360 State’s Public-Housing Apartments Readied

Glad to see some public housing going up in 360 State. I would love to see more quality public housing going up all across the country. Especially in urban centers and as a response to the foreclosure and financing problems going on.

It would be great to see more of this.

It is a shame that the units expire after 15 years. That is a very bad idea.

Will there be tours of the units for the general public? I would like to see what my tax money is being used for.

This is an outrageous use of public funds, and yes the funds are public whether they come from Municipal, State of Federal tax dollars. It is also a slap in the face to all hard working citizens who do not take hand-outs from the government and thus have to live in small overpriced apartments in less than desirable neighborhoods.

180 units out of 500? That isn't bad, considering the cost & location. I honestly expected to not see it do that well.

Considering that another 50 are Workforce/HANH and will be filled, that would put occupancy at 230 if they don't do anything else.

Hopefully the occupancy will be closer to 100% over time to provide greater density downtown. It sounds like they are off to a good start!

Townie, do you drive a car? into towns? do you park it on the side of the road?

I'm sorry, but you benefit from an 85 billion dollar subsidy of parking, not to mention the other subsidies you get (everything from your education to the price of the food you buy).

The reality is that costs are subsidized for all of us, and for good reason, too.

For instance, when we subsidize preventive health care for the lowest income members of our population, we save money on long-term care and treatment of disease by preventing those diseases. Putting people in homes saves us money on homelessness services and ER & police costs because it removes another problem from society.

Right now our government approved a 7 billion dollar subsidy for the richest members of our society--literally the top 2%.

The reality is that subsidies are everywhere. I'd rather see the poor subsidized than the rich, and think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

buildings of this size typically take at least 2 years to fully lease.

but this is filling up much faster than expected, just like what happened when other downtown buildings (like smoothie, cutler, etc.) opened.

that means other developers should soon be building similar projects. for example , the 'ninth square' project across from firehouse 12 is under construction and will add another 60 or so units to the area.

Honestly, this is the biggest bamboozle going.

If I was paying my hard earned money to live in a building labeling itself as "luxury" and paying the amount of taxes I pay each week to our government, I would be ticked off that there were neighbors paying far below what I paid to get into the building.

This entire building is nuts. The way you get people to invest in the downtown is by making them buy into it, not renting to transients and then telling them, "oh, and by the way, some of your neighbors only paid 1/2 of what you paid!"

I wonder if the grocery store on the ground floor will also be offering subsidized memberships to those who seem to not be able to have money to feed their kids but amazingly own a home in South Carolina so they can evade our city taxes, and then pull out a wad of cash to make a second transaction of cigarettes and lotto tickets.

Downtown is moving in the right direction but incentives should be given to developers so that we attract those with money to rehab buildings for those with money to buy!

Townie - i would like to know where to find those "hard-working citizens who do not take handouts from the government?" The federal mortgage deduction, at $80 billion is 10 times the cost of subsidized housing. 32% of New Haven and 70% of suburban residents take that handout. As a group, the largest recipients of federal and state welfare dollars are the elderly. Know any of them? do you drink soda? Eat meat? Eat rice? Wear cotton? All subsidized. Do you use the interstate? Grossly subsidized. Go to the movies? likely to be subsidized. And, if you go west of the Rockies, it's likely that you benefit from a federal subsidy every time you drink the water.

plentyThe "affordable" housing created at 360 State Street is an embarrassment of government.

First you have the State's Housing Trust Fund subsidizing people making over $43,000/year. (check out the income ranges via a link found here: www.360statestreet.com/affordable.)

I'm sorry, but what are State tax dollars doing, being used to make it easier for yuppies to live in luxury housing? Simply gross. If you're single and making $43,000/year, or even more, -- you don't need a subsidized rent. And if you're going to give that $2,000-$3,000 year break to one yuppie, (or 30), why not everyone?

And then the New Haven Housing Authority gives Becker $150,000/unit to let them occupy twenty units for just 15 years? You don't have to be a genius to do the math. In exchange for the capital contribution, they are "saving" just $2500 per studio per year, or just $5000 per one bedroom per year. Simply outrageous. There are plenty of landlords who would love to get $900/month for a studio. Spending $150,000 to give a lucky few the right to live at 360 State is just an incredible waste of taxpayer money!

"Subsidies" for the wealthy are far larger than "subsidies" from the poor -- consider mortgage interest deductions alone.

Yes, our government literally robs from the poor every year, in order to give more to the rich. The poor pay enormous percentages of their income in payroll and sales taxes, even if they are undocumented and aren't even getting government benefits at all - where as folks like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates pay only a tiny % of their income in taxes.

Republicans and Democrats who are desperately trying to protect their wealthy constituents, by giving enormous tax breaks to the top 1% of the population which now owns about 90% of the nation's wealth, may not want you to believe this.

Unfortunately, there's no hope of this changing unless lower-income households actually come out and vote for a dramatic restructuring of our tax code, for example, re-instituting the 90% tax bracket we had in the mid-20th century when the middle class was actually still growing.

New Haven has followed the lead of hundreds of other cities and taken one, commendable, small step by making the 360 State developer provide 20 apartments for a few years to some lower income households, but that's about the equivalent of a drop of water in the swimming pool of what needs to change.

Bob Solomon is right on--as usual. Kudos.

@streever: No I do not own a car. I walk pretty much every where I go. But, that is really beside the point. There is a huge difference between subsidies that benefit the general public and subsidies and hand-outs that benefit a small portion of the population. Public Housing is an example of the latter. I will admit some public housing is necessary, but to put it into a luxury apartment building seems wasteful and appropriate. Welfare is a different type of subsidy because it creates a dependant class of citizens that either are unwilling or unable to find gainful employment.

@bob solomon, et al.: Believe it or not there is a working class that cannot afford to own a house, but are able to rent. It is this same class that does not accept, nor do they expect government hand-outs. We try to live responsibly within our means, while the upper middle-class and poor seem to jump at government assistance. You're right the government does subsidize a lot of things, but many of those things are used by a massive portion of the public and they are funded by the public. That is what tax money is for. It is not for enabling bad behaviour and irresponsibility. It is not for bailing out banks or individuals. And it is certainly not for paying for over-priced housing in a luxury downtown building.

Doing this can teach our children one very important thing: You don't have to work hard and sacrifice in order to afford the nicer things of life, all you have to do is the bare minimum, maybe less, and the government will gladly hand you the keys to a luxury apartment.

How come this state does not have housing programs like this.

Mitchell-Lama program.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/apartment/mitchell-lama.shtml

Rent Control

Rent Stabilization

http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/dhcr/dhcr1.html

So if I'm a tenant I shouldn't ask for a raise because then my rent will go up? Or better still I'll take the raise and not tell my landlord. Has some NH group already begun to look into suing the HANH when the 15 years are up? Ask NYC how hard it is to get someone out of a rent-controlled apartment.

Thomas - you are correct when you note that public housing and Section 8 recipients have a 30% tax on increases in income, since their rent will go up by 30 cents on every new dollar they earn. This does not go into effect, however, for the first year of the wage increase. You are incorrect when you assume that a recipient can get around this by not reporting wage increases. Employers must file wage statements with IRS. HUD compares these with recipients' reported income. discrepancies are sent to local housing authorities, which must act. (yes, I understand that not all income is reported and people lie to IRS.) This can result in evictions, as well as criminal prosecutions.

You are also incorrect in referring to the apartments as "rent controlled." BTW - the contract with the developer is for at least 17 years, not 15, and will probably go longer. That said, when the contract ends, the resident will have to pay the full rent. if they fail to pay, they are subject to the same eviction process as any tenant who does not pay rent. This is not new - these policies have applied to Section 8 recipients since 1973, when the program first started.

Townie - I think this is a much longer discussion, but one of the greatest problems with public housing has been the creation of large "super block" housing developments, which increasingly became racially and economically segregated. Section 8 was supposed to solve that problem, but it did not. If you map of New Haven's poorest neighborhoods and Section 8 sites, the maps will largely overlap, which shows that the Section 8 private market has largely replicated the public housing system. In my opinion, the units at 360 have the virtue of deconcentrating poverty in a building that would otherwise not be available to public housing recipients in a space that will be maintained by the private market. I do not pretend that this is a sure thing. when the plan came to the board, with a 10 year contract, I voted "no." We then negotiated the 17 year contract, and I voted "yes." As for subsidies, based on your description, you may be subsidized less than most, but we are all subsidized. I don't know what it means to say that the poor jump on subsidies more than anyone else. I use Turbotax to do my taxes, and there are a lot of deductions in there. i don't know anyone who voluntarily gives them up. The corn subsidy is pretty weird, given the effect on all that corn syrup on our health, but few of us complain that food is too cheap. I suspect you and I would agree that many of the country's priorities are screwed up when it comes to subsidies, but I also think that when everything is added up, the poor get the majority of the publicity and the rich get the majority of the subsidy.

I am confused about the term "work force housing" as quoted in this article. That phrase has a very specific meaning purtaining to the adjacent housing around an employment center. Agricultural worker housing, for example, is typically located in co-op housing units near a farm. Factory worker housing can be accommodated for with shot gun housing (like on Hudson Street), modest multi-family houses like in Newhallville, or in flats like rowhouses or houses in the Trowbridge Square area. Workforce housing is not some equation-derived average income, its a reference to housing that was built specifically for workers nearby to their place of employment.
What ever happened to affordable housing that was affordable because it was small? The idea that poor people deserve the same standard of living as everyone else as a right may be nice in concept, but its realization has failed miserably. The single family house on a 1/4 acre is not an affordable housing typology, nor is the luxury apartment in a tower in the sky. In order to deliver these things we've had to massively downgrade the quality of building materials, the quality of construction practices and the quality of design, and/or we've had to massively subsidize the effort like in this case.
There are plenty of affordable housing typologies that effectively integrate poor people into middle class surroudnings, unfortunately, those typologies are either illegal under our zoning ordinance or have been so scrutinized by society for being "undesirable" and "unfair" that we can't do them anymore.
These types would include shotgun housing, granny flats (or assessory apartments/buildings), basement apartments, triple decker, stacked rowhouses, etc.
Part of the issue is job scarcity in the unskilled, and undereducated population and the other part of the problem is a complete denial of the effectiveness and desirabilty of traditional affordable housing types. I'd rather live in a beautifully detailed shotgun house with no back yard a block away from work and a park, then to live in a 3 bed room, 2 story vinyl sided, carbboard box 2 miles from employment with a crab grass covered lawn.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/shotgun-house-photo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2008/10/01/shotgun-houses-the-tiny-simple-house/&h=1194&w=1310&sz=337&tbnid=H0d1DuX-36lRHM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=150&prev;=/images?q=shotgun house&zoom=1&q=shotgun house&hl=en&usg=__YBnXOBxM1ji5UwmahQPpfsDzHsk=&sa=X&ei=aagTTYujKsT7lweziPiuDA&ved=0CCMQ9QEwAQ

It is odd that people think poverty will end, or decrease, if the poor are placed in upper-middle class/middle class environments. One's poverty is not decided by the style of their housing. It is a product of a lot of factors and simply moving the poor from one area to another will do nothing to solve the problem.

If this city, state or nation were truly interested in ending poverty then they would work to create a more equitable economic paradigm. Instead they increase welfare programs and subsidies and work to create a pseudo-welfare state.

If individuals were truly interested in overcoming poverty then they would work towards that end. Instead, some simply give in to the ease of dependence, thus the cycle perpetuates.

There is not practical benefit to opening public housing at 360 State Street. The only purpose it serves is to satiate the paternalism of this city's quasi-liberal administration.

corrected link*

http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/shotgun-house-photo.jpg

Townie,
I think the point about income integration in neighborhoods isn't so much about "ending poverty" as it is about fostering democracy. That is to say, a functioning democracy is impossible when people are segregated from one another by income because people cannot relate to the situations of others - wealthy people do not see the struggle of the underclass, the underclass doesn't see the budget tightening of the middle class, etc. Interspersing affordable housing within middle class neighborhoods is an effective way of encouraging (and allowing) upward mobility by providing people of modest means with the services of people with more generous means.

This is a bad move. Ridiculous, in fact. The presence of any affordable units will be the downfall of the property, and give the address a bad name, just like The Residences at Ninth Square, one block away from the 360 site.

Between the drugs, noise, vandalism, evictions, petty thefts, and more, I could not move out fast enough. Not only would residents move in friends and family who were not on the vouchers or leases, but they would steal flowers, mail, and furniture from the lobby of the big building (at the corner of Orange and Crown).

People looking to move into the 360 site should beware. People who don't pay full price for their homes, and don't pay taxes, don't keep up their homes. Think twice, no matter what the cost, the amenities, or the 'luxury' promised.

posted by: Townie on December 23, 2010 4:18pm

If this city, state or nation were truly interested in ending poverty then they would work to create a more equitable economic paradigm. Instead they increase welfare programs and subsidies and work to create a pseudo-welfare state.

If individuals were truly interested in overcoming poverty then they would work towards that end. Instead, some simply give in to the ease of dependence, thus the cycle perpetuates

What about this dole that the conservatives never talk about.


Corporate Welfare: Corporate Welfare
By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html

Bad landlord/tenant experiences with Section 8 have to do with a lack of professionalism on the part of landlords, not any particular tenant's source of income.

If you gathered a few dozen Section 8 recipients into a room for a discussion, I doubt that "Morris Cove Mom" would be able to make the claims she is making above, directly to their faces.

Since 360 State will be a professionally managed facility, the problems that Morris Cove Mom and others are describing will not happen. If someone living there does smell marijuana, I would wager it is more likely to be coming from a law student's apartment than a single working person's.

Glad i changed my mind and moved elsewhere 3500 a month and someone lives and uses the facility for a fraction......Not fair folks

Sad to see that you moved Chop. However, we need more people who have a deeper sense of what fair means living in the city. Mixed income living gets an A+ from me!

To think that low-income folks have to pay the same amount as middle to high income earners isn't fair. Neither is middle to high income folks paying low-income rates. Neither is one flate rate for everyone. Paying according to what you make seems more fair to me. This gives more people access to more things they need and at a fair price according to what they make.

Hi,Understand your point and it is well taken but my view just happens to differ.To me I have always lived within my means plus knowing what I can afford but I happen to be eyeing a 800k summer home on the Cape so maybe with some luck being not in that financial bracket that I could get some sort of break and pay somewhat of a "fair"price according to my income.Wouldn't that be fair? A little bit of an exaggeration but I think that you get my drift.I am a fair person just like yourself so why not make the entire building low income?Oh and where is this money exactly coming from which pays the peoples rent balance???Hummmm.All due respect

Thats a good point. Maybe we shouldn't be making $800,000 homes for single families? I personally don't mind that they're there. However, if someone is looking for an $800,000 house in the Cape I would wonder where their priorities are and where the priorties of that market is.

We pay for the balance collectively. I personally think thats reasonable. I rather house a family from my neighborhood than buy an 800,000 house in the Cape.

Hi for 1 last time...I am not pursuing an 800k home because i cannot afford it secondly it's Capitalism so if you could I shall not begrudge But when you state "WE" I assume that is us and there lies the problem did I miss the vote on this one?I still want to stay on topic and state that if New Haven wants to play big shot make the ENTIRE building low income just don't ask the other folks to pay considerably more.By the way I admire your stance but your comment that you would rather house a family than purchase an 800k house I think that statement is fabulous and that you should seriously look into this matter it would be awesome.Well i'm off but it's been nice bantering this around...Take-care