Problem Landlord Plans New Apartments

"But, she worried, these small market-rate studios, if priced too high, might drive up the going market-rate rents for one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and so on."

For the 98% of new units that are privately owned this is just a matter of supply and demand. Higher going prices per square foot for new units would be a good thing, because they will incentivize more developers to build housing in New Haven. that in turn will ameliorate the high prices of existing housing stock. You may see certain pockets of areas downtown go up in price but the higher supply means that the other 99% of the New Haven region stays more affordable. In fact building more housing is the only realistic way to have affordable housing here.

The city should take over Roubeni's properties.

wendy1, do you recall the takings clause? If you want Roubeni to win big, please keep advocating for that. I guessing you've seen the fact that no one has stayed on those second floor and third floor units at 809 Chapel. Transitioning them to apartments makes sense. Right on a bus line, affordable or not, it is the right thing to do.

MetroStar has bought up that block and if folks want to live over a bar/restaurant/nightclub, have at it. There is no evidence that this handful of apartments is going to inflate the market. How many units are under construction in New Haven now? several hundred at market rate - Audobon, the comcast parcel, etc. How many market rate units have come online the last few years? Union, Novella, Winchester, etc.

If anything, this raises the bar for landlords in the Dwight, Wincehster, Prospect Hill and East Rock neighborhoods. They won't be able to charge bust out retail as they cannot complete with all of this fancy new ultra modern construction. They will have to lower the rents or rehab their units to meet market prices in that segment.

No parking? 360 needed to put in parking. I have a dog & a car. So don't expect me to rent one of the small units for the going rate. Should be $500.00 not $200,00. Just used # at what it should be. This is not NYC. In NYC a 100sq foot goes for $5000.00.

concerned_neighbor, you may be right about 809 Chapel, I have no knowledge of the property.

But 781 Whalley I am very familiar with, less so with 50 Fitch. Though physically separate from 50 Fitch, it may be a single real estate holding which would mean taking over both. 50 Fitch still has tenants, I think, so it may be salvageable.

But 781 Whalley is a disaster of a building. Not so long ago a developer thought to turn it into a self-storage complex, but in the face of opposition from Westville neighbors and the realities of remediation costs (lead and/or asbestos) & other serious internal structural renovations needed for redevelopment, the developer lost interest. The building has been empty since April 2012, has acquired numerous pieces of plywood covering broken windows and doors, and is an eyesore that needs to be demolished.

Market Rate = luxury housing prices for smaller and smaller spaces.
No one is building affordable housing = code for working class housing. The national government pulled out of financing such housing decades ago so it could buy more weapons and kill more people.
A developer who already has a record of neglect, fines and refusing to pay is not a desirable developer, but I'm not sure there's a way to stop him.
Three-fifths saw this all coming, but neither the Mayor nor the Board of Alders imposed any provisions requiring 20% of any new construction or renovation to provide for affordable units.
Has the Board of Alders yet proposed to eliminate the tax abatements put in place 15 years ago?

I thought it was a Pike Property.

[Reporter's note: Right you are, Bill! I had included a photograph of the incorrect building at the top of the article. That photo was of 813 Chapel, not 809 Chapel. The photo has been fixed. Thanks for pointing out my error!]

Anonymous, in the past Anstress has referred to small units increasing land prices, and indirectly rents. As a general proposition, she may right. But the area around 260 Crown is fully developed and I doubt this project will have much impact.

A charitable interpretation of Wendy's comment is that she is advocating for the city taking those Roubani properties that are blighted by eminent domain. The city would need to pay fair market value, but the condemnation would not violate the Takings Clause. As an aside, work has resumed on 873 Grand, which Roubani also owns.

Jim1, about 30% of New Haven households don't have cars and about 25% consist of a single person (I don't know about how these factors interact with dog ownership). You wouldn't rent one of these apartments, neither would my wife and I. But the developers are spending their own money based on the expectation that they will be able to rent the apartments to other people.

Patricia, the inclusionary housing requirements I have heard of apply to large developments. I doubt a similar requirement in New Haven would apply to developments like those described in this article. And while the city could choose not to renew the tax exemption, this would not affect the developments that are currently receiving this benefit or that begin construction before the abatement expires.

Wendy1–I'm with you. Rubini has been a terrible neighbor in Westville for years. And no, it wasnt the neighbors who killed the self storage use— It was the developer constantly changing the deal each time the buyer got close.

Let's see how the 1% deal with a slumlord. God knows that working people can't fight the big property owners. And they will drive little landlords out of business. Lotsa luck, yuppie/millennial/whatevers!

@Kevin McCarthy: My point is the lack of any leadership to pursue legislation to create an affordable component generally, while outdated tax abatements remain on the books.

Patricia, the two issues are distinct, but retaining the abatement might make an inclusionary housing requirement more likely.