Strong School Sale, Tax Break Proposed

How will Pennrose pay for a $25-million project?
They're having trouble financing a similar project in Mass ($30m)

LENOX — It’s been a year since the town approved a mixed-income rental apartment complex at Brushwood Farm off Pittsfield Road (Route 7/20), but while site preparation was expected to begin this spring, the site remains untouched.

The developer, Pennrose LLC, told The Eagle this week financing delays will likely delay the start of construction until next year.

Where to start -

HewNaven, I have no inside information. But I suspect the funding will be a mix of Low Income Housing tax credits, low interest loans from CHFA and other sources, Section 8, and other sources. I would not be surprised if the CT GreenBank provided part of the funding for the renewable energy technologies. In any case, the financing will likely be complicated and take quite a while to put together.

One City Dump, the article says the development will be “explicitly welcoming to LBTQIA+ residents and artists.” It does not “designate” housing for these individuals. Advertising for market rate housing routinely shows gay couples, indicating they are welcome. Designating housing for gay (or straight) people violates CGS § 46a-64c, as would discriminating on the basis of gender identity or expression in setting rents. And the property is currently paying no property taxes. If the project goes forward, it will.

ElvinTapper, I am way too uninformed to make such predictions :-).
.
This is a really complicated project. Among other thing, I suspect the building has lead and asbestos.

here is yet another example of new haven politicians offer to supplement the wealthy with the backs of the working every day tax payers. All those dollars you keep offering the ULTRA rich are dollars that should be used to funds schools, law enforcement ,public works, fire dept, street and sidewalk repair! Enough already You just raised the MIL rate three consecutive years and here you go giving money we don't have away as an incentive on the backs of not just the current families but the backs of the next generation.

we need to look at all the deals done since the beginning of Covid, a lot of closed door dealing and no-one knows till published in the media, when its too late. what guarantee do residents have that they will do as they propose.

Oh, and let's remember the last artist deal - the clock factory - not paying even small property taxes and not under construction.

One City Dump, are you offering $500,000 for the property? Know anyone with a better offer? Right now, the building is costing the city money to maintain. As far as I know, no developer has approached the city with a viable proposal during the 12+ years it has been empty. Do you have information to the contrary (I’m genuinely interested.)

As I have said earlier, property tax abatements should be based on publicly demonstrated need, which has not happened in this case to date. In any case, the fixed 3% inflation rate is misguided. No one knows what inflation rate will be over 20 years. And even it averages to 3% per year, rents will have to go up dramatically in 20 years to cover the increase in taxes.

While it is not relevant in this context, I believe it is fair to say that the Republican party is not welcoming to the LBTQ community.

Let me start in reverse - Republican Party? This discussion is not about party, it's about property. You're wrong on the party issue as well and that discussion is much more nuanced than what these pages can accommodate.

I'm not against the sale of the school. $500K sounds reasonable. None of these property tax welfare deals to wealthy people should be approved. None are based on public need and there won't be one forthcoming here either. Just saying the property will be welcoming to LGBTQ and artists is like checking a box in order to avoid the discussion and justification needed for this round of corporate welfare. When you have a history of discounting every development, every future development will seek the same giveaway. And they do. This project is just the latest one with their hand out that will cap the property taxes at just $22,500 per year to start with an increase for the entire property that is less than the increase on my house this year. It will take years before the tax bill rises above $30K. If truth were told, this tax holiday will be granted ad nauseum because there is a history here of continuing the freebie with endless rollovers. A single police officer costs more than $70K.

Owen@largeand One City Dump, I agree that the statement is superfluous. This is not a podunk town where gay people might have reason to feel unwelcome. But it does no harm.

One City Dump, there is no statutory authority for extending the abatement. Municipalities can only do what the state lets them do (Dillon’s Rule) This is particularly true with regard to taxes.

While Republican attitudes towards gay people have evolved, there are still stark partisan differences According to a November 20022 Pew Survey, 80% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents believe the legalization of gay marriage was a.good thing, 55% of Republicans and Republican view it negatively

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/15/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-is-good-for-society/

Robn, have you seen a better offer? A friend of mine (and I suspect yours) did a great job rehabbing a public school in our neighborhood for market rate housing. A similar, more recent development was the conversion of the former St. Michael’s School in Wooster Square. The fact that Strong School had sat empty for 12+ years, strongly suggests that developers have not seen the same opportunity there.

Robn, you’re right that $450/unit is a fraction of what an average apartment, even in a low income neighborhood, pays. The question is whether this amount of subsidy what is actually needed to make the project viable. I, and I suspect the BOA , don’t know the answer. At a minimum, staff should provide an estimate of the revenue foregone as a result of the abatement over its lifetime.

1644, you’re right, I was aware of that offer. It may be my 30 years in the political world, but my definition of “better” implicitly includes “politically viable.” (A carbon tax would be a more efficient way of dealing with climate change, but it is a non-starter politically.)

I thought the previous offer was decent, but unlike Lee and Sarah I don’t live a block from the school. Moreover, there is a large body of public opinion that is very anxious about gentrification. While this anxiety should not be dispositive, it is a legitimate consideration in the disposition of public property.

I have said elsewhere that the city should develop clear, public guidelines for the sale and development of surplus city-owned property. I share your frustration on how long it takes the city to get such property back on the tax rolls.

One City Dump, “ghost employees” is neither accurate or fair. You are in effect criticizing the NHPD, which I doubt was your intent.

As has been suggested by several other commentators in past articles, and now my two cents, instead of selling off all these old and or unused NH schools like Strong School, why not refurbish one or two and move the 54 Meadow Street operations into one of these buildings? I have no real idea how much would be gained or lost by not selling to an outside developer, but the savings from not leasing 54 Meadow Street and the seemingly long-term tax breaks gifted to any outside developer might be worth another look.