Dixwell Deal Falls Apart

A city plan to acquire the derelict former Monterey jazz club and three surrounding Dixwell buildings from an oft-fined megalandlord has hit a flat note — and, apparently, collapsed altogether — after the Elicker administration ditched a purchase-and-sale agreement and issued new clean-up orders. 

Months after that public deal fell apart, Ocean Management is reportedly now lining up new private buyers for these same properties.

That’s the latest development City Hall’s unsuccessful bid to buy four rundown Dixwell Avenue properties from affiliates of Ocean Management.

In February 2023, the Board of Alders voted unanimously in favor of the city purchasing the ex-Monterey club site at 265 Dixwell, along with an ex-deli property at 269 Dixwell and two two-family houses at 262 and 263 Dixwell, for a combined sum of $1.3 million.

All four properties have been owned by affiliates of Ocean Management for more than half a decade. Ocean acquired the ex-Monterey property back in 2016.

City officials said at the time that they wanted to purchase these properties to promote a broader redevelopment of the Dixwell corridor, as these buildings sit just blocks away from the reborn Q House community center and new housing (and much more) in the works at the former Joe Grate lot and Dixwell Plaza. They also said the Monterey building was worth publicly buying because of the former club’s history as a Black cultural epicenter, bringing such luminaries as Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, and Ella Fitzgerald to Dixwell.

Thirteen months after the city won final aldermanic approval to buy these four properties, the buildings remain under Ocean ownership. 

The ex-Monterey and ex-deli buildings remain blighted and deteriorating. 

Those properties now bear ​“For Sale” signs out front.

According to the real estate agent listed on those signs, the two two-family houses are now under contract with different private buyers, and the ex-Monterey and ex-deli properties should soon be sold to private investors, too.

What happened?

Liens Applied, Then Dropped. Agreement Inked, Then Expired

As the Independent first reported last June, the four-property deal between Ocean and the city was being held up at that time by more than $260,000 in unpaid liens and blight fines that the city had levied on the former Monterey and deli buildings.

Earlier this month, city spokesperson Lenny Speiller told the Independent that the city has subsequently dropped those liens. 

He said that there was a ​“dispute between the city and the property owner on the liens that were previously associated with these properties. A subsequent review of the liens by the City determined that the liens were not properly executed.” The city discovered that it had not first brought these financial penalties before a hearing officer, as required by state law, and so had to let them go. (See more below for how that happened.)

So, at least for now, the city does not have any anti-blight liens placed on these Dixwell properties.

That doesn’t mean the city thinks the ex-Monterey and ex-deli buildings are in acceptable condition. Far from it.

Earlier this year, the city issued two new civil citations against Ocean for violating New Haven’s anti-blight and property maintenance ordinance at 265 and 269 Dixwell.

Those civil citations, sent by the Livable City Initiative (LCI) on Feb. 1, call on Ocean to remove bulk trash and debris, repair fences and sidings and doors and windows, remove overgrown vegetation and fallen tree limbs, and make other improvements to the ex-Monterey and ex-deli buildings in order to bring those properties into ordinance-compliant condition. (Read both new civil citations here and here.)

If Ocean doesn’t act on these citations, Speiller said, the city could levy new fines and liens on the properties. If applied, those new financial penalties could accrue at $100 per day.

Mayor Justin Elicker told the Independent that the city would also consider foreclosing on the ex-jazz club and ex-deli buildings, too, if Ocean doesn’t follow the city’s anti-blight law. City-initiated foreclosure is certainly ​“on the table,” he said.

The Elicker administration originally characterized the original Dixwell deal with Ocean — offering a purchase price higher than the appraised value — as the most effective way to gain control over blighted properties on a key commercial corridor. A mayoral campaign challenger, Liam Brennan, last year argued that the city should consider using foreclosure or eminent domain against slumlords as a better tool for reversing blight. In an interview for this article, Elicker stressed that his administration would consider foreclosing on these Dixwell properties if Ocean doesn’t bring them into compliance with local anti-blight law. He shied away from embracing eminent domain, stating that would likely be a longer and more arduous legal route to taking public ownership of these properties than pursuing an anti-blight foreclosure.

In addition to dropping the previous anti-blight liens for 265 and 269 Dixwell, Speiller said, the city also let its purchase-and-sale agreement with Ocean expire for these four Dixwell properties. That agreement was signed on Dec. 1, 2022. It was terminated on June 6, 2023.

Does the Elicker administration still plan on buying these properties at all?

Yes, Speiller said. ​“The city remains interested in purchasing and redeveloping these properties, and engaging with the property owner to see it through to completion.”

He added: ​“The city expects the property owner to address the blight violations and to bring these properties into compliance irrespective of whether the city purchases them — and we will continue to do everything we can to ensure this happens.”

Dixwell Alder Jeanette Morrison, who represents the ward that includes these four Dixwell properties, applauded the city for issuing these new anti-blight citations — and criticized Ocean for leaving these properties in such disarray for so long.

“Ocean has a responsibility to this community to make sure that property is not blighted,” she said. ​“Just because you’re not gonna use it and you’re selling it, it doesn’t mean that you sell a mess. They have a responsibility to have that place in a decent condition. Once that happens, then the city needs to make a purchase.”

After all this time, does the mayor think the city-Ocean deal is dead for these four Dixwell properties? 

No, Elicker said on Wednesday afternoon. He declined to use the word ​“dead,” stating that he is an optimist by nature. But, he conceded, the deal is definitely ​“on ice.” 

A subsequent interview revealed that any interest the city may have in trying to keep this deal alive and publicly purchase these four Dixwell properties more than a year after alders gave the go-ahead is now essentially moot.

All 4 Properties Being Sold Privately

So said Latasha Eaddy, a real estate agent whose name and face and contact information are pictured on the ​“For Sale” signs currently posted outside of the four Dixwell properties in question.

Reached by phone on Wednesday night, Eaddy told the Independent that the city-Ocean deal for these properties fell apart ​“quite some time ago.” 

“We’re looking to just sell them now,” she said.

As of Wednesday, all four properties are nearly sold, she said.

She said that the two two-family houses at 262 and 263 Dixwell are now each under contract with different private buyers. (She said that 262 does have a one tenant left, and that 263 is entirely vacant.)

As for the ex-Monterey club building at 265 Dixwell and the ex-deli building at 269 Dixwell, Eaddy said that she and Ocean have received quite a bit of interest from ​“more experienced [real estate] investors” who want to buy and rehab those properties. 

She said the two properties will be sold as a package deal. ​“We are currently negotiating” with prospective buyers. She said she does not know how these interested potential buyers might put these properties to use. When rehabbed, she said, the former Monterey building should add a lot to the neighborhood. ​“It’s just a shame the condition it’s in” now. 

In separate follow-up messages sent to the Independent Wednesday night, Elicker and Morrison both described as ​“unfortunate” the fact that the city appears to have missed out on buying these four Dixwell properties after all. 

Morrison repeated her support for the city issuing the two new anti-blight citations for these properties, and said she hopes whoever purchases the Monterey building ​“will be willing to work with the community regarding its purpose.” 

Speiller also sent a follow-up message to the Independent Thursday morning upon learning of Ocean’s pending sales of these properties to different private buyers. ​“While the city’s initiative did not materialize, hopefully there is still a silver lining here — after years of neglect, these properties will hopefully soon be in the hands of a more responsible property owner who will properly maintain and redevelop them and ensure they serve as assets to the community,” he wrote.

On Wednesday afternoon, before the Independent had spoken with Eaddy and learned just how dead the city-Ocean deal appears to be, this reporter asked the mayor what lessons he’s learned from this particular deal. Is there anything he would do differently when next trying to publicly acquire long-blighted properties like these?

For one, Elicker said, ​“don’t take anyone’s word that the liens are properly applied.” Double check and make sure that’s the case before entering into a purchase-and-sale agreement.

Also, Elicker said, he’d make sure next time to be clear in the text of such an agreement that the landlord selling such blighted properties to the city has to clean them up first in order for the deal to go through.

Ocean founder Shmuel Aizenberg did not respond to a request for comment by the publication time of this article. 

On Tuesday morning, a man named JP, one of a half dozen people hanging out on the sidewalk in front of the Dixwell Deli across the street from the ex-Monterey, pointed at the blighted property and lamented its current state of vacant disrepair.

He said he’d like to see the property and adjacent ex-deli turned into a restaurant and laundromat at street level and apartments up top. The city should encourage such ground-floor commercial and upper-floor residential uses if it follows through on buying these properties, he said.

And, he urged whoever might be listening, ​“Do not give it to Yale.”

Why Did The City Drop The Previous Liens On 265, 269 Dixwell?

Because the city did not follow state law and go before a hearing officer within 12 months of the original citation.

Here’s how Speiller described the problem that led to the first set of liens being dropped, and why a new set of liens might yet be applied:

Per state statute and due process requirements, if the alleged violations have not been addressed, municipalities must go before a hearing officer for the civil citations to be reviewed and for the hearing officer to determine if the citations and notifications were done properly and to affirm the municipality can proceed with issuing fines — and, eventually, liening a property. 

The municipality must go before the hearing officer within 12 months of the original civil citation. In this instance, the original civil citations on these properties were issued in June 2019, and the civil citations were never brought before a hearing officer because there was no hearing officer in place at the time. Given this, the liens on these properties were not properly executed.

Unfortunately, several of these properties remain blighted and in disrepair – and, since then, new civil citations have been issued (in February 2024). If the properties remain blighted, the City will proceed with going before a hearing officer to so that fines are issued and the properties are liened accordingly.