YNHH Buys Lab Building For $101M

While I’m pleased that the property will remain on the tax rolls, I strongly suspect it is entitled to an exemption under CGS § 12-81(16). The exemption applies to all property owned by a nonprofit hospital corporation. I could see the hospital using the property’s tax status as leverage in future discussions with the city.

I believe it would also mean a great deal for the city if there can actually be more residential towers built near the hospital.

Fusco paid about $2.3 million in taxes on this building. Under a deal worked by Malloy, hospitals pay taxes only to the state, but cannot be taxed by towns. Personally, I don't understand how the building will remain taxable.

1644, as you likely know, Fusco owns and pays taxes on the FBI building. Originally, the city owned the underlying land. As a condition for allowing Fusco to build on it, the city required it to pay taxes on the building, even though the federal government is the sole tenant.

I suspect a similar deal applies here. But I don't see how it is enforceable, given the statutory exemption of hospital-owned property (your point).

BTW, the hospital tax exemption predates the Malloy administration by many years. It was in the 1949 revision of the general statutes. I would not be surprised if it dates back to the 19th century.

quinnchonn, one likely site is the current Walgreens on York, which I believe is on the market. This is one location where Anonymous' desire for 10+ story residential buildings would make a lot of sense. (My understanding is that Walgreens would keep the store on site as part of any sales agreement.)

@ Kevin - what makes you believe the Walgreen’s property is on the market? It’s seemingly neither listed, nor advertised.

@Kevin,

I think the single-story parking structure that's next door to Walgreens would also be a great site to eventually build on, but there would likely need to be a parking garage included for people who live in that area if there isn't enough parking on the street or in parking lots that's nearby...

But a residential tower that's twice the height of "360 State" would probably actually be nice on that site, I would think.

1644, you're right about the history of the state hospital tax, although I would not use the unlawyer-like term "bilk" :-) But your original post indicated that the property tax exemption was initially granted in exchange for the hospital tax. It wasn't. And the settlement provision was window dressing. One legislature cannot bind a future legislature. In any case, it is only slightly more likely that hospitals will be subjected to the property tax than Yale will be.

CY2, except for projects in the three local historic districts (which are quite small), the city does not have design review as part of zoning. It could, and several nearby towns do. But design review would inherently lengthen the development process and increase the cost of new housing.

AT, lots of properties are sold privately and don't show up on public databases. I don't know whether this property is still on the market - it has been months since I discussed its potential development with economic development staff. But it could be used far more intensively.

quinnchionn, I don’t know about twice the height of 360 State. That would be 62 floors, more than the John Hancock building in Boston. But one or more towers on the site would be consistent with nearby buildings.

Heather, with very few exceptions, the city has no say in such matters. The city could incorporate design review into the zoning process. But that would make new housing more expensive, something neither of us wants. And achieving consensus on matters of taste is very difficult. Most of my architect friends think the Yale Architecture Building, I suspect most city residents would disagree.

Part 1
New Haven, like many other cities, has a complex historical background that can influence the distribution and accumulation of wealth over generations. It is true that individuals who are fortunate enough to have financial stability may have more opportunities to consider long-term strategies for preserving their legacy and supporting their tribe.

However, it is important to approach this topic with a nuanced understanding of poverty, its causes, and the measures taken to address it. Ensuring that individuals have access to basic necessities such as food is a fundamental humanitarian objective. When people are struggling to meet their daily needs, it becomes difficult for them to focus on anything beyond immediate survival. Adequate support for the less fortunate is essential to promote social welfare and reduce inequality.

Rather than assuming that the provision of minimal assistance is designed to keep the poor preoccupied solely with food, it is crucial to recognize that comprehensive poverty alleviation strategies encompass a wide range of initiatives. These include access to education, healthcare, skill development, and employment opportunities, among others. By addressing these multifaceted dimensions, societies can uplift individuals and foster inclusive growth.

Part 2
In terms of wealth preservation and intergenerational transfer, it is worth acknowledging that the accumulation of wealth over time is influenced by various factors, including economic conditions, government policies, social mobility, and individual choices. While historical advantages can play a role, it is important to focus on creating a level playing field and promoting equal opportunities for all members of society.

I believe in the importance of studying and understanding these dynamics to inform policy decisions that foster sustainable economic growth, reduce poverty, and promote social equity. By addressing systemic issues and implementing inclusive policies, we can strive towards a more just and prosperous society for everyone.

And yet another building in New Haven is sold to Yale, who owns more than half of the city, and gets away without paying “ substantially equal” taxes, leaving its residence to pick up the burden.
Additionally, New Haven loses out once again by not establishing a committee that deals with the design of buildings all because of potential bldg delays and increased finances, leaving a city that could be a great tourist hub beyond Yales corridor's to become another boring town that never grows beyond itself! Pennywise, pound, foolish.

Wow! I wish my bank account was like Yale New Haven Hospital‘s bank account. They claim they’re in the red. Yet they have recently bought three hospitals, a new helicopter and now they’re spending $101 million on this building! I wish they would share their secret so that I could buy a second home in Florida.

Justin, my real estate portfolio consists of my two-bedroom home. But even I know that commercial developers are in the business primarily to make money. If they thought they could make money building towers of that size, they would try. And I doubt the city would get in the way. It supported the development of 360 State Street. I don’t believe it has opposed any substantial development since then.

BTW, Charlotte is more than six times New Haven’s size. It is larger than Boston, Denver, or Seattle.

Justin, I’m from Chicago, the birthplace of skyscrapers. I have no problem with building them downtown (I live one block outside of downtown). And I think the city can and should remove unnecessary barriers to development. My alder, Eli Sabin, wants to amend the zoning code to permit downtown buildings comparable in the Taft Apartment building as of right. I think this is entirely reasonable.

But the city has few, if any, tools to incentivize buildings substantially larger than that. A fundamental rule of municipal law is that cities can only do the things the state permits. The city already phases in property taxes for commercial developments. Under state law, it can only modestly expand its incentives in this area. The city can also abate taxes on low- and moderate-income housing, and does so regularly. But state law does not permit the city to give long-term tax benefits to market rate housing or commercial developments.

The city has broad authority with regard to zoning, but I really don’t think that is a major barrier to large scale developments. I’m a city planner by training and follow city land use decisions closely. I can’t remember the last large development turned down. I’m sure it would jump at the chance to see another 360 State Street.

I don't agree with the common assertion that taller buildings are necessary or even desirable. That is an unsubstantiated claim with little basis. Tall building cost a lot to build and therefore a lot to own or rent. New York is an obvious example of a city that gets taller, more exclusionary, and less dense in terms of actual population.

The mid-rise residential construction infilling our vacant lots for the last decade is exactly what we should be doing and is what will continue. That typology is economically viable while providing density commiserate with our scale. Sure, New Haven is growing, but it largely remains a city without industry or commerce outside of higher education and health care. Let's keep this town livable and leave the too-tall buildings to Stamford.