Nearly two dozen critics of gentrification, market-rate housing, Yale expansion, and city-led planning initiatives stalled a rezoning project designed to rekindle commercial development along portions of Dixwell Avenue, Whalley Avenue, and Grand Avenue.
That took place Wednesday night at the regular monthly meeting of the City Plan Commission on the second floor of City Hall.
Commissioners heard over two hours of public testimony from Dixwell neighbors, anti-gentrification activists, and a handful of neighborhood builders and business boosters regarding the city’s proposed new Commercial Gateway Districts (CGD), or “Commercial Corridors.”
That proposed new zoning district classification seeks to use parking maximums, building height increases, and affordability and sustainability incentives to encourage denser commercial and residential development along the avenues connecting downtown with the city’s neighborhoods.
The vast majority of the public testimony offered Wednesday night criticized the rezoning initiative for potentially encouraging developments that might displace existing residents, distort neighborhood character, and continue a century-long trend of City Hall-led planning projects imposed without adequate community engagement and inadvertently transforming city neighborhoods for the worse.
“Dixwell does not need market-rate buildings,” legal aid community organizer Kerry Ellington said in a distillation of many of the commenters’ core concerns with what might come if the rezoning project passes. “Who in the Dixwell corridor has asked for these changes?”
The commissioners voted unanimously to table the proposed rezoning initiative, leaving the item open for more public comment between now and next month’s meeting, after which the Board of Alders will hold another public hearing on the matter before putting the proposal up for a final vote.
“It Is A Draft”
City Deputy Zoning Director Jenna Montesano and City Plan Director Aïcha Woods explained to the commissioners that the rezoning proposal represents the culmination of five years of research, community conversations, and hard city staff work regarding how to turn the avenues that connect downtown and the city’s neighborhoods into vibrant, dense, walkable, and diverse mixed-use commercial streetscapes.
Some of the key provisions in the proposed CGD use table, Montesano said, include requiring a minimum total residential density of 35 units per acre for sites within a quarter-mile of a bus stop; allowing developers to build at a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 4.5 for projects that follow various sustainability incentives that increase stormwater retention and renewable energy use; mandating that all new apartments buildings with over nine residential units each set aside at least 10 percent of those units at affordable rates as keyed to 60 percent of a New Haven-specific area median income (AMI); replacing parking minimums with parking maximums; and allowing restaurants, in-door entertainment, and a variety of other commercial uses to be allowed as of right.
Click here to read the full proposed CGD zoning regulations, here to read the draft use table, and here, here, here, and here for past stories about the rezoning project.
“This is a step at trying to redirect our zoning ordinance to benefit people living and working in the city,” Woods said, rather than the 1960s-era focus of prioritizing car use and suburban accessibility.
“This is not a perfect document,” she continued. “It is a draft.” And it can be changed as it proceeds through the regulatory process, and even after it goes into effect, if the Board of Alders ultimately votes to approve it.
If adopted, the proposed rezoning would go into effect on Grand Avenue from Olive Street to Hamilton Street, on Whalley Avenue from Howe Street to Pendleton Street, and on Dixwell Avenue from Tower Parkway to Munson Street.
“It’s About Time”
Those who spoke up in favor of the proposed zoning project largely cited years of stymied economic growth thanks to a zoning code hostile to mixed-use development.
“I grew up in a Dixwell neighborhood that was thriving,” said Dixwell Community Management Team Chair Nina Silva. “We don’t see that now.” She said she longs to see the manifold empty lots in her neighborhood turned into new homes, filled with families, reviving that liveliness she felt in her community those decades ago.
“It’s about time that this zoning changed in this way,” said Sheila Masterson, the president of the Greater Dwight Development District.
Allen McCollum, the general manager of the Whalley Avenue Special Services District (WASDD), said that he hasn’t been able to expand his own real estate holdings and many of the businesses his organizations represent can barely afford to pay their taxes because of how difficult it is to build higher and even open something as simple as a restaurant on Whalley.
“Whalley Avenue has been in a poor condition for many, many, many years,” he said.
“What’s The Rush?”
Many more of those who spoke up Wednesday night expressed wariness about the proposed changes, and frustration about the public process that has led to their formulation.
Reiterating the concerns that many of the same Dixwell residents and affordable housing advocates shared at a related protest held in Scantlebury Park last week, person after person who testified Wednesday implored city staff and the City Plan Commission to slow down the approval process and pay closer attention to the needs and concerns of the residents of these neighborhoods.
“We are not against all development and rezoning efforts,” New Haven Legal Assistance Association Attorney Ming-Yee Lin said. But the affordability protections included in the draft zoning ordinance do not go far enough to protect lower-income residents from being displaced.
The 10 percent affordability requirement should be bumped up to 25 percent, she said. And the city should conduct a resident needs assessment before going any further to understand what exactly Dixwell residents want to see along their main thoroughfare.
Many Dixwell neighbors feel that the city has not approached them and solicited their feedback in good faith before drafting this proposed legislation, Dixwell native and local landscaping business owner Jayuan Carter said.
“You have opposition because they don’t feel that it’s very inclusive.”
“I’m opposed to this because I don’t have enough information,” longtime Dixwell resident Patricia Solomon said. And that’s exactly the problem, she added. For someone who has lived in the community for so long and is so active in her community, how could she have gone as long as she did without knowing anything about this project?
“We don’t have a process that starts with listening to the residents,” local attorney Patricia Kane said. Regardless of the merits of this particular zoning ordinance amendment, she said, the process by which city staff got to it has clearly left many neighbors feeling uninformed and unempowered.
Local developer Fereshteh Bekhrad said she thinks the proposed zoning changes are, in general, a great idea. But they shouldn’t be the same for each one of these neighborhoods, she said. Even if this is just a pilot.
“These three different areas have totally different characters,” she said. “They should be looked at individually.”
Newhallville/Prospect Hill Alder Steve Winter said he hears concerns all the time from his constituents about Yale expanding into Dixwell and Newhallville. Perhaps the proposed CGD zone should explicitly prohibit university use, he said, or at least put in restrictions that would limit how much the university could expand.
And Ellington, who works for the New Haven Legal Assistance Association and is one of the lead organizers of the Room for All coalition, said that any effort to attract more market-rate apartment developers and investors to build in neighborhoods historically occupied by working class people of color will only exacerbate gentrification and displacement.
“I’ve been pushed out of New York City,” she said about her family moving from Brooklyn to the Bronx when she was a kid because rents were already climbing too high even back in the 1990s. Gentrification, she said, “is an evolving process. It doesn’t happen just like that.”
“The proposed rezoning was not initiated by Dixwell residents,” she said. “What’s the rush?”
In a closing statement to the public and to the commissioners before wrapping up the night’s public testimony, Montesano thanked everyone who had come out for sharing their thoughts and their criticism, even if only on the process.
“We want your feedback on the process,” she said. “It’s super important because we have a duty to you,” the public.
City Plan staff walked up and down the Whalley, Dixwell, and Grand, handing out flyers about the proposed rezoning, she said. They also held a number of presentations at community management teams over the past year. And they set up a website with a comprehensive overview of the project.
She promised to continue working on the draft proposal over the next month, she said, and to take to heart the concerns about displacement, physical characteristics like building height and parking, and process.
“It isn’t perfect,” she said. But neither is the current zoning code, which was last updated in the ‘60s. “We’re trying to bring 21st century zoning.”
Exhibit A on why New Haven, despite all of its potential, continues to be stuck in neutral. Look at dozens of other places in the US that are seeing huge growth and substantial improvement with and for the struggling neighborhoods. New Haven, in contrast, holds endless hearings during which every tiny constituency attempts to stop progress unless the program is 100% aligned with their desires. How about a little compromise int eh name of providing opportunity to our struggling neighborhoods?
posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 19, 2019 9:00am
I will say it again.
Gentrification and Colonialism are inseparable and continually mutually reinforce each other.Take a look at the City officials, developers, and local business boosters.They all remind me of the Five stages of colonialism which is 1.recon, 2. invasion, 3. occupation, and 4. assimilation of the area’s original peoples by colonizers. 5. Judas Goats.
The 5 Phases of Gentrification—When can it be stopped? and when is it too late?
Phase 1 – Pioneering New residents move in to abandoned or under-maintained buildings. Banks will not lend so renovation is limited to the resources of the Pioneers. No displacement of original residents, yet.
Phase 2 – Potential is Seen Real estate agents promote the area’s “potential.” Vacancy rates drop. Rents begin to rise. Banks begin to lend. Speculators buy distressed buildings.
Phase 3 – Safety and Media Hype Gentrifiers create historic preservation, business and neighborhood associations. Rents increase dramatically and displacement of the original residents fuels tensions. Police adopt “broken windows” tactics and selectively enforce loitering and similar laws. Media attention promotes the new safety and changes in the neighborhood.
Phase 4 – Peak The first wave of Pioneers gets priced out. Banks and investors create more high priced apartments and condos. Buildings bought for speculation in Phase 2 get put back on the market.
Phase 5 – Post Peak Vacancy rates increase as rents push above the limit. Speculators take the money they made in Phase 4 and look for new opportunities in neighboring communities. Landlords are absentee, including large banks and institutional investors. Property values stagnate or fall from their peaks.
NYC has gentrified because new construction was so limited for many years, in large part due to zoning restrictions. Fewer homes means that the prices get bid up.
It sounds like the same thing is going to happen in New Haven, given the intense opposition to new development among the loudest.
posted by: tmctague on September 19, 2019 9:25am
The City Plan Commission doesn’t look like a reflection of New Haven’s population, how does one get appointed?
posted by: alex on September 19, 2019 9:36am
The gentleman in the blue shirt in the top photo clearly sets a record for most photobombs on the first page of a newspaper, with six. Congratulations sir, and nice shirt.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 19, 2019 9:38am
posted by: anonymous on September 19, 2019 9:00am NYC has gentrified because new construction was so limited for many years
Not i true I am from New York.Read the report.
The Harmful Effects Of Gentrification On NYC’s Low-Income Black And Latino Populations
In many U.S. cities, local laws and regulations or “zoning laws” set the parameters for building usage (i.e. residential, commercial or mixed use), building height and income-based allocation of affordable units. In New York City, rezoning is often a precursor to community landscape changes that ostensibly benefit the entire city, but ultimately displaces low-income Black and Latinx people. Many of the recent zoning changes have been advanced by Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration and the City Council. Such zoning changes have had significant effects in the borough of Brooklyn, where a report from CityRealty predicted that a staggering 22,000 new apartments would be built by 2019. As the number of luxury housing sites surges throughout NYC, fewer units of affordable housing are being built. And even those few units that are deemed “affordable” are beyond the means of most community residents. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), housing is considered affordable when a household earning 80 percent of the area median income (“AMI”) spends no more than one-third of its income on rent. In the NYC region, AMI is calculated using not just households within the five boroughs, but households in Westchester and Nassau County. Because residents in those counties typically earn a higher annual income, 80 percent of the current area median income is $75,120 for a 3-person household. “Affordable” monthly rent for a three-bedroom apartment is $2,096.
posted by: Someone who reads on September 19, 2019 9:54am
Issues other than gentrification were raised in the meeting last night. The rezoning of the portion of Dixwell like one person stated didn’t really make much sense because of the existing multi housing stock (like Monterey Pace, Florence Virtue, Scantlebury. Traveling up Dixwell from Broadway to Munson Street, one will see continuity of housing development. The only site visible that this zoning change may impact on is the Dixwell Plaza. A change in height to the present structure would definitely have an impact on Florence Virtue community. Those of us who had the opportunity to read the proposed zoning change question the 10% affordable housing piece. Would this 10% affordable piece lower the standards already established in the existing sites? Another concern raised but not opening addressed is the limited vacant land and buildings that are “non confirming”. Is this a veiled attempt to do spot zoning? I agree with those who argued that there was little dialogue held in the Dixwell area. More educational outreach and dialogue need to be done in the Dixwell community so the residents can make an informed decision.
posted by: anonymous on September 19, 2019 10:50am
3/5, I think that is a separate issue. The deeper underlying problem in terms of neighborhood-wide gentrification is that roughly 1,500,000 more people moved to NYC since 1990, even as very few net new homes were added.
When you have more people but the same number of units, prices skyrocket.
Of course affordable units, rent regulations, and supportive housing are also important for some families. But the typical family lives in a “market rate” unit. The prices of those go up when nothing gets built.
The fairly recent zoning changes are finally beginning to address this by allowing more rapid new construction in NYC, but they don’t go far enough, and they will take many years to correct the city’s deeper underlying problem since 1990.
posted by: brownetowne on September 19, 2019 11:29am
What a sad day for the future of New Haven. I guess the anti-gentrification folks can’t get enough Dollar Stores and Fast Food and Parking Lots.
posted by: Politics 101 on September 19, 2019 11:42am
Someone who reads:
Your description of Dixwell Avenue reads like someone who has never actually walked it.
In any event, spot zoning isn’t illegal. No need to go to this degree of effort to do an end run around spot zoning. And ConnCorp doesn’t need a rezoning. It has loads of money. It’ll rezone Dixwell Plaza to whatever it wants Dixwell Plaza to be. The process will cost thousands of dollars in fees and lawyers but ConnCAT/ConnCorp has the money to spend. Rezonings like this one are intended to help the smaller scale property owners and developers, the ones who don’t have unlimited funds and time but would like to build things for which there is demand, whether housing or retail. One difficulty with the health and vibrancy of Dixwell Plaza is that there just aren’t enough residents to support the retail options there. Hence the demise of the grocery store and the struggles faced by the other retailers.
The 10% doesn’t decrease any standards in places. Monterey and Florence Virtue are public housing. They are required to be affordable not as a function of zoning, which doesn’t currently require any affordability, but by funding constraints. The 10% wouldn’t change anything w/r/t existing housing adds a standard for any new housing built in the neighborhood built without subsidy. Housing built with subsidy will require the greater of whatever percentage the subsidy requires or 10%. No such thing exists in any New Haven neighborhood right now.
“It’s not a mystery or anything…” Thanks? I noticed a vacancy, hopefully that is filled by Elicker’s administration.
posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 19, 2019 2:48pm
The concern about displacement is genuine. But it is unlikely that much housing would be built in the corridors under the proposed regulation because of the way the affordable housing mandate is structured. An affordable unit’s rent can be no more than 30% of the income of a household earning no more than 60% of the city’s median income. This comes out to a maximum rent of about $600 per month for the affordable units. (For wonks, the calculation is (.6 x $39,000 [the city median household income] x .3)/12.) In contrast, the cheapest rents at Parkside, the new development in the Hill, are over $1,800 per month. Spread over a development in one of the corridors, this difference amounts to a loss of about $100 per unit per month. Why would a developer choose to build in the Dixwell corridor, when it could build in Newhallville, West River, etc. without incurring this cost? One way to avoid this conundrum is to keep the sustainability and walkability provisions of the proposal (which are quite good) for the corridors and impose an affordability requirement citywide.
Someone who reads, zoning approval is routinely required when someone wants to build a new development. It often needed when someone wants to modify a building or change its use. Existing buildings and uses are grandfathered when the zoning ordinance is amended. At the same time, affordable housing developments are routinely subject to contractual agreements with their funders to ensure that they remain affordable.
A number of the buildings in the corridors went up before zoning was adopted. In other cases, the zoning ordinance was changed after they were built. These buildings and uses are legal, but nonconforming. The owner can continue these uses. (I can continue living in my house, even though my lot is much narrower than required under the zoning ordinance.) But if the building was torn down, like many in the corridor, the property owner’s options for re-using it are often sharply limited.
posted by: missthenighthawks on September 19, 2019 2:56pm
The answer seems to be to expand the Board of Alders to at least 5,000 people, and the city planning commission should have a representative from each street, so everyone’s voice can be heard and counted. No worries then because nothing will get by them. Nothing will change either. What’s the rush? Dixwell, Whalley, and Grand are just fine as they are.
posted by: Politics 101 on September 19, 2019 3:03pm
@tmctague
Sorry. I didn’t mean to be obnoxious. Here we have people using a formal public participation process (which itself followed an onslaught of informal public participation processes) to complain about the lack of a public participation process and the hypocrisy has got me a little on edge. I read into your comment a complaint that something was not transparent but the information is, of course, easily available on the City’s website.
@ Kevin McCarthy
I don’t see how anyone can do the 10%, much less a greater percentage, without using state subsidy, which state subsidies are drying up as we speak. I’d be quite glad to be proven wrong. It certainly makes no sense to apply an inclusionary requirement in Dixwell and on Whalley but not in downtown or Wooster Square.
posted by: Someone who reads on September 19, 2019 4:20pm
@ Politics 101 Please reread my opening statement. I chose not to do in-depth assessment of all that I see during my daily walks through the Dixwell community. I have witnessed the purchase of properties originally financed by HUD and unfortunately, when HUD funds are no longer involved. The transfer of ownership, the HUD affordable guidelines disappear and people are displaced. I looked at Dixwell Plaza in terms of the rezoning from the limited lens of height and density requirements gleaned from my quick review of the proposed ordinance and chose not to discuss ConnCorp I concur with your statistical analysis of the consumer population. It is unfortunate but the lower Dixwell corridor has the same economic characteristics of other northern minority urban neighborhoods.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 19, 2019 5:06pm
posted by: anonymous on September 19, 2019 10:50am
3/5, I think that is a separate issue.
Like you said.You think.No it is happening.across the country.It is not only the poor who are pushed out, but also better off families and singles for whom city life is no longer viable.It is so bad.Two of my son friends are renting a studio apartment and have put a bunk bed in and are paying 650.00 each.Look at what the Mayor of Newark N J did.He pass The “Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing” Ordinance, which is an amendment to Title 41 of the Newark Zoning and Land Use Regulations, will require developers who are creating or rehabilitating housing projects of more than 30 units to set aside 20 percent of them as affordable housing. It mandates housing affordable to those in a different income levels ranging from 40 percent of the area’s median income to 80 percent. The Council also passed a measure to encourage developers to partner with Newark minority and women contractors as co-developers and to provide affordable housing. Such developments will receive tax abatements.
Also you have developers like “Mo” Vaughn Omni New York LLC. The Omni Organization acquires, rehabilitates, builds and manages quality affordable housing throughout the United States. For Omni, it’s more than just building real estate – it’s about building the community. That’s why Omni partners with local community and neighborhood organizations to provide vital social services including after school programs for children, skills training seminars and adult education classes.
So my question to you is how come we can have a Inclusionary Housing Program.
IInclusionary Housing Program
The Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP) is designed to preserve and promote affordable housing within neighborhoods where zoning has been modified to encourage new development. The Division of Inclusionary Housing administers the following programs:
Voluntary Inclusionary Housing (VIH), enacted in 1987, where applicable, enables a development to receive a density bonus in return for the new construction, substantial rehabilitation, or preservation of permanently affordable housing.
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH), enacted in March 2016, requires a share of new housing in medium- and high-density areas that are rezoned to promote new housing production—whether rezoned as part of a city neighborhood plan or a private rezoning application—to be permanently affordable.
Privately Financed Affordable Senior Housing (PFASH), facilitates Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors (AIRS) in privately-financed developments throughout the City. AIRS enables zoning allowances permitted under the NYC Zoning Resolution to encourage the creation of affordable housing for households with seniors 62 years of age or older.
posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 19, 2019 6:07pm
Politics101, right - the affordable housing requirement assumes the use of federal or state subsidies, probably both. I spoke in favor of the proposal at the hearing, but raised the funding issue you noted.
posted by: wesunidad on September 19, 2019 6:39pm
Why do we need growth? Why do we need progress when almost all of the earth’s resources have already tanked?
Do we really need progress? Reread the article and notice the code words for “all white” housing.
We need solar panels on every building starting with all public schools and all public buildings. When the cost of fuel goes through the roof will the solar panels then go up? And, how many panels will we need and how much will they cost?
Where will we cordon off enough of the open space that we’ll need to grow food because our sources from big Ag have dried or burned up? Will the Green become one big, organic garden? If so, who will manage it? How much will it cost the town to convert the earth to support organic farming?
Where we will put climate refugees when they come from neighboring towns and states because of the lack of water or because they have led in their system and it can’t be fixed. What if New Haven’s water shows up with led, what will we do about that? How much will it cost in damaged lives?
What will we do with houses that have been foreclosed on because people have lost their jobs? Will they become filled with “squatters”?
It’s really scary to me to read the accounts of this meeting.
It’s as if no one knows anything about the climate crisis, because if they did, why aren’t they doing anything about it?
Estimates are we have about 11 years, folks.
To hell with pie-in-the-sky redevelopment plans and meetings to talk, talk talk.
It boggles my mind to read about all of these people in a room and no one is discussing the disaster we are facing.
posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 19, 2019 7:53pm
Wesunidad, one thing that got little attention is that the proposal contains a bunch of sustainability measures. These measures are designed to reduce the carbon footprint of developments and to adapt to the climate change that has already started to affect us.
I believe these measures should be expanded. For example, the proposal includes incentives for green roofs, which reduce the need for air conditioning and stormwater flows. Under the proposal, these incentives are only available in the three corridors. I think they should apply citywide.
On a related note, City Plan staff are working on greening the zoning ordinance, including adding measures to support community agriculture.
posted by: Ben Trachten on September 19, 2019 11:42pm
Politics 101 is correct about most topics. Here’s my two cents:
Process: I find it hard to believe that anyone who cares about the corridors project couldn’t find a place to express themselves before this hearing. This plan has been around for a while. Lots of outreach by staff.
About the hearing particularly, hours of testimony doesn’t result in a better zoning amendment. Now there is an expectation that some of this “dialogue” will be incorporated in the next draft.
Real world impact: the few blocks of grand Dixwell and whalley subject to this proposal have very few parcels that would likely be developed. But if there was development, it would replace no existing affordable housing, just old dumpy underused commercial. Why not try it as written? Or make some minor tweaks. This would be the introduction of mandatory affordable housing to New Haven and id love to see the impact over 10 years. My bet, no one will build anything other than the housing authority and nonprofits. The private developers can’t afford to incorporate affordable units even at a FAR of 4.5.
My biggest gripe about the evening is that New Haven development has been hijacked by these activists and Yale student social justice ... who are guests in our city for a few years yet feel that they know intimately what the people of Dixwell and grand and Dwight need. They point to Brooklyn and Atlanta and draw parallels to New Haven that are laughable. They’re 20 year old kids with nothing better to do on a Wednesday night than sit around at a community meaning to show off their juvenile rage at privilege and development all the while embodying the privilege they claim to want to smash to oblivion. It’s utter hypocrisy snd the board has to give everyone their 3 minutes. They showed up at zoning the night before and did the same thing.
I’m all for dialogue but we have to try something new somewhere (and downtown got the BD zones) so let’s try this and see where it goes. Or abandon it.
posted by: NeoHavener on September 20, 2019 12:54am
Kevin McCarthy, No doubt that the NeoHaven residents of any new market-rate domiciles would be supplied with access to a full range of cutting-edge sustainability lifestyle choices. No doubt they would instantly share these lifestyle choices on their Instagram so that everyone would know how sustainable they are.
And what about those displaced? What about the extra mileage it takes people who have been pushed out of the neighborhood to get to work, to see their families, or even just to get to the shops & businesses they loved & relies on for decades?
Boomers & Gen X’ers are more & more The Big Chill by the day.
posted by: Radicalpolitics on September 20, 2019 2:40am
Black business can only thrive if Blacks own the land and buildings. We need affordable home ownership We don’t need affordable rents in the only historic Black community in New Haven. We need to maintain possession of the land.All native New Haven residents should be the first beneficiary’s of opportunities to build wealth and escape poverty, especially those that have been left behind living below the poverty levels. Why should access to downtown be the goal? Downtown has not been for the community but for Yale for some time now. The average working poor can bare afford to park there not to mention shop or dine. And so, why do we need this so-called walkable access? Let me guess, a free concert.
posted by: wesunidad on September 20, 2019 7:32am
Kevin McCarthy…thank you for your response about the work planned to mitigate the affects of climate change/global warming on New Haven’s future.
To me, and I was not there, the number one topic, the frame for this conversation should have started with the issues that you so rightfully pointed out.
I don’t blame people for denying that we are facing one heck of a catastrophe. And, I am not a gloom and doom person, but I do remember what the winds did to Bethany and saw with my own eyes what the wind did to Sleeping Giant Park.
The question is how will any new building be constructed to withstand this kind of force?
We cannot afford to plan w/o putting the dollar amount on this kind of construction because from my experience, if we don’t take care of IT, IT will take care of us and cost us much, much more in the end.
Note: Today students in over 800 schools in the U.S. are going on strike to bring attention to this urgent issue as well as rallies in Hartford and New Haven this afternoon.
posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 20, 2019 8:27am
NeoHavener, the sustainability measures would benefit the current residents of the corridor as well as newcomers. If a new building has a green roof, it will lower the air temperature of the nearby area in the summer. If stormwater is retained on-site, it will reduce flooding down the street. And 10% of the new residents would be people with household incomes of less than $24,000 (60% of $39,000).
As I said earlier, I doubt the regulation will cause displacement because it would make it more expensive to build a 10+ unit development in the corridors than elsewhere in the city. The proposal would encourage commercial development in the corridors. But it is much cheaper to build on a vacant lot or parking lot than to tear down or convert an apartment building.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 20, 2019 8:30am
posted by: gakimbro on September 20, 2019 2:40am
Black business can only thrive if Blacks own the land and buildings. We need affordable home ownership
You have to understand how gentrification works.As Peter Dreier said.
Gentrification is not a force of nature, an inevitable economic trend or a preordained social phenomenon. It is the result of decisions made by real people who run institutions, seek to make profits, and are motivated by greed and power. They include insatiable bankers, sleazy mortgage lenders, rapacious developers and landlords, compliant politicians, and indifferent government regulators.The current wave of gentrification has its roots in the 1960s and 1970s, when banks redlined inner city neighborhoods, starving them of credit, refusing mortgage loans to minority consumers, even when families could afford them, and denying loans to homeowners in these areas who wanted to repair their homes. In the 1980s, the Wall Street lobby bribed Congress to loosen regulations on the financial industry, leading to an orgy of speculation and merger mania. Big commercial banks bought up local neighborhood savings-and-loans banks (S&Ls;) that had typically provided the mortgages for local homeowners. Instead, the big banks took the savings of local depositors in urban neighborhoods and loaned it out to wealthier suburbs for big homes, shopping malls, golf courses and office parks. Not surprisingly, these older urban neighbors went downhill, a victim of banks’ disinvestment. Once stable, neighborhoods became “slums” and “ghettoes.” People who could afford to move out did so. So did bank branches, retail stores and municipal government services. None of this was inevitable. It was the result of banks deciding to disinvest from certain neighborhoods – a self-fulfilling prophecy of decline.
Part One.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 20, 2019 8:48am
Part Two.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the banks reversed course. They sought to “revitalize” the neighborhoods they had previously left behind. Developers began to buy older apartment buildings, brownstones and bungalows, fix them up, convert them to condos or rent them to what the real estate industry and media started to call urban “pioneers” — young professionals eager to “return to the city.” Once that trend got started, many local government officials began to jump on the “revitalization” train, using taxpayer dollars to fix the sidewalks, provide more police protection, offer tax breaks to new businesses, rezone neighborhoods to encourage development and “rebrand” neighborhoods with fancy names.
Banks and other financial institutions are the primary causes and beneficiaries of gentrification. They take the money from savings accounts and pensions of working class and middle-class people and speculate in real estate.
Look at what the crooked Banks did to this women.In fact my sister owns Three Brownstones down the street from this lady.
Harlem woman pleads with court for mercy in big $$$ real estate debt case
In a bizarre courtroom spectacle, a Harlem woman who could lose four buildings over a debt that started at $100,000 and ballooned to over $7 million argued Thursday she’s been hammered just shy of homelessness through predatory interest rates.
posted by: Ben Trachten on September 20, 2019 8:59am
@Kevin McCarthy
You are absolutely right about displacement. Passing an ordinance that will add to the cost of development (required affordability, modest benefits for “green” solutions”, etc) is a guaranteed way to insure no displacement in Dixwell and whalley snd grand but for the wrong reason. No one will build. There’s no funding for that monthly rent gap that you talked about. And no private party will do a homeownership development.
So no one will be forced out. These areas have very similar per square foot building and land costs as downtown, Dwight, east rock and Wooster square. It’s not like we’re incentivizing dense development in the hinterlands behind west rock or some fictional place in town where land costs are low.
But as the normal cycle of buildings outliving their useful life continues, and with fires and casualty losses and other misfortunes that result in the loss of some units (maybe 100 units a year citywide) there will be a modest decrease in the number of available units. So housing quality will suffer. Housing options will suffer. And if neighbors are successful in killing this, we don’t get to see this progressive idea implemented small scale for evaluation and data on applicability to the city as a whole. How can we begin to discuss a full citywide zoning code overhaul if we can’t conclude something like this impacting a small handful of underutilized parcels?
I really like the idea of the corridors being the test case for affordable or inclusionary zoning citywide (if that’s what the city is moving toward). But we need a city fund for builders to go to to offset the additional costs of 10 percent affordable. I see that coming. it’s great that there’s a robust debate about this issue and people care about their neighborhood.
posted by: Cove’d on September 21, 2019 11:39pm
It would seem to me that in order for there to be less would-be gentrification, more renters need to become owners. The simplistic basic way to make something more affordable is to increase the supply of that thing. For housing to be more affordable for more people to want to own, there needs to be more of it (citywide) and it needs to be easier to build including that of modest incremental development type of housing (duplexes and the like). More owners means more vested interest, and increased density should better support local business. Whatever can be done to change and even eliminate zoning regulations to make it easier and less expensive for the average joe to build, to expand, to add an accessory dwelling unit, to start a new establishment and so on should be fast-tracked. There is a quote from Douglas Rae’s book CITY that is relevant- “the pressure of zoning regulations, now in full force, would discourage many new entrants…” - this was mid 1930s talking about neighborhood grocery retailing. While there was a lot going on at that time in history, there is little doubt that zoning regulations have historically hurt how cities traditionally functioned in the U.S. I don’t think anyone really believes the current regs are just hunky-dory. Since this is a pilot test, and it sounds like there is less community opposition to Grand and Whalley, perhaps start there. And in the meantime work with Dixwell to further hear out concerns.
posted by: NewHaven73 on September 22, 2019 10:51pm
Dixwell is truly an oasis of prosperity. Its people have spoken and they don’t want change to kill their momentum so why not leave them alone?
posted by: Bill Saunders on September 23, 2019 2:30am
Coved,
I would be interested to see the breakdown of first time home buyers vs. large scale investment aquisitions. The truth will be sad. Stuff just gets gobbled up fast…..
Nearly two dozen critics of gentrification, market-rate housing, Yale expansion, and city-led planning initiatives stalled a rezoning project designed to rekindle commercial development along portions of Dixwell Avenue, Whalley Avenue, and Grand Avenue.
The vast majority of the public testimony offered Wednesday night criticized the rezoning initiative for potentially encouraging developments that might displace existing residents, distort neighborhood character, and continue a century-long trend of City Hall-led planning projects imposed without adequate community engagement and inadvertently transforming city neighborhoods for the worse.
City Deputy Zoning Director Jenna Montesano and City Plan Director Aïcha Woods explained to the commissioners that the rezoning proposal represents the culmination of five years of research, community conversations, and hard city staff work regarding how to turn the avenues that connect downtown and the city’s neighborhoods into vibrant, dense, walkable, and diverse mixed-use commercial streetscapes.
“This is a step at trying to redirect our zoning ordinance to benefit people living and working in the city,” Woods said, rather than the 1960s-era focus of prioritizing car use and suburban accessibility.
Those who spoke up in favor of the proposed zoning project largely cited years of stymied economic growth thanks to a zoning code hostile to mixed-use development.
Allen McCollum, the general manager of the Whalley Avenue Special Services District (WASDD), said that he hasn’t been able to expand his own real estate holdings and many of the businesses his organizations represent can barely afford to pay their taxes because of how difficult it is to build higher and even open something as simple as a restaurant on Whalley.
Many more of those who spoke up Wednesday night expressed wariness about the proposed changes, and frustration about the public process that has led to their formulation.
“I’m opposed to this because I don’t have enough information,” longtime Dixwell resident Patricia Solomon said. And that’s exactly the problem, she added. For someone who has lived in the community for so long and is so active in her community, how could she have gone as long as she did without knowing anything about this project?
Local developer Fereshteh Bekhrad said she thinks the proposed zoning changes are, in general, a great idea. But they shouldn’t be the same for each one of these neighborhoods, she said. Even if this is just a pilot.
In a closing statement to the public and to the commissioners before wrapping up the night’s public testimony, Montesano thanked everyone who had come out for sharing their thoughts and their criticism, even if only on the process.