Yale, City Strike Wall Street Deal

The streets do not work perfectly from a traffic perspective and the City should be able to retain the ability to make changes in the future as our transportation systems change, at least every few years.

As a condition of renewing this deal, Yale should agree to make further improvements to the streets, where they are inadequate (e.g. pedestrian and bike safety) as well as the surrounding areas that their characteristics indirectly impact.

Yale can have the streets closed, but they are city streets, and the goal should be to make them world-class streets for public circulation, not some bureaucrat's vision of a road / plaza for undergraduates and University staff.

Unfortunately the people calling the shots here are all bureaucrats, many who live out of town or drive everywhere. They are not people who use these streets to get around the city on a regular basis.

This would be a terrible thing for the city to agree to a permanent sale and transfer of deed to Yale. As a taxpayer and voter in our city I hope the aldermen and women agree to a leasehold estate for an agreeable # of years (perhaps 50 years is more appropriate). I do believe the city should retain the right to delay this for a year for further discussions from the community. There is no easy way to get from one side of this city to the other and as the city grows it needs to retain the ability to keep cars and bikes moving.

First it was the Pilot Pen Tennis Tournament at Yale, then Science Park at Yale, then the Omni at Yale, and now, at last, New Haven at Yale.

Forever? How do you put a price on that? Who decides on the valuation, who is choosing the appraiser?

What happens in X amount of years when the city decides it wants this back again? What if they want to put a bus stop there, or a tram stop?

It appears that as the city continues to sell off its capital to raise money to run, Yale New Haven will eventually become a gated community. The Yale New Haven police force will expand, the fire department will be renamed, although the hospital won't have to. Those who are allowed to remain in residence after gentrification with the business districts fully metamorphosing into chi-chi city will be paying their real estate taxes to the Yale Corporation.

We will be able to forestall the sale just by cutting the trillion dollar military budget and taxing the rich to provide the necessary resources to rebuild and rehab our cities. Converting thus is the only road to can take us into a democratically-run future.

If the Board of Aldermen have to approval this "deal", who made the deal that is on the table now, the Mayor?

This is a great outcome. Good job New Haven and Yale!

Good god people Yale bought 300ft of street they've already controlled for 20 years, they didn't buy Wooster Sq or something. Plus this street only accesses their buildings. If you want to be outraged about Yale owning stuff, go over to Chapel st or something and look at Shake Shack. They kept that building empty for over a decade before they could get their preferred buyer.

I'm surprised my comment didn't get published.

Is it possible that this is part of the Yale Unions quid pro quo in return for their sweetheart contract? hmmm?

Sure, let's just sell everything to Yale. But what happens when we have sold them everything? Maybe we should just hold on to these streets so we can get Yale to keep paying for them.

Let me review.

Twenty odd years ago, Yale had a city street running through the heart of their campus, and New Haven needed money. So a deal was made, Yale could turn a low priority street into a pedestrian way, and New Haven would get money. The trade would be subject to review in twenty years time.

Twenty years latter, New Haven is short on cash, so the city uses the review claus to shake down Yale. Only, Yale is ready to throw down, so good luck.

So for New Haven to get the money, Yale doesn't have to worry about another shake down. That's the deal.

I can certainly live with that. After all, does anyone really need High Street to cut between Elm and Wall? This solution is far more pedestrian friendly.

HhE: High Street can probably remain closed, because it dead-ends at the cemetery anyways. But Wall Street serves a critical purpose in getting around Downtown, because it goes all the way down to State. Anyone who actually traverses Downtown several times a day realizes this.

High Street should be closed perhaps, but as the city grows, it should reserve the option to modify Wall Street as needed, e.g., by turning it back into a two-way street, adding a transit route, adding a cross-town bicycling route, or adding on-street parking.

For our elected officials to consider eliminating this street represents a gross mismanagement of our city's most important public space assets.

I could not agree more with those who have expressed their opposition to this outrageously short-sighted proposal to privatize city property. The proposal may indeed bring money to the city in the short-term, as the NHI paraphrased Doug Hausladen, but permanently privatizing city property is absolutely not a solution to the long-term financial situation of the city, especially when these streets would presumably be tax-exempt once they are purchased by Yale. New Haven already has more than enough tax-exempt property shifting the tax burden onto specific areas of the city (and contributing to the disparities and divisions in New Haven). To me, the only acceptable proposal would be one whereby Yale rents the streets from the city through a contract that is subject to revision and renewable every X years.

I hope others opposed join together and push the BoA to strike down this proposal. (And it's great to see agreement here between several of us who often disagree in the NHI comment section.)

To clarify some misconceptions in the comments, the stretch of Wall Street that may be sold to Yale is between College and York -- a stretch of road that has only been accessed by delivery vehicles and the occasional police officer for many years. It DOES NOT include Wall from College to State. The block of High Street runs in front of Sterling Library and has been pedestrian-only for at least 18 years.

These are roads that Yale has controlled for 23 years and the lack of vehicle access has not caused any traffic problems in that time.

When it comes to selling off these assets, however, I sure hope the appraisers account for the lost parking revenue that could be had, indexed for inflation, as well as the fact that the roads are on some of the most prime property in the city. Yale can surely dip into its reserves to pay full price for such valuable real-estate.

anonymous, some people are given to exaggeration. While I do not transverse downtown several times a day, I do often enough to understand the mechanics. I am surprised that someone was apparently pro bicycle and pedestrian would oppose this configuration.

SteveOnAnderson, did you not oppose the Star Supply proposal on the basis it would gentrify the neighborhood, and thus raise taxes?

As I see this, the price our city paid for trying to shake down Yale, is that Yale would no longer accept any deal that was not permanent. The city's bargaining position was far weaker than Yale's, and this is what Little Leaguers get for playing hard ball with The Majors.

This is a wonderful idea often called a BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. New Haven's was the opportunity to spend money converting a small street back to vehicle use in exchange for losing a major revenue stream.

PH wrote: "These are roads that Yale has controlled for 23 years and the lack of vehicle access has not caused any traffic problems in that time."

Perhaps it hasn't caused traffic problems for you, but the streets are less than ideal for pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit traffic.

The point is not about traffic, anyhow, it is that the streets are incredibly valuable public assets that have the potential to serve other purposes, in the future, as the city grows. Giving them away is mismanagement of our city's precious remaining public space.

Sure, it requires elected officials willing to think ahead 20 or 30 years to see this, but I don't think that is too much to ask.

Let it be a lease and receive money every 6 months with a review for an increase every 5 years (or something to that effect). We shouldn't sell streets for one time money to help get us out of a pickle. I would rather see a lease of five years and a review of increases after each five years are up. That to me is appropriate. Are we even sure selling streets is legal? Those streets belong to the people. And while you are at it, why don't you (BOA)look into a usage fee charge for Yale using space under our streets for lines tunneling (not sure what the term would be)through to Yale while generating their own energy.
I am glad we have a relationship with Yale, but I believe any money they contribute to this city isn't much of a sweat off their brow. The amount always sounds over the top but it really isn't. They more than have this money to give,contribute and help out with.
I love Yale's programs for the community and their financial contributions, but please don't sell our streets to them.....lease these streets.

Again, why would Yale put up with regular shake downs?

There seams to be this idea that Yale would have to take whatever the city's offer was, as opposed to saying, "Go right ahead. Spend a bunch of money you do not have converting this back to a regular street. We will just cut back on our voluntary payments."

There also seams to be this idea that Yale has so much money, it ought to just turn over more to New Haven.

As much as Yale has, it does not have enough to do all the things it wants to do, let alone keep bailing out its coke addicted brother. It has as much as it does because contributors believe in what Yale is doing -- if they wish to support New Haven, they would send their cheques to City Hall -- and because it follows a strict investment/spending protocol.

One can go to the Yale Bookstore, and buy the book that explains this.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Pioneering-Portfolio-Management-?keyword=Pioneering Portfolio Management:&store=book


Yes I am distressed at the city selling assists to cover operating expenses. Expecting Yale to take a bad deal will not solve the real systemic problems of over spending and Home Rule.

"Perhaps it hasn't caused traffic problems for you, but the streets are less than ideal for pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit traffic."

Actually those two streets are pretty ideal for bike and pedestrian traffic. Not a lot of room for buses, though.

Bill, perhaps it is ideal for some, but Wall Street is currently configured as a one way and is pretty horrible for bicycle traffic going the other way. It's also less than ideal for the handicapped and wheelchair users, who have to negotiate traffic that can at times be high speed.

If a real bike route were added in that same direction on Elm Street (as opposed to the sub-par lane design currently proposed by the city) that might be less of an immediate issue. But we should still be thinking long term about how to make it possible for all people without cars, including your children and your grandmother, to safely navigate downtown New Haven. Currently the city is not accessible to those groups - which means we are losing out big time to other cities in terms of job growth, reduced cost of living, safety, etc.

The city has a chance to address this in coming years, unless it sells off its streets. Once Yale owns the streets, it will not have to make any of the improvements that are required to make our city more accessible to road users of all abilities.

anonymous, it is a section of High Street, not Wall Street that is being sold to Yale. Riding a bicycle against traffic is illegal (never mind how difficult or not).

HhE, the first sentence of the article states it is High and Wall. Also, my comments are about the need for the City to have flexibility to make changes to its transportation system over time.

Selling the streets doesn't give the City any flexibility, which means it will be far less resilient in the face of massive economic changes expected over the coming 50 years.

Not sure if you were living in New Haven in the 1940s like some of my close friends were, but there was a time not long ago where every single street in New Haven was two-way, even the narrow ones - the people who have lived here since then mostly want the narrow two-way "yield streets" back, as one-ways have led to speeding, crashes, and pollution from the need to constantly drive around the block.

ANONYMOUS,

I want two way streets back and wouldn't mind it done as shock treatment. Get it over with fast and people will get used to it faster.
I'm shocked this hasn't appeared as a promise on any of the candidates campaign plank yet.

anonymous, in the 1940s, my father was living in Marblehead, MA, Greenwood, MS, and Charles City, IA, and going to elementary school there. In the late '50s, he was living in New Haven, while attending Yale. I was born in 1966.

I do not object to converting streets to two way. I do worry about our city selling off assets to cover operating expenses. I just know that blackmail and extortion are short term solutions that have long term costs.