Markeshia Ricks Photo
Seth Poole: “That’s less than it will cost to do the floors!”
Carly Wanna Photo
LCI’s board made a counter offer on this Grand Ave. building.
Plans to sell two city-owned properties changed after a board questioned whether New Haven government underprices the properties it sells.
That action and debate took place at City Hall Wednesday afternoon during the regular monthly meeting of the board of directors that oversees the Livable City Initiative (LCI), government’s anti-blight agency.
The board was considering two proposals by LCI to sell vacant land in its portfolio.
LCI had asked the board to approve a proposed $2,000 sale to the Fair Haven Community Health Care Center on a foreclosed brick building at 342 Grand Ave. FHCHC is looking to expand its services. The clinic currently occupies three buildings on Grand Avenue that are close to the building that it wants to buy. (Read more about that here.)
The offer struck directors as particularly low considering that the city is experiencing budget woes while simultaneously enjoying a development boom. It also struck them as low because it’s a good-looking building that they learned Wednesday has a court-appraised value of $119,000.
Selling it to a nonprofit for such a small amount of money, when it will ultimately come off the grand list, struck directors wrong, though they all took great pains to show their support for the work of the center.
Trachten.
Evan Trachten, LCI’s city acquisition and disposition coordinator, said he also believed the offer was low. But given that the long-term public benefit and the amount of money the nonprofit might have to put into rehabilitating the building, the tradeoff would be worth it, he argued.
Frank D’Amore, deputy director of LCI neighborhood and property services, told commissioners that when the property was being foreclosed on, the anti-blight agency intervened with the courts to propose that the health care center be considered as a buyer. The judge liked the idea and ordered a strict foreclosure that put the city in control of the building.
LCI board member Seth Poole praised the work of the center and called it a good fit for the building. But he said it would be irresponsible on the board’s part to let the building go for $2,000.
“I fully agree that they deserve the space, but two grand?” he said. “That’s less than it will cost to do the floors.”
Poole made a motion offering a counterproposal to ask the center to come up with 10 percent, or $11,9000, of the appraised value of the property. Three additional board members joined Poole in support of that motion, and it passed. The vote also would allow the center an additional one-year extension to conduct a thorough structural analysis and environmental cleanup.
LCI Board Chair Timothy Yolen.
Board Chair Tim Yolen said though the original offer of $2,000 was low; he had reservations of asking for $11,900 given all the good work that the center does. Yolen has served on the LCI board for nine years, and Wednesday was technically his last meeting. He said if he had any parting wish of his fellow directors it was that if the center cannot come up with 10 percent, the city will work with the center to come to an agreeable amount.
Trachten noted that the Board of Alders would still have to approve any agreement so the price could go down before a final price is settled.
“Our hearts are very much with the Fair Haven health center,” Yolen said. “It’s an entity that touches so many lives.”
Carly Wanna Photo
The board wants a closer look at this house on Elliot Street.
Yolen wasn’t feeling equally generous when it came to a vacant two-family house at 59 Elliott St. that LCI proposed to sell to Gemma Joseph Lumpkin for $10,000.
Trachten said Lumpkin came to LCI with the proposed purchase. She’s interested in renovating the property and renting it. He noted that no local nonprofit had expressed any interest in the foreclosed property. In an effort to get the blighted property fixed up and off the books, LCI staff said it would like to take the offer.
“Has it been advertised?” Yolen queried. When Trachten said it hadn’t, Yolen was incredulous. (The potential Fair Haven health center site also had not been advertised.)
“I think we would be crazy to sell this for $10,000,” he said. “This is not a giveaway.”
Yolen said the board has directed the sale of worse looking properties for more money. The property’s 2016 appraised value is $108,000, though thanks to neglect the vacant property is likely worse than can be seen from the outside.
Poole said he would like to see such a house go to an owner-occupant, and if not, then to someone with a track record of rehabilitating and maintaining such property.
Markeshia Ricks Photo
Delphine Clyburn.
Newhallville Alder Delphine Clyburn asked how Lumpkin found out about the property if it had not been advertised. Trachten said some people make it a point to stop by LCI and check for property acquired by the city.
Ultimately, the board voted to table the proposed sale and opted to take a field trip out to the property to make sure they don’t give it away for a song.
The former Walt’s Cleaners.
The board also voted to approve the city’s acquisition of the former Walt’s Cleaners at 310 – 312 Dixwell Ave. and property at 777 Orchard St. for $150,000 as part of a revitalization plan for Dixwell Avenue. Trachten said there are no definite plans but the idea involves creating a mixed-use space that would be home to both commercial and residential use. The city will use demolition and brownfield funds to acquire the site. Once it does that it will likely issue a request for proposals to demo the site and build it. The Board of Alders still must approve the acquisition.
The failure to give public notice of city owned properties up for sale gives insiders with connections to LCI an advantage and puts the general public at a disadvantage. All properties should be listed and available on the city's website, as well as under LCI.
The Board that oversees LCI is supposed to protect the public interest. Giving away $100,000 without any public disclosure as to the financial situation of the proposed purchaser appears to be favoritism and the opposite of transparency.As for the substantial discount for a well regarded non-profit agency, doesn't anyone look at the finances of that entity before deciding to give away city money? If it is doing so well that it needs to expand, perhaps it makes enough money to pay the appraised value. Non-profits are just businesses without stock, but which can make substantial profits that go to pay expenses, salaries and acquire additional assets.