New Haven Independent

posted by: Yale'sEncroaching on October 21, 2010  8:20am

The Farmington Canal is a public mutli-use path and it’s value for the community of New Haven will be ruined if it is overrun by Yale students wandering from class to party etc. Yale should build its own path to satisfy what will clearly be much increased user demand.  Yale has already hijacked the Farmington Canal path development project for many years, they need to be a better neighbor.

posted by: streever on October 21, 2010  9:07am

I agree with Justin—would have been nice to know what that theater will be, how it will relate, etc.

“40 percent of residents of New Haven use [the Yale] walkways.”

I think this figure is probably true, but it needs some context.

Yale is the single largest employer in the city. I’m not surprised that so many people who live here use their walkways, but further context is that the walkways can refer to a lot of things. There is a walkway behind the Peabody which is well-used.

But, when we look at the walled courtyards of Yale, I suspect that there are not 40% of non-yale employees walking through them. They certainly are not welcoming with their imposing (albeit open) steel gates, and they do not imply that one should walk there.

It is Yale property, so it is their right to plan what they want, but of course the City has to push back when a tax-exempt entity wants to build more and claims that the current buildings are pedestrian friendly.

posted by: streever on October 21, 2010  9:10am

I should point out that I am personally happy to see Yale’s continued development: as a huge tax payer and a big employer of New Haven residents, I appreciate and enjoy their contributions to the City. With that said, I do think that they need to make a concerted effort to open their developments up to residents.

While Yale pays a great deal of tax on it’s profit businesses, it does not pay tax on it’s educational properties of course. I have no problem with this, but would like to see the institution be more a part of the cityscape because of it.

posted by: Neighbor on October 21, 2010  10:01am

I completely disagree with “Yale’sEncroaching”. The more people on the canal the better.  It would only make that part safer. If Yale built its own path to use instead of the canal, the canal would remain desolate and more dangerous. Havin Yale students on it will make it safer and more vibrant.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on October 21, 2010  1:46pm

“it does not pay tax on it’s educational properties of course. I have no problem with this”
Its reasonable that educational institutions do not pay taxes for their educational facilities. However, dorms, cafeteria’s, teacher’s offices and student services are not educational facilities. Those facilities never should have been granted tax exempt status. Originally, Yale students rented housing privately, shopped in local groceries, ate in local restaurants, and were essentially a part of the public. I can understand the desire to have private residence halls, cafeteria’s, etc for security and convenience as well as being able to guarantee room and board, but when Yale started expanding, becoming wealthy and detatching itself from the city, it should have started paying taxes on non-educational facilities. Perhaps its a slightly modified tax that doesn’t treat the cafeteria the same as a restaurant.
An enormous number of problems would be resolved if faculty rented offices privately, if students rented rooms privately, if students would seek out professional help from private medical and psychiatrist offices, shopped in local stores for groceries, ate in local restaurants and became a part of the community again. Entirely new business opportunities could open in the city in the private sector to replace all the services and facilities that Yale currently has as tax exempt. Tuition and fees would be drastically lowered and students would have more flexibility to choose what they want to spend their money on. As one small example, if the weight room were a private business in the city that students decide to sign up for, not every student would be forced to pay for the gym through fees.

Back in reality where the public has absolutely no leverage over a gargantuan global institution, the new colleges look very cool. It would have been nice if some of existing buildings on the site could have been preserved, and some of the smaller ones moved to vacant lots in nearby neighborhoods, but I’m exciting to see how these buildings stack up to Roger’s designs. It is really unnecessary to do any demolition in New Haven because there are plenty of vacant or underused lots all over the city of varying sizes that can accommodate growth for many years ahead. Demolition is something that should be reserved for when there is no more buildable land that isn’t either occupied or preserved.

posted by: Bill Saunders on October 21, 2010  3:47pm

Welcome to Yale University
(former home of New Haven, CT)

posted by: Marc Suraci on October 21, 2010  8:40pm

Once again Yale stimulates New Havens economy and increases it’s attractiveness with out our governments intervention. Thank you Yale we would be Waterbury with out you.

posted by: Melissa on October 22, 2010  10:02am

In comparison to the colleges at Oxford University, which Yale is modeled after, the Yale colleges are, in fact, much friendlier and more open to the public. Interestingly, the colleges at Oxford University all have gates or obviously guarded entrances with well-dressed security personnel that make sure the general public does not walk in. Maybe we’re being a bit too hard on Yale, especially considering how much higher the crime and gun use rate in New Haven is. (guns are illegal in England, and police go unarmed)

posted by: Melissa on October 22, 2010  10:11am

“Originally, Yale students rented housing privately, shopped in local groceries, ate in local restaurants, and were essentially a part of the public.” This is, in fact, not true. Yale is modeled after Oxford, where all the students, even including graduate students and international students (unlike Yale), live in colleges, eat in colleges, and study in college libraries.

Quinnipiac University was recently pushed by locals to build more dormitories because the neighbors were sick of students living in their neighborhoods, holding parties and leaving rentals in bad condition. There will always be this push-pull, town and gown conflict…

Finally, the housing in New Haven is extraordinarily expensive, with notoriously bad landlords, and very poorly maintained rental units. If I could, I’d push Yale to follow even further in Oxford’s footsteps and provide complete colleges for graduate and international students so that they would have, safe, reasonable, well-maintained communities to live in. Colleges also provide a haven for academic and interdisciplinary discourse, that leads to innovation in a way that living in separate housing and neighborhoods would not.

posted by: back in the day on October 22, 2010  10:47am

posted by: Melissa on October 22, 2010 11:11am

’ “Originally, Yale students rented housing privately, shopped in local groceries, ate in local restaurants, and were essentially a part of the public.” This is, in fact, not true. Yale is modeled after Oxford, where all the students, even including graduate students and international students (unlike Yale), live in colleges, eat in colleges, and study in college libraries.’

to melissa - the college system isn’t even 100 years old. i think jonathan hopkins is referring to back in the day, before the colleges were built. he’s right - there was a lot of services provided by private industry for those students. you’re right that the colleges are inviting and safe, even though there’s still a high property crime rate (70% of property crime on campus is related to students leaving doors and windows unlocked). i would also mention that the Harvard Campus is very enclosed as well as the Oxford campus - with large gates closing people in/out of their courtyard. And now that I type that - i remember that all of the residential buildings on campus are locked off - but the cross campus walkways are open 24 hours a day (and of course yale doesn’t close/block city streets - it fits into the city’s street grids)

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on October 22, 2010  11:02am

Melissa,
James Gamble Rogers designed much of Yale’s expansion in the 1920s around Oxford Gothic Architecture, but in the 19th century Yale College did not have residential colleges, students were assimilated into the city.
You are selectively choosing where to start history. New Haven hasn’t always had high crime rates. Yale students were actually the aggressors towards townies until recently. Yale rise and New Haven’s decline are intermediately intertwined.
I am not suggesting that the residential colleges, cafeterias and teacher’s offices should be demolished, I am suggesting that they should be taxes since they are not educational facilities in the way that was implied in the 18th century for tax exemption. If this tax leads to some New Haven entrepreneurs opening up competing businesses that supply goods and services more conveniently than Yale can under a fair, non-academic tax, then that is good. The issue of college students destroying property has nothing to do with what I’m talking about, but rather is an issue of social degradation, and moral and ethic bankruptcy where people don’t care about each other. That is not an issue caused by rental properties, that is an issue caused by underlying problems in the society.

This is a pretty good article that discusses many of the issues outlined above, although I don’t agree with everything stated in it, it’s a good reference:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2003/sep/30/how-yale-destroyed-new-havens-economy/

posted by: Melissa on October 22, 2010  3:11pm

Hi “Back in the Day” and Jon,

Thanks for the lively discussion! I’m no historical expert, but I would suspect that the demise of New Haven involved multiple factors, not just the expansion of Yale, the building of Yale colleges, and Yale’s economic policies. Most say New Haven is one of the only remaining “living” cities in Connecticut.

Jon, I agree, that there should be fair competition, allowing students to choose the best services for their money (and, I guess I would support taxation of some of these university provided services). As a somewhat recent college graduate from a State University with dormitories, I remember well my frustration with paying for meal plans and dorms, and feeling the services were overpriced and inadequate.

Yes, downtown New Haven would certainly benefit from having more student customers, though I can’t imagine the restaurant scene expanding that much more. I also suspect that Yale is also providing many things that it wouldn’t otherwise provide (dorm supplies in the Yale bookstore), if downtown New Haven actually could support more commerce. A department store downtown would be such an asset! And many students go to Milford and Hamden (via special shuttle buses provided by Yale) to shop, because there just isn’t anything available in New Haven.

At the same time, I think colleges are an excellent idea in a city that is less then safe and has a miserable rental market, and at an Ivy League school where academic exchange within the colleges can even foster start up companies and new avenues of research. I lived in a graduate college at Oxford, and it was truly one of the most exciting experiences I’ve had, where people from many disciplines and parts of the world shared ideas and made important contacts. It’s too bad Yale doesn’t realize how much this would improve their graduate and researcher’s sense of community and ability to network. (during Yale’s previous accreditation process it actually failed in this particular area; i.e. supporting graduate students and researchers)

As for destruction of property and moral degradation, I experienced the opposite side, as a renter in New Haven of an apartment in a house owned by a landlord who let it rot and put all of the responsibility on the tenants for upkeep. I would have been much happier in a Yale college… Thus, like many other Yale employee families, we moved to Hamden, where renting is both affordable, of a higher quality, and safer.

posted by: yz on October 22, 2010  8:12pm

Peter Dobkin Hall is off the mark. If Yale were the cause of New Haven’s decline after the 50s, than surely we would expect Bridgeport at least to be slightly better than New Haven? The truth is that urban America went through stagnation, violence, and poverty probably as a result of national policies, cultural shifts, and internal migration, and Yale has little to do with it.

Let’s not forget that in 1884, Yale had a total of 1000 students. Nowadays, although undergraduates mostly eat and live in Yale facilities, there are thousands of graduate and professional school students who live in the city and spend their money in the city. I don’t know how many students were around when the residential college system began, but there may actually may be more money spent in the city by Yale students today than in 1930.

I question if taxation would bring the results Hopkins suggests. It is difficult to measure the benefit that businesses receive from Yale’s presence. Yale brings in tourists, businessmen, and scholars. Also, we cannot forget that Yale facilities provide jobs. If taxation were to encourage outside enterprise (and I don’t see how that necessarily is true), then there would be a corresponding loss in jobs on the Yale side.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on October 23, 2010  7:19pm

yz,
I agree that Yale’s expansion was not the cause of New Haven’s decline, but it was a part of it. Prior to mid 20th century, Yale was essentially a local institution, not all that dissimilar to today’s UNH. Yale president James Rowland Angell in the mid 20th century aggressively pursued expansive and global goals for the university, at the expense of the city. When New Haven, like most other places, began destabilizing as a result of the world wars and the great depression, there were several ways to address the problems. The way we ended up going was one that preferred suburban development patterns and the standardization of building over traditional urban growth patterns, and financializing the economy at the expense of undereducated working class citizens. In a country that was built by immigrants and the idea of working your way up the economic latter over generations, you don’t pull the latter up behind the stable families and leave the newly arrived immigrants and migrants to rot in decaying neighborhoods, which unfortunately is exactly what happened following WW2.
The benefits from tourism, highly skilled jobs and imitation culture are really marginal and only seem good in comparison to unemployment in the working classes. If we wanted to be serious about making New Haven a wonderful place to live, we would focus on the working and middle classes, not on catering to global institutions and bio-tech research labs. Most people just don’t care about that stuff, and for good reason - because it doesn’t benefits their lives.
The entire point is that Yale cannot be our crutch if New Haven is to be a viable place for middle and working class people. Yale was in favor of urban renewal because it allowed them to massively expand their campus cheaply, and it separated the working class neighborhoods from downtown. The idea that what is good for Yale is good for New Haven is completely wrong. Yale’s expansions in to the Hill and Dixwell aren’t good. It distracts us from the core issues of chronic unemployment for the working class, economic development that only benefits highly skilled and highly educated people, and continued dependence on property taxes.

posted by: yz on October 25, 2010  1:35am

It’s true that Yale was largely indifferent to New Haven’s decline. But New Haven’s troubles were due to national policy and changing population patterns. Yale could not have stopped factories from shutting down, nor could it have prevented the difficulties of the 70s which hit traditional manufacturing cities hard. When people started leaving town, Yale was in a favorable position to buy up properties, but who else was interested?

As for the current situation, it is remarkable how prosperous Connecticut is overall, but most of its cities are overall poor. Here I am convinced that drastically improving New Haven’s public school system should be a top priority. Not only do you give those who try opportunities for prosperity, you also attract middle class families into the city.

The difficulty is that people who manage to rise from humble beginnings through education may choose to leave. The middle class moving in doesn’t really solve the poverty issue either; it just shifts it somewhere else. Well, I am not convinced that it’s a solvable problem. I don’t see a flood of jobs coming in the future. Right now, if you don’t have the educational background, there’s not much you can do. And the economic recession makes it difficult to find entry-level jobs that at least allow one to work for a basic living. So the uneducated and low-income population is in a difficult situation. But I still think that it’s good that biotech companies and what not are expanding in New Haven. It suits the educated population of the region, and any sort of economic expansion provides entry-level jobs. Manufacturing isn’t coming back to Connecticut; the costs of manufacturing, from electricity to labor, are too high here.

posted by: Melissa on October 25, 2010  5:58pm

“Yale’s expansions in to the Hill and Dixwell aren’t good. It distracts us from the core issues of chronic unemployment for the working class, economic development that only benefits highly skilled and highly educated people, and continued dependence on property taxes.”

Jonathan, how do you propose solving these problems? Isn’t Yale at least a good place to start? It seems to me that railing against Yale is the real distraction here.