of political chicken that has limited upside but potentially great downside for the city's finances, all in what I think may well be an effort, ultimately futile, to try to resolve a situation in which 25% of the City's budget is consumed by healthcare and pension expenses by passing the cost of bloated Union contracts on to the City's most productive institution.

If the Board wants to roll the dice, I don't see this ending well. Better try to be productive and constructive than start threatening shakedowns.

Robn,

I whole-heartedly agree that once I forget the facts your plan sounds great.

PROFESSOR,

Thank you for the perfect analogy. If you decide to continue living in your apartment after the expiration of the lease period, do you cease paying your landlord rent and insist upon staying?

The Professor: These streets may be safer than they were before, but they are FAR from optimal in terms of bike and pedestrian access.

The City probably doesn't want to kill the agreement -- but it urgently needs to demand improvements to the streets to bring them up to par as progressively-designed infrastructure.

If it doesn't, we have no leverage over Yale for the next 20 years (or however long the agreement is extended). If the City can't exercise its control over our public space - on streets that are critical bike and pedestrian routes throughout our downtown - what do we have left?

While biking and walking isn't hugely popular at a regional level, more than 40% of workers within Downtown, Dixwell, East Rock and Dwight bike or walk to work.

It seems that everyone in power is content to settle for second rate infrastructure in perpetuity. Maybe that's because none of them use these streets.

@ The Professor,

You clearly have not seen the level of pettiness to which Local 34 will sink. There is a thriving mentality of, "If we don't fight tooth and nail on the smallest issue, they will not take us seriously later on."

@ Anon,

What infrastructure improvements do you think need to be made on the streets in question?

STEVEB2,

The facts you're focusing on are irrelevant smokescreens. The question is how to resolve the expiration of a $1.1M, 20 year lease of city property by Yale.

@Anderson Scooper

There is no attempt to "extort" anything from Yale, a multi-billion dollar corporation that by state statute does not pay its fair share of taxes. We at the BOA never threatened to open up the street, but instead all along asked the city and Yale to renegotiate an agreement that had expired. It was Yale who made the threats, going so far as to suggest that we, the city, would have to pay them if we did not agree to their terms.
No one I know wants to reopen the streets, but that doesn't mean that we would be willing to keep them closed without proper remuneration to the taxpayers of the city, like any other entity in New Haven would have to do if they asked for one of our TAXPAYER owned streets.

You state that "The question isn't whether Yale is better off by keeping these streets closed. Instead it should be whether New Haven is better off!" Well, the answer is that the taxpayers of New Haven would not be better off by giving away streets, but Yale sure would be.

Curious - there are far too many to list here, and in any case it should be a matter of public discussion, workshops, etc.

Steve B2 and others.

The article doesn't say that Yale pays 8 million per year. It quotes Mike Morand ss saying that Yale pays 8 million per year. There is a difference. I would like to see the 8 million itemized.

As I understand it the city blocks gift was all part of a backroom deal between Mayor Daniels and Yale where the city agreed to stop supporting legislation in the CT General Assembly that would have revoked Yale's tax exempt status.

This legislation was the culmination of years of work by the Revenue Commission and was certain to have passed. Withdrawing City support killed the measure on the eve of it's certain passing.

So Yale got much more than just the two city blocks.

At the very least they should be paying the difference between what the CT taxpayers pay out for Yale in the PILOT program; and what their taxes would be if they were fully taxed. This has been estimated to be 12-20 million per year, far more than what they voluntarily pay now.

And we aren't even talking about the extensive personal taxes that would be owed by Yale on items such as lab equipment, furniture, computers and the like.

And the state should question the PILOT program as well. We CT taxpayers pay for that.

And yes, Goldson, and Elicker as well, are entirely right in calling for a re-negotiation of the whole deal. The 20-year revisiting clause undoubtedly made the deal more palatable to alders at the time of passing; and should be taken advantage of today to enable the City to get a better, more acceptable deal.

@Darnell --

Maybe you can enlighten me as to how Yale doesn't pay its fair share.

Forgetting PILOT reimbursements which help fund our schools, Yale:

1). Pays for its own police and security forces.

2). Contributes a fair sum as a fire payment. (more than $1million/year, I believe).

3). Pays for its own trash removal.

To hear you yammer on, you'd think Yale is a big drain on New Haven resources, when reality is the exact opposite. The Yale "corporation" is actually the biggest boon to a local economy to be found anywhere in Connecticut. It's hard to imagine what New Haven would look like without it.

Anyway, at least we agree that no one really wants to re-open those streets to vehicular traffic. I also hope you and your colleagues will give thought to closing down more streets. What about Crown Street, for instance? Wouldn't the nightlife district be made better if it were closed, at least from Church to High?

@ Anon,

I can't see what needs improving on those streets to make them more pedestrian or bike-friendly. If you can;t list at least a few off the top of your head, it's hard to take you seriously.

How quickly many of you forget that the BOA just recently agreed, through negotiations, to sell Yale the small rotary @ Broadway & York St's, and the city's rights to the parking lot @ Broadway for 99 years, thereafter, the lot will pass on to Yale ownership to do as they please free of $harge.

In addition, the city provided Yale the land, free of charge, to build the new dorms @ Sachem and Winchester Ave in exchange for a children play ground next to the new Yale police station.

As part of the Winstanley deal to build the parking lot, city plan, recommended and the BOA granted Yale the right to build a Yale water chiller plant attached to the garage to feed water to the new dorms 3/4 of a mile up Winchester ave to the new dorms. The city even agreed to insure and hold Yale harmless from liability should the under ground water line rupture.

In addition, the city lobbied the state of Ct.to bond 10M for the sewage line replacement/installation at the canal line overpass for the new dorms.

In this instance, there is no question the city and/or the BOA possess the right to open new negotiations after the expiration of the 1990 agreement.

Former Alderman Brison said it best above with this correct comment above:

" At the very least they should be paying the difference between what the CT taxpayers pay out for Yale in the PILOT program; and what their taxes would be if they were fully taxed. This has been estimated to be 12-20 million per year, far more than what they voluntarily pay now".

For clarification... city and state taxpayers pay the difference between the current state pilot = 53% of the value of Yale's education properties and the standard 70% all others pay.

Go Figure!

In as much as the 1990 expired agreement is concerned, the only legitimate negotiable issue on the table should be the 1.1M 1990 payment for the street closing.

Conversely, it is difficult to understand why city taxpayers would even want the street re-converted, other than to simply show that the BOA has the authority, is insufficient cause.
Nevertheless, all claims by Zucker, Morand and city hall's Benton, regarding any new agreement based on erroneous voluntary contributions is mooted by the Fac$ stated above.

Curious: Perhaps you should have attended the BOA's public hearing on this issue where you could have heard extensively about this topic. There are many things that could be done. Aside from dangerous speeding, one of the problems is the fact that the street is marked as a one way route, but functions as a de-facto two way thoroughfare. Nobody is saying that other streets surrounding this area aren't deadly, multi-lane highways - but that's actually one of the strongest arguments for focusing on making Wall Street better.

"What about Crown Street, for instance? Wouldn't the nightlife district be made better if it were closed, at least from Church to High?"

Scooper: The question here isn't whether other streets need work, too. The question is simply whether or not the City should "lock itself into" a certain configuration of public space, which it then has no control over, for another very long period of time (just as it did for 20 years beginning in 1990).

@Anderson Scooper:

I think a few posters have answered you, particularly FacCheck, anon and Allan Brison, so no need to repeat. In regards to your idea of closing Crown Street for the clubs, who cares?

Luckily it will not be my concern after Dec 31, so you and your "protect the big Yale corporation" friends can attack other public servants.

Have fun.

@Anon--

The City is no longer "locked into" the status quo for High and Wall streets. I'm sure they have the right to re-open them to car traffic, only no one seems to be advocating for that.

But why isn't the question about whether it might make sense to close other streets/block in Downtown?

Twenty years later, the verdict seems almost unanimous that the closings have worked quite well. So what gives? Will New Haven only make street changes when Yale pays them to do so?

Please check out Crown Street on any given night. The mix of cars and pedestrians is a dangerous one, and the overall experience would be much, much better without the cars cruising by. FWIW.

Robn,

The problem here is that my lease clearly spells out under what conditions it runs out (specifically, when 12 months are up). The contract here is not so clear, and Yale has an argument that under the contract, the City can only re-open the streets for traffic-related reasons. However, those pushing for a reopening have made it quite clear that this is more about a cash shakedown than about traffic. I think we agree that the landlord-tenant analogy is apt, I think we disagree on how to interpret the contractual language in determining under what circumstances the city can force the re-opening the streets. I suppose that reasonable people can disagree on this, the thing is that in this context, such disagreements are settled by costly litigation.

As far as "union pettiness," that's precisely why I don't think Yale will budge--why set a tone of capitulation early on? It hasn't worked out very well in Washington...

PROFESSOR,

I hear you, but if the original intent was to meet in 20 years and pat each other on the back about what a fine job everyone did, well then they could have just planned a reunion and skipped putting language into the contract. Why put a time line into the contract at all if the terms of the contract aren't expiring or somehow actionable?