Markeshia Ricks Photo
Alders Richard Furlow, Dolores Colon, Frank Douglass, Aaron Greenberg back SRO plan at hearing.
Paul Bass Photo
The City Plan Commission stopped short of urging the Board of Alders to kill a planned six-month development moratorium aimed at protecting endangered rooming houses — voting instead to urge a “reconsideration.”
The vote took place Wednesday night at the conclusion of a four-hour passionate public hearing at this month’s City Plan meeting at City Hall.
The commission was considering what recommendation to give to the Board of Alders on the proposed six-month moratorium “on the conversion, demolition, and rehabilitation of boarding-rooms and boarding-room units,” or SROs (single-room-occupancy facilities). The moratorium would take the form of an amendment to the city Zoning Ordinance.
Amid public concern over the scarcity of affordable housing, former Alder Sarah Eidelson introduced the proposal after one of the last downtown SROs, the Duncan Hotel, was purchased by Chicago-based AJ Capital Partners, which plans a $35 million renovation and conversion of the 92-room building into an upscale university-themed “boutique” hotel.
The proposal, at first scheduled for quick hearings in December in order to stop the Duncan plan, lost some steam four days after its introduction when AJ Capital rushed to obtain building permits to begin work on the project, presumably shielding it from being affected by the moratorium, according to city Building Official Jim Turcio. Section 8 – 2h of Chapter 124 of the state General Statutes reads: “An application for a building permit or certificate of occupancy filed with the building official of a city, town or borough prior to the adoption of zoning regulations by such city, town or borough in accordance with this chapter shall not be required to comply with, nor shall it be disapproved for the reason that it does not comply with, such zoning regulations.”
Turcio said the Duncan’s new owner also has obtained a rooming house license.
But the proposed moratorium is still working its way through the legislative process, with the question left open as to whether alders would seek to apply it retroactively to the Duncan.
Before the Board of Alders votes on the moratorium, City Plan was ask to hold a public hearing and provide a non-binding recommendation. Labor advocates, including members of the grassroots activist group New Haven Rising, urged commissioners Wednesday night to support the measure as a needed protection for people who work in the city to be able to afford to live here. Members of the business community urged the commissioners to vote to reject it, telling them that such an amendment would open the city up to costly lawsuits and create a chilling effect on development in New Haven.
City Plan staff wrote a report urging the commission to vote to recommend that the alders withdraw or deny the proposal because of its “fatal flaws.”
“There are … certain general conditions that need to exist before a moratorium that could withstand any type of legal challenge could be enacted,” staff wrote. “Most importantly, there needs to be a demonstrated need for such an action.”
City Plan Commissioners put that recommendation up for a vote after closing the public hearing and then finishing all other business, and coming back to debate among themselves. It failed 2 – 3. Three of the commissioners — Adam Marchand, Ernest Pagan, and Elias Estabrook — made clear they were not going to support a recommendation to deny or withdraw the proposed moratorium.
So a new motion was made to recommend instead to the alders that they “reconsider” the plan.
Commissioner Radcliffe.
Commissioner Leslie Radcliffe argued against softening the language.
“I think, as it is proposed, it would take a planning matter out of city planning and put it in the hands of the Board of Alders,” she said. Radcliffe said both bodies play an important role in the redevelopment of the city but the roles are distinct and different and agendas need to be clear.
Commission Chair Ed Mattison, who initially voted in favor of the recommendation to withdraw, said that as an attorney he was horrified at the legal implications of the text amendment as it is drafted. He said if the city had attempted to apply such a moratorium retroactively it would be “laughed out of court.”
But after commissioners defeated the withdrawal recommendation and were starting to lean toward voting that commissioners offer no recommendation, Mattison supported the motion to recommend the “reconsideration.” It passed 4 – 1, with Radcliffe casting the lone vote in opposition.
Labor Subplot
Attorney Carolyn Kone.
On one level, the debate over the moratorium centered on how to preserve affordable housing in a city with a hot market for building market-rate apartments. All sides in the debate have agreed on the need to have the city work harder on doing that.
A subtext to the debate has been the ties of moratorium backers to UNITE HERE, the Yale unions that also represent hospitality workers, and that would benefit from having union workers at the Duncan. Former Alder Sarah Eidelson, who introduced the moratorium, works for UNITE HERE. She claimed unionization was not a factor in drawing up the measure, but that she wanted to stop the Duncan plans in order for the community to have that affordable-housing debate first. Three of the four alders continuing to champion it, led by UNITE HERE Local 33 President Aaron Greenberg, are also affiliated with the union.
Timothy Franzen, president of the Graduate Hotels division of Chicago-based AJ Capital Partners, which bought the Hotel Duncan, appeared at Wednesday night’s hearing.
Franzen argued that if the proposed moratorium were truly about protecting SROs it wouldn’t seek to take back the building permits and rooming house license, which every hotel in the city has to have to operate. He said the revitalized Duncan Hotel would “be a true gem to this community and this state for decades to come.” He also said after the meeting that while he is not planning a lawsuit and hopes there will be no litigation; any attempt to retroactively enforce such legislation would mean a trip to court.
His attorney, Carolyn Kone, noted the UNITE HERE connection to the proposal. She asserted that UNITE HERE had asked AJ Capital to sign a neturality agreement for a union organizing effort, and that after the company rebuffed it, Eidelson introduced the moratorium. (Franzen confirmed that assertion after the meeting to New Haven Register reporter Mary O’Leary.)
She said that the moratorium would impact every hotel in the city, not just the Duncan, and open the city up to further lawsuits. She noted that 31 properties in the city have rooming licenses; all of them except four are hotels and social service agencies. She said a moratorium requires a high burden of proof on the city’s part that it will, in fact, accomplish its goal. Kone called the proposed moratorium unlawful and unconstitutional.
City Plan’s staff report aligned with the concern of Kone and others.
“There has been no effort to do what [the city planning document] Vision 2025 said, which is increasing the number of rooming houses and boarding houses,” Kone said. “There are 17 zoning districts, boarding houses and rooming houses are only allowed in three zones, and they’re not allowed in three of the downtown zoning districts.”
Alder Greenberg, who represents Wooster Square and took up the call for a moratorium after Eidelson decided not to seek reelection, said that seeking a moratorium now is an opportunity to grab the attention that the purchase of the Duncan and its subsequent displacement of residents has brought to bear and focus it on making needed long-term policy around housing.
Greenberg, who had to leave before commissioners made their vote, said that whatever the outcome, it was simply a first step in starting the dialogue around addressing the affordable housing crisis. He said it will be up to the Board of Alders Legislation Committee to decide whether to move ahead with the amendment as is or to take the recommendation of the commission.
Mattison: Concerned about lawsuits.
“We have to seize this moment of attention so that we can do more to maintain our stock of quality, affordable housing and address the affordable housing crisis,” he said.
During the hearing, veteran zoning attorney Marjorie Shanksy was among those testifying against the proposal.
“The idea that you need a moratorium, especially a flawed one, is ludicrous,” Shansky argued. She said if alders were truly concerned about addressing affordable housing and homelessness, they could use existing laws to address real problems in zoning regulations that are barriers to getting people housed.
Shansky said she has represented the Columbus House emergency shelter. It must always go before the Board of Zoning Appeals for use variances because existing regulations don’t accommodate homeless people.
Commissioner and Alder Adam Marchand at the hearing.
“Zoning is a tool, not a weapon,” she said. “Every indication of this moratorium is targeted toward a single property owner. That is an abuse of the zoning ordinance.”
Commissioner Jonathan Wharton, who as an alternate member did not vote Wednesday, said that he was surprised that the majority of colleagues did not support staff recommendation for a stronger repudiation of the proposed moratorium, especially given the legal ramifications that were outlined for the city not only by staff but public testimony.
“That’s why I asked my colleagues if we wanted this to be the moment that we don’t follow staff’s recommendation, if this is where we want to open the door to litigation,” he said. “Why would you subject yourself to that scrutiny?”
Supporters: A First Step
AJ Capital’s Franzen at the hearing.
The commissioners also heard Wednesday night from members of the public who urged support for the moratorium.
Jamie Myers McPhail, a member of New Haven Rising, said he sees the moratorium not as an ultimate solution or an endpoint but as an opportunity.
“Even people who are against the moratorium have said over and over and over again that we need a comprehensive long-term solution,” he told commissioners. “And I think we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In this situation we should get to work and keep the ball rolling and that this moratorium allows us to do that.”
Patricia Solomon.
Patricia Solomon, another speaker, said she knows how difficult it is to find housing for people who have a limited income. Back in the early 1990s, she was the assistant resident director at the YMCA when it caught fire, displacing more than 200 people.
She said finding new housing for people was hard back then, and it’s still hard. She commended the new owners of the Duncan for their efforts to relocate people and in fact find them housing that in many cases is less expensive than what they were paying at the hotel while keeping them connected to needed social services.
“The housing market in New Haven is extremely tough,” she said.
She said that’s why a moratorium on SROs is needed. She added that it should not have any retroactive consequences for the owners of the Duncan.
“Let them be grandfathered in under existing regulations,” she said. “The moratorium should be on any future development project that would decrease the number of SROs in existence.”
Some statutes are murky (some of the legislation I worked on as a legislative staffer may fall into this category). CGS Sec. 8-2h is not. A moratorium would not apply to the Duncan. Ed Mattison is correct - an attempt to apply such a moratorium retroactively it would be "laughed out of court."