Allan Appel Photo
Abdussabur making his case.
Hill neighbors proved a tough crowd as visitors pitched them on four different ideas: planting “tiny houses” on sliver lots; creating supportive housing for ex-offenders reentering society; funding housing for homeless youth; and rehabbing a rundown city-owned Rosette Street home for resale to an owner-occupant.
Thirty people gathered in the cafeteria of the Betsy Ross Arts Magnet School on Kimberly Avenue Wednesday evening for the regular meeting of the Hill South Community Management Team to hear these matters and others.
Re-entry Vision
Frank Street houses proposed for ex-offender SRO housing.
First up was retired New Haven police Sgt. Shafiq Abdussabur. He pitched purchase and rehab of two vacant and dilapidated houses at 27 and 31 Frank St. They would be his first foray as a developer. His organization is looking to buy the properties from government’s Livable City Initiative (LCI). Abdussabur proposes to turn the buildings into single-room occupancy (SRO) housing for ex-offenders.
Following the model of Hang Time, a Bridgeport based re-entry support program, Abdussabur has been providing workshops and support out of offices on Blake Street.
One of the greatest challenges facing re-entry folks, he said, is affordable independent housing, especially in New Haven’s increasingly expensive market.
Enter his project: a pilot program that would take people out of jail for at least a year, with a stable employment history, and perhaps bunking up with a friend or family member, and prepared to take the next step into affordable, independent housing.
But where? And how? Many ex-inmates can’t afford a security deposit or have too poor a credit score go out on the market and take that next step unassisted.
With private money he has raised, Abdussabur said, his group plans to buy and rehab 27 and 31 Frank each into homes with three bedrooms and three bathrooms. Each occupant would have a bedroom, and bathroom. Kitchen and other spaces would be shared. There would be counseling provided, After a year or two of residence at modest rents, occupants would have been able to save up for a deposit on their next step up into independent living.
The plan would reclaim a wreck of a building, fill it with people invested in the community (rather than outside landlords). Plus, Abdussabur’s group committed to hire re-entry people to do a lot of the rehab work.
“Why Frank Street?” someone asked from the back of the room.
“It’s close to Downtown,” Abdussabur replied. That’s good for ex-offenders who often have to go there for a variety of reasons, like court appearances.
“East Rock is also close to Downtown,” someone else called out.
“Yes, the goal of the projecti s to spread it” throughout the city, he replied.
“So why not try it first in another place?” suggested recently elected Ward Six Alder Carmen Rodriguez.
“These were proposed by LCI,” Abdussabur answered.
LCI Specialist Art Natalino, Jr. and CMT Chair Sarah McIver.
Rodriguez and others agreed that Abdussabur’s project is worthy. But they said LCI representatives should have accompanied him.
“We are caring individuals,” said Rodriguez, “but we feel stung by bees.”
Team chair Sarah McIver, noting the clock and the long agenda, suggested Abdussabur come back at next month’s meeting, perhaps in the company of LCI staffer Evan Trachten. “So we’ll have time to kick Evan’s butt,” she said.
Tiny Houses
Next came a report from Angela Hatley (pictured) on a meeting she attended about building “tiny houses” in New Haven. Her take was not positive.
“I wasn’t impressed. My main thing is that we are already a dense community,” she said, with very little space between homes. The tiny houses, which are proposed to diversify the city’s housing stock by infilling on otherwise unused sliver lots, would be a bad development for the Hill South.
“Parking was [also] the number one issue raised,” she added.
Hatley said it was her impression that the tiny house people she had heard well might be targeting the Hill and Fair Haven. She concluded by hitting a recurrent theme: “You’ve got to come out ” and meet with neighbors to sell the plan.
Homeless Youth
New Reach’s youth housing on Portsea between Salem and Howard.
Support for New Reach’s homeless services then came before the team. New Reach staffer T‑J Ciocca requested a letter of support for her group’s federal community development block grant (CDBG) application to the city.
The group seeks the money to fund operations of the house on Portsea Place, between Howard and Salem, which is being renovated into eight efficiency units where homeless kids will be able to live until they get their lives more in order.
Last year, Ciocca noted, the management team had declined to offer support. She had returned to ask for support for a $20,000 grant — not for capital but operational support. The house has long been owned by New Reach, which plans 24/7 supervision.
Last year, residents of the house were not young people but adult women.
Why them at that time, and youth now? Angela Hatley asked.
Ciocca (pictured) answered that the homeless population has shifted, and so have the funding streams.
“We’d be more than willing to meet with your housing committee,” Ciocca said.
The application is due in December, McIver noted.
“The community sees this as you making money,” Hatley said.
Ciocca assured her new Reach is providing services, not making money.
McIver ordered the conversation halted, saying further questions could be asked next month when Ciocca will return with the actual text of the CDBG letter.
Thumbs Up For Rehab
Builder Escoffery, left, with Ward 5 Alder-Elect Kampton Singh.
The sole project that received unqualified support and a unanimous go-ahead was that of Ferdinand Escoffery. He and his one-man National Construction Company propose to buy from LCI and then rehab 151 Rosette St. and then sell it to an owner occupant.
“I use my own money, and I hire people from the neighborhood,” including guys who might be on parole, Escoffery said. And he’s happy to let those individuals take time to appear at hearings or other required legal appearances.
Escoffery said he is LCI’s go-to-guy often when other builders don’t want to make a bid on falling-down structures. But he’s a game young man. “I do everything but the electric and the plumbing,” he said. Escoffery cited rehabs he has done not only in the Hill, at 152 Lamberton, but on Shelton Avenue and County Street.
151 Rosette.
One member of the audience asked if the owner-occupier requirement is written into the deed of sale.
“Yes,” Escoffery replied, “and the occupant also has to stay in the rehabbed house for a minimum of five years.”
“I’m the guy the city calls when everyone else passes on a house. I like them when they’re falling down,” he said.
“You have our support,” said Angela Hatley, on behalf of the team. “And good luck.”
Alder-Elect Carmen Rodriguez and Pamela Delerme.
BLUF: We should have a lot more supportive and low income housing throughout Connecticut and the nation, but let's not use it as a tool to make the effects of structural racism even worse.
Why not Spring Glen or Milford? For instance, Hamden could shut down Spring Glen school (instead of shutting down its schools in black and brown neighborhoods and busing their kids around, things that make you go "hmmm I wonder white is going on in Hamden") and provide that land as a "community land trust" for people in transition/re-entry and families earning under $50,000 a year, many of whom are Hamden residents.
Currently, all low income, "community land trust," youth homeless shelters, and supportive homes are being concentrated in the Hill and similar areas (but the Hill in particular). Then we talk a big game about wanting to improve and find investors in that neighborhood. Not going to happen if every project for higher-need populations is always placed there by default.
The state and city's plan to concentrate of everything in one neighborhood is an attack on black and brown homeowners, who are trying to build wealth for themselves and their kids. It exacerbates the racial wealth gap.
Interestingly the people placing these projects there usually live in places like Hamden too- how do they personally benefit from this plan?
As another example, "Land trusts" sound nice because they are theoretically owned by neighbors, but they cap the income of homeowners who can live in them, so in reality they are artificially holding down their own wealth appreciation and therefore depressing the wealth of the homeowners who live in them (and maybe in these areas overall) in the long term.