Housing Authority Eyes Q River Site

After our small but vibrant historic commercial district which included a coffee shop and flower store burnt down, we've been hoping and advocating for a return of a little downtown by the river. This plan to build a massive public housing project in a waterfront site so central to the community and history of the area will demolish the potential for a vibrant commercial gathering place that would anchor the community and be an asset in the city (waterfront cafes, restaurants, etc). This site is incredibly significant and central to the entire Quinnipiac River community, both historically and currently. As a historically protected waterfront site, it needs and deserves development that is focused on the history, character and community/commercial/storefront significance and potential, and not development whose priority is housing.

Where are all the Greenies to protest the sale of this land right on the Quinnipiac River? What about the rising sea level? Where are the Yalie alders? Where is the Riverkeeper??Not a word in this article about building so close to water..... not a peep! I guess the whole rising seas is just to scare the suckers away. The real power brokers are gonna get the land for a song and they will build BELOW SEA LEVEL , if they wish. This proves to me the lying false nature of all the environmentalist nut jobs who are silent when they are told to back off. I had to live a long time to finally understand the true cynicism of our so called leaders and it makes me sad. This, just like the Fusco job at Long Wharf and like the Bigelow deal---- I guess the seas only rise where politicians and investors want it to.
Now we know that climate change is a ruse to push forth an anti human agenda to enrich the already rich and powerful

I find this very confusing, it not outright confounding.

How can the City preach 'Global Warming' & 'Climate Change' out of one side of their mouth, yet build on the waterfronts out of the other. They're either lying, or throwing good money down the drain. This project, River St, the Long Wharf rebuild, Tweed expansion, etc...

Personally, I think their lying, using 'rise of the oceans' as a battering ram, to cow the populace into submission. But that's me...

Glad to see progress for this empty, abandoned, falling-into-the-river, currently underutilized potential community space. We need more housing in our neighborhoods. I anticipate retail or community space would likely be part of the plan for the ground floor. And I expect that whatever gets built here needs to be sea-level-change-mindful-and-resilient, and that the Housing Authority is fully aware of the obligations they may be taking on. Housing Authority, ask the Fair Haven and Fair Haven Heights communities for input along the way, e want to ensure whatever is built actually works and strengthens our neighborhood. Thank you for investing in our ever evolving Quinnipiac Village.

I agree with Mr. Christmann. This would be a perfect potential site for commercial businesses, such as coffee shop, cafe, gallery. Strong School site up the street is going to be housing. The success of Fair Haven Oyster Co, and Q River Grill is bringing in new business to the area. What would happen to Grand Vin? Are they building around it?

The cost to taxpayers is going to be incredible. And again, removing a large amount of property taxes from the cities funds. How will the city pay for the increase in policing and ems services that will be needed?

Mr HinkyDink, fair question. Here is an attempt to answer.

Climate change, including sea level rise, is real. The folks I know in City Hall, including the mayor, City Plan director, Economic Development administrator, and City Engineer, understand this at least as well as I do. And Ive been working in this area for 30 years. I helped write the states first climate change legislation, as well as a wide variety of acts to reduce CO2 emissions.

Sea level rise is currently about three millimeters per year, about the thickness of a nickel. But it is accelerating and sea level may quite possibly rise about 7 feet by the end of this century. (This is the high end of the states projections. For contrast, Tweed Airport is about 13 feet above sea level.

CT is not the Maldives. The threat from climate change here is not sea level rise by itself. Rather, sea level rise will make coastal surges (which we get periodically) substantially worse.

The city has responded with regard to proposed developments on or near the waterfront. It has banned housing on the first floor, up to the level of projected sea level rise plus a substantial safety margin. Plus it requires a dry foot escape route for upper, inhabited floors. Wonks may want to look at zoning changes recently adopted for the Long Wharf, which incorporate these requirements.

Climate change/sea level rise is very real. This does not mean that we need to ban any form of development anywhere near the water. But we need to be really, really careful.

Mr. HinkyDink, thanks. But there really is no question about recent sea level conditions. People have been using tide stations to measure sea level for a couple of centuries. (In recent years they have been complemented by satellite telemetry.) Sea level has been increasing for decades. In the past few decades the pace of the increase has itself been increasing.

Part of sea level rise is explainable by high school science. Water has a higher specific than almost any other common material, it heats up very slowly. Those of us who grew up near large bodies of water (Lake Michigan in my case) experienced this viscerally. Even in June, when the air temperature was 90+, the lake was still cold. But the lake did eventually did warm up, And water expands when it warms.

Projecting trends out decades clearly is more iffy. The 7 foot projection is the high case developed the CT Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation at UConn. Greenhouse gas emissions may decline suddenly or carbon sequestration and storage or new generation nuclear generation may prove to be economically viable. Unfortunately, none of these seem plausible at this time. You are likely familiar with the adage hope for the best but prepare for the worst. In the context of climate change, I think this is prudent advice. This does not mean we need to stop development near the water, but rather be very careful.

Given that this location is so close to the water, I would think that there would need to be some type of study conducted to figure out the best ways to build along the water while also having solutions that would also address overall climate change.

I think having a 5 or 6 story building here with some private one-family homes could actually be something good for this site.

And, just like that - more property comes off the tax rolls. $1.42 million sales price vs the appraised value of $680K. KDW seems to have an unlimited checkbook and no plans to pay property taxes. Our pretend assessor sure seems to be off on his estimates of value. Or the Housing Authority doesn't care if it overpays.

First, that land is worth a lot less than $680,000. Maybe $300,000. It's is totally in a flood zone, construction there would be massively expensive, and anything built privately would cost $300 PSF minimum and taxed at a high rate, which would make the building worth less than it cost. Take it from someone who had actually done the due diligence. The fact that someone was crazy enough to pay what they paid for it is an absolute joke. You could not GIVE me that piece of land. Second, the previous owner of the mixed used building next door (the referenced land owner was an investor with him on that building) was attempting to develop it privately, and lucky for him, the community rejected it because it did not want "renters" in their midst. Lastly, if it was worth a private development, in any other shape or form, it would have been developed already, but that's not a good commercial location. It's outright terrible. Maybe it's not a great concept, but there is not another one in the oven. One good outcome is for the liquor store, more customers.

CY2, I suspect Ian Christmanns objections had not been posted when you submitted your comment. Although I only have had the pleasure of speaking with him a couple of times, I suspect he would not object to being labelled a greenie. BTW, the site is about 39 feet ABOVE sea level.

Ian, nationally half of tenants have unaffordable rents. The figure here is higher. The rental vacancy rate is way below historic norms, which is the primary reason rents for existing housing are so high.The only way we are going to address this problem is to build tons of housing. (FWIW, I live one block away from the Audubon, which has hundreds of newly constructed apartments.) As Karen Dubois-Walton notes, any development here would be mixed income.

The site is in the Quinnipiac River Local Historic District. By law, any development in the district requires a certificate of appropriateness, i.e., it must fit contextually..

The city has a policy of requiring that multifamily developments be mixed use. I bike by this site every week. Like m3, I would love to see a coffee shop, cafe, or gallery located there. But commercial spaces in new developments, including by the Housing Authority, have been very slow to fill due to structural changes in the commercial real estate market.

m3, the site does not include the Grand Vin parcel. For folks who have not been there, it is a very nice wine shop.

I can't help but equate climate-change deniers with flat-earthers and those who think the moon landings were faked.

Personally, as a fair haven heights resident I think this is great. The city desperately needs more affordable housing, and I would love to see increased commercial activity in our neighborhood would be welcomed as well. I believe the village center referenced earlier is entirely attainable with this project. I feel this is a win win

The City does not need more affordable housing. It doesn't need more subsidized housing. Rather, it needs more housing and for the market to adjust and reflect the current financial realities. Most certainly, the City does not need more subsidized housing that will bring in more residents from outside the City and thus drag on it's resources without a plan for more fully funding PILOT. However, in less than three months, the housing authority has taken a potential $250M+ development off the tax rolls and now another $10-12M off the tax rolls and has not done anything with existing stock. This way of operating simply isn't sustainable.

Moreover, it will decrease actual affordability as taxes will have to rise to accommodate Glendower's expansion. Thus small landlords will be pushed to raise their rents because insurance costs, taxes, and the cost of maintaining inventory in keeping with current city standards continually increase. This is actually bad policy that will see a decrease in affordable housing.

Would this development be subject to the Costal Area Management (CAM) reviews and approvals???

That building used to be the Grand Spa. Its been there forever.