Streets Sale Passes; Police Called To City Hall

by Thomas MacMillan | Jun 4, 2013 8:11 am

(73) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: City Hall, Downtown

As aldermen voted to sell portions of two downtown streets to Yale for $3 million, a half-dozen cops stood in the back of the room, keeping a close eye on rowdy protesters who had already held up the vote once. The action took place in City Hall’s aldermanic chamber Monday night, where lawmakers voted to approve a $3 million deal that will turn over portions of Wall and High streets to Yale forever. The 21-8 vote came after a lengthy floor debate, lengthened further by bullhorn-wielding protesters whose chants forced board President Jorge Perez to call a recess in the meeting. Click the video to watch the confrontation. Protesters objected to the deal in part because it does not guarantee that Yale will keep the streets open to the public. Aldermen supporting the deal said Yale will likely keep the streets open, and the city needs the $3 million to help close a budget gap in the current fiscal year. For over 20 years, Yale has controlled the sections in question—High Street between Elm and Grove streets and Wall Street between College and York streets. The university has closed part of High Street to vehicular traffic. Cars are technically restricted from using the section of Wall Street, though Yale vehicles are permitted to park there and drive through. Yale first closed the streets after a 1990 deal in which the university paid the city $1.1 million and agreed to ongoing annual contributions. The city revisited the deal in 2011 as a part of a required 20-year review. After contentious debate over the possibility of renegotiating the deal, aldermen tabled the matter for over a year, until a plan to sell the streets outright emerged this spring. The fate of High and Wall is an issue that gets to the heart of the city’s sometimes combative, deeply symbiotic relationship with Yale. It’s complicated further by the fact that the Board of Aldermen is now controlled by a majority comprising lawmakers supported by Yale unions. That majority nearly always votes as a block. But not Monday night. Members of the union-backed majority split their votes Monday night rather than voting as a bloc. Four of the eight aldermen who voted against the sale are labor-affiliated lawmakers. Aldermen also voted Monday night to sell 182 square feet of Broadway to Yale for $8,190. The university plans to expand the bookstore there and put up new signs. Outside Monday’s meeting was preceded by a rally outside City Hall attended by about 25 activists who protested against the streets sale. The demonstration was organized by a coalition of groups including My Brother’s Keeper, Seminarians For A Democratic Society, and Unidad Latina en Accion. Gregory Williams (at left in photo), a Yale Divinity School student and founder of Seminarians For A Democratic Society, noted that Yale has an endowment of over $18 billion. He called for “just distribution of wealth in this city.” East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker (pictured), a mayoral candidate, called the streets sale “short-sighted” and “wrong for our children.” Activist Barbara Fair (pictured) cautioned that Yale keeps taking over more pieces of the city: “I’m waiting for New Haven’s name to be changed to Yale. It’s time to say, no more!” “They take with a shovel and give with a teaspoon, and we’ve had enough of that kind of bullshit,” said Frank Panzarella. Westville activist Tim Holahan (pictured) announced that his online petition against the sale had gathered 238 signatures in just one day. “Selling public access to our streets is not negotiable,” declared Downtown Alderman Doug Hausladen (pictured). Inside Inside City Hall, Fair Haven Heights Alderwoman Brenda Jones-Barnes was the first to speak up when the streets deal came up for debate. She said the current Board of Aldermen was elected to listen to the people and to be “better than the previous rubber stamp machine.” She called the sale of the streets “amazing” and “outrageous.” “It’s as though New Haven is a Monopoly game with streets for sale,” she said. Elicker moved to have the matter sent back to committee for more public testimony. Eight other aldermen supported him on that proposal, not enough to make it happen. Dixwell Alderwoman Jeanette Morrison, in whose ward the streets lie, said her student constituents told her they want the university to have the streets. “It’s about safety for my students,” she said. “Four years ago, I said parking meter monetization was the worst idea since margarine,” Elicker said. “This is the worst idea since parking meter monetization.” Yale has not guaranteed the public will have access to the streets forever, he said. And even if it were a good idea to sell the streets, “$3 million is a fire sale.” “Yale has proven itself worthy of ownership,” said Hill Alderwoman Dolores Colon (pictured), a Yale alum who now works for Yale’s Beinecke Library on Wall Street and used to work for UNITE HERE Local 34. She said Yale will not close the streets to cars because it needs to have a way for firefighters to access all the buildings. She said the streets are “useless” except to Yale. That drew a roar of disapproval from the activists in the back of the room.“Who would want to buy the streets except for Yale?” she said. “We need to sell the streets because we need the money to make our deficit smaller.” “You can’t put a price on our ability to walk down those streets,” said Alderman Hausladen. East Rock Alderwoman Jessica Holmes (pictured) said she would like see a more powerful city and a more supportive Yale, but the street deal doesn’t prevent that from happening. “When those streets are sold, no one in Ward 6 will miss them,” said Colon, who represents Ward 6. Her comment drew more howls from the protesters. Bullhorn Interruptions As aldermen were about to vote on the item, protester John Lugo stood up and used a bullhorn to rail against the sale. President Perez struggled to keep control over the meeting as Williams stood on his seat and pulled out another bullhorn. Protesters chanted and sang for several minutes as Perez called a recess. Six police officers arrived in the chamber and stood by. The protesters quieted down; aldermen finally voted. “It’s being voted under armed guard,” Williams announced. The final vote was 21 to 8. Voting against the sale were Hausladen, Elicker, Fair Haven’s Migdalia Castro, Newhallville’s Alfreda Edwards, and four union-backed aldermen: Brenda Jones-Barnes, Delphine Clyburn, Newhallville’s Brenda Foskey-Cyrus, and Beaver Hills’ Angela Russell. As protesters filed out of the room with police at their back, they sang the chorus of an old union-organizing song: “Which side are you on?”

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: TheMadcap on June 3, 2013 10:14pm Yale gets what Yale wants, otherwise they might reconsider their voluntary taxes.

posted by: Lisa I am completely disappointed in the New Haven Board of Alders. They sold a city street to Yale for a one time measly payment of $3,000,000 just to patch a hole in this years budget. A new mayor comes in in just a few short months. Instead of working with him or her to solve the BIG issue of the city’s overspending, the choose this dirty trade. Disgusting.

posted by: OccupyTheClassroom The selling of public areas sparked the current riots in Turkey. Just saying.

posted by: mstratton on June 3, 2013 11:30pm Note: This vote was the product of yale union backed alders. With the exception of Clyburn who has shown courage and independence in other budget votes, all the Yale alders voted to sell our city street to their negotiating partner Yale University. They voted as a block. The dissenting votes were all independent from the Yale Union (with the exception of Clyburn). Question: Why would the Yale Union want to sell the city street to Yale? Hmmmm. Wouldn’t that be a pretty easy way and costless way to curry favor with their employer Yale when they sit down to negotiate the next contract? Theory: The yale union is using its control over New Haven city politics as a carrot for negotiations with Yale. Impact: Our board of alders is not working for us, they are working for themselves. They sold our city street for personal gain. Very very shameful. Its time for these alders to go. Anyone want to run against one of these carpetbaggers?

posted by: markcbm on June 3, 2013 11:31pm Shame

posted by: Tim Holahan Like many New Haveners, I’m disappointed. I know several of the aldermen who voted “yes” personally, and think highly of them, and I can’t understand how they could support this deal without at least protecting the public’s right of access. Most of them did not speak up tonight to defend the deal. The arguments of those who did ranged, to my subjective ears, from the irrelevant to the incoherent. The good news is that New Haven is blessed with a number of great public spaces. We need to remain vocal in defending them, and demand that, in the future, our elected representatives respect our wishes and do the same. In their last business of the evening, the aldermen reduced the new budget’s mill rate increase by 1.08 mills, thanks to $6M in unexpected funds from the state. Though I’m no fan of tax increases, it seems like the Board could have split the difference with the future, and used some of the revenue to avert the sale of assets.

posted by: Nathan on June 3, 2013 11:54pm 1. It wasn’t a one time payment, it was the second payment and there were multiple views about whether it was required at all.

2. Yale hasn’t closed the space to the public and the public space would have been the streets, not the courtyards that are the most area in that block. As it is, it is a fantastic space for walking and enjoying the campus. Yale did a great job with that space, which everyone can enjoy. Complaining about loss of public space is pure speculation, yet it’s being trumpeted as a war cry as if it has already happened.

3. The problems with the ever growing city budget are really a separate, far more significant issue. Whether one agrees with the sale or not, the motivation should not have been desperation (even though I still would have supported it).

posted by: Bill Saunders on June 4, 2013 12:11am mstratton, The citizens need to find independent challengers for all of these alders, and unite them under a new party. Who know’s, maybe they could even endorse a mayor.

posted by: Curious on June 4, 2013 7:10am Mstratton, if the Freedom of Information Act applies at the local level, then one could petition each and every one of these Local-34 backed alders and request their emails pertaining to this vote, and to their backing of Toni Harp for mayor. Just saying.

posted by: Fairhavener on June 4, 2013 7:29am Our Alder Ernie Santiago never once returned emails I sent attempting to begin a positive discussion on this issue. Not once.

posted by: streever The BofA, led by Perez, continues the New Haven tradition—which they’ve always disparaged and vowed against—of one-time sales in desperate crisis mode to fix the City budget. Hey, is it just me, or do I smell a scam going on? Can these people honestly say that they’ve completely 180’d their previous views? I think that the words of Bob Proto, as written in online paper, are being demonstrated over and over again. Thanks for covering.

posted by: Jon on June 4, 2013 8:51am Yale first closed the streets after a 1990 deal in which the university paid the city $1.1 million and agreed to ongoing annual contributions. A. Why sell the streets, instead of continuing the agreement? The less than $1.9 million dollar difference was enough to give up control of public space forever? Hard to believe. B. What’s the rationale for not guaranteeing public access? My only conclusion is that those are no longer streets, they are part of the Yale Campus. Yale can now do whatever they want with them. With a budget the size of New Haven’s, there has to be other ways to close a $3 million budget gap. Keep in mind, Yale would have had to pay something to continue the status quo. $1.1 million closes the budget gap to $1.9 million and I would think you could expect more than $1.1 million since that amount was paid 20+ years ago. The comments from the Aldermen supporting the sale sound silly and short sighted. I guess that’s because there’s no reasonable explanation.

posted by: westville man on June 4, 2013 8:54am Thanks Tim, for your last minute heroic efforts to stop this.

Where can we get a list of how each alder voted? More and more of New Haven is getting gobbled up by Yale right under our collective nose- spreading like wild-fire as our tax base continually erodes. Wake up, fellow New Haveners.

posted by: streever One of the union guys—who actually opposes this sale—told me that if we didn’t like this type of government, we needed to organize (as if citizens should have to organize against corruption, cronyism, and incompetence). I said, the people you just got in to office don’t care: they won’t change any policy based on citizen input. Well, here we have citizens protesting, petitioning, and standing up. What does your slate say? “This is not a public hearing”, is the only response I hear, from the supposedly unbiased politicians who JUST HAPPEN to be part of the Yale union which negotiates contracts with Yale. Unbelievable. As I’ve said: a bunch of idealistic Yale Grad students walked beats in poor neighborhoods and promised milk & sunshine & citizen involvement in government, and what we got instead, was MACHINE 2.0.

posted by: SSSS on June 4, 2013 8:58am For those objecting, does your main objection stem from the price that the City negotiated, or simply the very act of selling them? I am more sympathetic with the former since they do seem to be part of Yale’s campus. I’d be interested to see the calculation that substantiated the $3 million

posted by: Mister Jones on June 4, 2013 9:04am Bullhorns?

posted by: Anderson Scooper on June 4, 2013 9:14am You do have to wonder if the streets sale wasn’t quietly part of Yale’s last Union contract… Also, a GIANT THUMBS-DOWN to John Lugo and Greg Williams for so wantonly disrupting a public meeting. Yes, you have the right to be heard, but bullhorns shouting over our public officials? Watching NHI’s video is pretty clear you deserved to be arrested.

posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2013 9:15am It appears that most of the Alders who voted for the sale, despite hundreds of protest calls and the fact that virtually no citizen outside of City Hall’s back-door meetings was aware that this public space was being given up forever, have endorsed Toni Harp for Mayor. Is this a preview of how she would govern?

posted by: newhavenishome on June 4, 2013 9:32am 238 signatures in a matter of hours. That’s potentially enough support to grab a few seats on the Board in the upcoming elections. Nudge, nudge, hint, hint….Tim H.

posted by: apell81 on June 4, 2013 9:36am I have been very underwhelmed with Santiago’s representation of Fair Haven on the BoA so far. These alders need to worry more about those that they represent, and less about cozzying up to Perez and the Union…Selling city streets for a paltry sum to close a budget gap is beyond belief when where is so much fat to trim downtown and at 54 Meadow.

posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2013 9:56am Colon said, “When those streets are sold, no one in Ward 6 will miss them.” Quite a few people living in Ward 6 use these streets on a daily basis. I think they will be upset when the streets are gated off to the public at night. Would anyone like to interview them?

posted by: Thomas Alfred Paine on June 4, 2013 10:08am I am totally disgusted with the Board of Aldermen. This board is supposed to be a representative legislative body. The board is supposed to represent the interests of the people of the city of New Haven. In one week they have raised our taxes 7.7 per cent and have sold public property to Yale for the pitiful sum of $3 million. No New Havener can stand to have their taxes raised to this extent, if at all. There is so much waste in city government and there is entirely too much waste by the Board of Education, the Superintendent, and the New haven Public Schools. According to a recent New Haven Independent poll, a majority of New Haven residents oppose the sale of those streets to Yale. The board ignored that poll and voted for Yale, not the people of New Haven. I question their judgement and loyalty to the people as a representative body. I question their loyalty and dedication to the unions. I really fear for the future of my city if the unions will control the majority of the aldermen and the aldermen will ignore the will and the best interests of the majority of the citizens. But what I fear most is that the people of New Haven will sit in silence and let their city be hijacked by a special interest group that has infiltrated our government. POWER BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE IN A DEMOCRACY. We need to exercise that power en masse and redeem New Haven from those who would raise our taxes and sell our streets against our will and against our best interest.

posted by: bex18 on June 4, 2013 10:17am “Keep in mind, Yale would have had to pay something to continue the status quo.” I’m not sure that’s true… The protesters are acting like this was a sell-out to Yale because there was some better choice here. This debate has been going on for over a year, and the fact is that the original agreement is incredibly unclear. It seems the choice was between this deal, letting Yale continue to keep the streets for free, or else embroiling the city in a long and costly legal battle to take them back. As far as the best outcome for the city, I like the first one. If Yale wanted to close off public access to those streets, they’d have to gate off all of cross campus and Beinecke Plaza (which, honestly, if they’d wanted to do they could have done in some way already), so I just don’t buy that it’s going to happen. Symbolically, it sucks that Yale owns more of the city. I 100% agree that Yale is abusive of New Haven and that has to change. But in reality, the people who would feel uncomfortable walking down those streets because they are now owned by Yale, already feel uncomfortable walking down those streets because they have functionally belonged to Yale for decades [which is the point Dolores Colon was trying to make last night…] and that is a much bigger problem. I can’t help but conclude that this protest is about symbolism alone, and I really think we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to standing up to Yale.

posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2013 10:40am Bex, I agree some people feel uncomfortable near Yale, but there’s a world of difference between that and actually having a huge section of the city closed off. It would take about one day, and a thousand dollars, to add the gates. You would need about 100 feet of new chain link fence along College at Cross Campus, and small fences at High & Elm, Wall & York, and High & Grove, to gate the area off for good. Many other urban university campuses do this, and anyone who claims it would be “difficult” is simply repeating the list of speaking points from Yale’s PR office.

posted by: Scot on June 4, 2013 10:45am Shouldn’t Dolores Colon have abstained from voting (as well as anyone else who works for Yale)? It seems like a conflict of interest that she would have to vote for or against her employer. As an alderperson she is supposed to be acting in the interest of the residents of her ward (not her employer). Thank you to those that showed up to oppose this idea.

posted by: Scot on June 4, 2013 10:46am SSSS – For me the first issue is it’s fiscally irresponsible to sell off your land to pay your bills. It’s over, the streets that belonged to the city for 375 years are now gone and could be closed to the public . For what? The $3 million has already been spent. If it wasn’t a one-time budget plug I’d be ok with it. For ex/ if we gave them the land for free but made it taxable property so that the city received a small amount of money each year going forward. Second, access to those streets was simply a nice thing to have for residents. I would have been fine with it if Yale guaranteed public access. They are attractive streets to walk through. Instead of walking down Wall, one would now need to either walk along a cemetery, or walk down a thoroughfare (Elm). Is it the end of the world? Of course not. It’s simply that it would have been nicer to have access to the streets than to not have access. It makes me think the alderpersons that voted to sell it are very shortsighted. A quick buck to cover your mistake (mistake = overspending in your budget) versus losing the streets forever.

posted by: Stephanie FitzGerald on June 4, 2013 10:52am I am SO DISAPPOINTED in our Alders for voting to sell these streets to Yale!

posted by: Greg-Morehead Man, I wish I was there. I could’ve setup some drums and help them play to, “what Side Are you on”. lol All jokes aside.. I can’t believe this. There was a reason that my colleagues and I wanted more negotiation on this back in 2011. Over the past 2 years since we tabled this, what back room door deals have been going on? This is crazy!!

Excuse me, Alderwoman Morrison, you said… her student constituents told her they want the university to have the streets. “It’s about safety for my students,” she said.

Come on, do you really believe ANYONE is buying that line? I am lost for words at your statement. Even though we had parts of Yale in the Ward, you always have to take into account that the students will only be here temporarily. I am not saying that their ideas do not matter, but you have to get the temperature from everyone in the Ward and not just a sector of people. After some of the Yale students leave, your other constituents are here for life. But, I know its hard to get the temperature from everyone in the Ward when you don’t come around and NO ONE sees or hears from you since you took office. I’m just sayin!

Thanks to all of the other Alders for standing up and going against the grain and not voting with the “group”. I was also surprised to see the following Alders vote against this..

Brenda Jones-Barnes, Delphine Clyburn, Newhallville’s Brenda Foskey-Cyrus, and Beaver Hills’ Angela Russell But, its going to take more than this vote and 1 remark against the unions to prove to me and everyone else that you all have backbones. Again, I’m just sayin!

posted by: YumpinYimmy on June 4, 2013 11:26am Anderson Scooper: “Also, a GIANT THUMBS-DOWN to John Lugo and Greg Williams for so wantonly disrupting a public meeting. Yes, you have the right to be heard, but bullhorns shouting over our public officials? Watching NHI’s video is pretty clear you deserved to be arrested.” Sometimes that’s the only way to be heard…particularly in New Haven. I think these protesters are to be congratulated for amplifying the issue. Were it not for the passion of a devoted few, this vote would not even have come to public attention. Which side are you on?

posted by: WestvilleAdvocate on June 4, 2013 11:32am Wow. I’m amazed that given the fact almost no citizens ever participate in our city government that the Alderman didn’t listen to their constituents this time. Could they be more deaf to what their community wants? Ward 25 Alderman lost my vote this Nov.

posted by: FacChec on June 4, 2013 11:39am Well said Thomas Alfred Paine, however, there is a system and a process in pratice on how decisions are made on the BOA. First, the Mayor independently makes the deal with the special interest group, in this case(Yale). An ordinance proposal is developed and forwarded to the BOA as a communication. The communication receives a first reading when the board meets, twice a month. The President of the board, Perez, then assigns the communication to committee. A public hearing is announced, but the board has nearly discontinued the practice, by state law, to publish the announcement in the local newspaper(citing cost). It is during the public hearing that the finance committee listens, but hardly recognizes the concerns of the public,and in no way are the majority swayed from their original practice to support perceived financial gain to their coffers. In this instance the BOF cites a growing deficit. One they knew about but ignored since the previous Dec. of 2012. In as much as this matter is concerned, only six persons showed up at the public hearing, five were against and one had a favorable petition from Yale students, students are only part time residents and do not pay New Haven Taxes. The finance committee was undaunted and voted 12 to six to recommend a favorable report to the full board. This report lacked any real substance based on cost factors. But that would not have mattered because the committee does not read understand or care about compound subject matters developed in 1999 and 2005. Upon reaching the full board the majority democrats have a caucus, in this case a one party caucus, where final votes on the item is firmed. So when the public becomes aware of the alder manic vote,they are two meeting too late to affect the outcome.(TL2) This is so in 98% of the votes. So while I applaud the fortitude of the persons who showed up at the meeting, petition in hand, it was and is, too little too late.(TL2).

posted by: getyourfactstraight on June 4, 2013 11:44am I have always been pro-union and actually served as the VP of local 3144. I will say that last night has given me great pause and concern.

How can anyone believe that selling these streets was in the best interest of the city? It was in the best interest of Yale and (I will leave the second comment unwritten)as I think most residents are starting to slowly realize what might be going on here.

These are the residents streets, not the BOA streets to sell off. So dim witted to think that a one time sale will actually bring financial health to the city.

I do agree with alot of the other comments and especially that this could have waited until a new mayor was seated and at that point a new fresh discussion could have been started.

I am so disappointed…... My confidence with many individuals is slowly disappearing along with the great amount of respect I had felt.

So I guess the only thing left to say is a “Thank You” to Hausladen,Mayoral candidate Justin Elicker,Castro,Edwards,Jones-Barnes,Clyburn,Foskey-Cyrus and Russell. I applaud you for trying to maintain the wishes of most residents.

I do not expect to always agree with everything that is done, but this is really a shame.

posted by: DownTownNewHaven on June 4, 2013 12:08pm The Yale Alders should have recused themselves from this vote because of their massive conflict of interest. Shame Shame Shame.

posted by: PH on June 4, 2013 12:08pm This is really a shame. The selling of public space—truly public space, the streets we taxpayers all own and have a right of access to—to private entities should only occur under heightened scrutiny, with a vote to sell carefully considered with full input from the public. This is indeed what has generated the protests in Turkey and I guess the silver lining is that it generated protests here as well, even if smaller and to no ultimate avail. Hopefully this will carry over into the aldermanic elections and voters will think for themselves instead of listening to a union that often does not have their interests at heart. For anyone who thinks that Yale is going to keep these properties in their current, street-like form, I have a bridge to sell you. And for anyone who thinks that Yale will continue to allow unfettered access to the space in the future, I have another bridge to sell you. Prepare the gates as the adjoining residential colleges (and the President’s office) just got new backyards. No swipe card? No access.

posted by: Dwightstreeter on June 4, 2013 12:11pm Yale and other wealthy “non-profits” should pay taxes on their real estate and personal property, not as a “gift”, but as a matter of law.

We cannot afford to subsidize these wealthy entities any longer.

The universe has changed.

Democracy and the Constitution have been diminished since 9/11.

The plutocracy is in charge.

Disrupting a meeting with bullhorns does not offend me at all. People feel not listened to and not respected. The ballot box seems inadequate at times.

Now that the unions and the City are united in their support for development as a way to grow the tax base, be prepared for more outrage.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on June 4, 2013 1:01pm My last post was not allowed.So I will say this.There is no union in power.Last I looked it is the Democratic Party in charge just like in Hartford.I bet you the people who lost there BOA seats who were non union would have voted for this sale.I bet you all of them will be voted back in office.So why all of the crying.You all will keep voted them in.

posted by: mlpavela on June 4, 2013 1:05pm This, as well as the overnight passage of a horrible “campaign finance reform” bill by the State Dems makes for a very sad day in Connecticut. Earlier this morning I sent a note to my alderperson, Brenda Jones-Barnes, thanking her for having voted against; and now I do so more publicly. Thank You Brenda. MP

posted by: Curious on June 4, 2013 1:15pm For anyone who thinks PH is exaggerating, walk down Park street between Edgewood and Elm Street, and see all the gates up that you off Yale property.

posted by: Tim Holahan I know and like many people on both sides of this question. I opposed the sale, and I understand the frustration that others are expressing. Nevertheless, I ask my friends on the “no” side to take it easy. My friends who voted for the sale did so because they believed it was the right thing to do. I am certain that they are not sell-outs, engaging in union-oriented quid pro quo, or “on the plantation” as I was sorry to hear someone heckling them last night. They weren’t happy about the sale, but they believe it’s important to act together in a strategic fashion to get Yale to increase its support for New Haven. They think that agreeing to Yale’s terms will be harmless to New Haven because Yale will not gate or change the nature of these blocks, and that making this deal will give them more leverage in upcoming conversations about voluntary payments. You may disagree with this strategy, or think they are foolish to trust Yale not to put gates up when it suits the corporation. If Yale does close off access in the future, and they are alive to see it, I promise you they will regret it with the rest of us, and admit their mistake. However, if the streets remain as they are, and Yale increases its voluntary support for New Haven, then perhaps they will have been more right than wrong. Time will tell. This is a small town, and a significant majority of us would call ourselves liberals or progressives, if not Democrats. We need to remain civil in order to solve our many, serious problems. We have a rare chance to rededicate ourselves to that work this year, by choosing a new mayor, welcoming if not choosing a new superintendent, and revising our creaky old charter. There’s also a new President of Yale, and he’s not an economist. If you’re angry, forgive and move on. If you can’t forgive, run for office. Whatever the case, remain involved and keep your sense of humor. Take a walk, and remember how lucky you are to live in this beautiful city on this beautiful day.

posted by: SaveOurCity on June 4, 2013 1:49pm Best discussion overhead at the protest; Protester #1: “Why don’t you [Board of Aldermen] sell City Hall?” Protester #2: “It’s already been sold.”

posted by: GoodNatured on June 4, 2013 1:49pm >a GIANT THUMBS-DOWN to John Lugo and Greg Williams for so wantonly disrupting a public meeting. < AMEN to that. On many issues that the Board of Aldermen addresses—MANY issues— you could probably find two people—and sometimes even 25—who feel that their right to be heard trumps everything else. But on none of the other contentious and debatable issues in recent years—NONE—and there were many that were at least as significant and contentious as this—have the disputants brought bullhorns into the chambers. Lugo and Williams showing a striking narcisism—they think their ONE issue is the most important one the aldermen have ever faced, and they alone have the right to shout everybody else down. That’s not how civil government works. A GIANT THUMBS DOWN to you. And word up—in future—I will not support ANY cause where you use these tactics.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on June 4, 2013 1:49pm posted by: Tim Holahan on June 4, 2013 1:27pm My friends who voted for the sale did so because they believed it was the right thing to do. I am certain that they are not sell-outs, engaging in union-oriented quid pro quo, or “on the plantation” as I was sorry to hear someone heckling them last night. They are wrong.what they did is vote against the will of the people.In fact they are elected to vote the will of the people. If you’re angry, forgive and move on. If you can’t forgive, run for office. Whatever the case, remain involved and keep your sense of humor. Take a walk, and remember how lucky you are to live in this beautiful city on this beautiful day. Forgive and Move on.How can you forgive and move on when the will being doing the same thing again.Take a walk.Have you taked a walk around New haven? I have and I have seen so many forsale signs around New Haven.Run for office you say.look at the present electoral system you have now.You will have the same problems.Wake the only hope is TERM Limits and Proportional Representation.

posted by: Noteworthy on June 4, 2013 1:59pm Tim: So you provided the union BORs a fig leaf of dignity for an extremely poor deal. It’s appropriately sized.

posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2013 2:05pm “The adjoining residential colleges and President’s office just got new backyards. No swipe card? No access.” Exactly. For those of us who can afford the $60,000 per year tuition, this area can now become a beautiful, gated oasis much larger than the existing gated area on the Old Campus. Whenever whoever the current leader of Yale is decides to put up the couple hundred feet of new fences, we can say goodbye to our public space. I’m guessing they will wait for another incident like the 2003 Law School pipe bomb before bringing in their contractor. Interestingly, Yale seriously considered this option in 1991, after the Christian Prince murder.

posted by: robn on June 4, 2013 2:30pm QUID PRO QUO!

posted by: cedarhillresident! on June 4, 2013 3:34pm Tim, You are kind and diplomatic. But what is wrong with holding them accountable for their actions. The excuse that they were trying to work with Yale?? Yale has close to half the non taxable property’s in the city I think we have been kind enough. And who were they trying to get a leg in for? The citizens or their members? I think that is there bail out statement. Reality is these alder’s are afraid of losing there seats so they voted the way they were told (I am sure there was some fear tactics involved on some level). And now they have pissed off and voted against their voters. I honestly think a lot of voters are not going to buy the line that they were trying to work with Yale?? But it was kind of you to try to easy the pain.

posted by: Tim Holahan A few people have said they couldn’t find the vote roll call anywhere. Here’s my memory of the way the votes fell (ward, last name, vote). I’m pretty sure it’s accurate, but please correct me if not. 1 - Eidelson - Y

2 - Douglass - Y

3 - James - Y

4 - Jackson-Brooks - Y

5 - Perez - Y

6 - Colón - Y

7 - Hausladen - N

8 - Smart - Y

9 - Holmes - Y

10 - Elicker - N

11 - Constantinople - Y

12 - Stopa - Y

13 - Jones-Barnes - N

14 - Berrios-Bones - Y

15 - Santiago - Y

16 - Castro - N

17 - Paolillo - Y

18 - DeCola - Y

19 - Edwards - N

20 - Clyburn - N

21 - Foskey-Cyrus - N

22 - Morrison - Y

23 - Walker - Y

24 - Hamilton - Y

25 - Marchand - Y

26 - Rodriguez - not present

27 - Russell - N

28 - Robinson-Thorpe - Y

29 - Wingate - Y

30 - Staggers - Y

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on June 4, 2013 4:23pm Across this county Ivy League Colleges are doing land grabbing with the help of Judas Goat politicians.In New York Look at NYU’s Strategy for Future Growth

Update on the NYU Core Plan Summer, 2012

Tenants at Washington Square Village have filed a lawsuit to block NYU’s expansion. Occupants of rent-stabilized apartments in the WSV towers are arguing that the plan would deprive them of exclusive use of the Washington Square Village courtyard, which they claim is ensured as a private open space for their use only under the city’s rent stabilization law. This claim does not reflect the reality of the courtyard, which has always been open to the public. NYU will argue for a dismissal of the suit.

http://www.nyu.edu/nyu2031/nyuinnyc/pdfs/0910_300_Final4_ExecutiveSumWeb.pdf Also you have Columbia moving forward with its own seven billion dollar development plan in an area of West Harlem known as

Manhattanville, neighborhood residents want to ensure that any development takes their community into account. Read the plan. Columbia’s West Harlem Expansion. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/expansion/infosheets/scegbooklet(short-edge).pdf Yale and UNH are now sink there claws in West Haven.Did you know that West Haven Now has a Train Station. The Corporate Plutocracy is now Running New Haven.But You all will still keep on voting them In.

posted by: streever @Tim

I agree that the alders probably don’t think they did anything inherently wrong. Despite that, they did. These same people negotiate hundred million dollars in contracts for labor with Yale, and here they are, selling Yale city land. Which master do they serve? While they may be nice people, and even good people, they are in serious conflict: and they themselves put themselves in that conflict. No one forced them to. These educated, intelligent, and presumably self-aware people made a conscious decision to hold authority over city land and million dollar deals with a corporation that they ALSO are dealing with for hundreds of millions in labor costs. The conflict of interest here isn’t hard, so I think that your kind, good, and honest friends are a bit lax ethically. It isn’t ethical to put yourself in this position. As citizens, we shouldn’t have to run against people. We shouldn’t have to run for office to get leaders who represent US instead of other interests: that is part of the oath of office that your friends took, although they *knew* that they had a conflict of interest. I’d say your friends have made a mistake at some point in their reasoning, and the rest of the city will pay for it. Yes, Yale has no current plan to gate these streets: but they have, over their history, exhibited a variety of plans to gate their entire campus. When they need to, they will gate these streets. Maybe it won’t be in your friends lifetime, but I hope it will be. I hope your friends have to face the very real consequence of their selfish and short-sighted decision-making. Human forgiveness, even in the Christian tradition, exists when one requests forgiveness and admits wrong. Instead, they arrogantly demanding that we all accept their power and authority. I say to the citizens of New Haven: DON’T ACCEPT THEIR POWER. Keep bringing microphones. Stage a protest. Sit-ins. Civil disobedience is how you will free your city from these tyrants.

posted by: HenryCT on June 4, 2013 5:44pm For the Board and Mayor to sell the streets of the city whose residents they represent is not the end of the world. But it is a mistake that sets a terrible precedent. It is an addiction that cannot be satisfied by more sales. To fill this year’s budget shortfall our elected officials are selling the collective property of the city’s residents. On July 1 there will be another budget. If the economy continues in the direction we’ve seen since 2008, the income to provide necessary city services will be missing. Each year the city will desperately try to find resources. What can it sell next? And then what after that? Selling public property is the wrong solution. Take a look at countries like Jamaica, or Argentina, or now Greece and Portugal. After having encouraged these countries to take on unmanageable debt, the financial powerhouses demanded that they sell off public resources to pay back, to privatize everything, to cut education, health care and other services. They require countries to fly their economies into a tailspin. Poverty for the many. Wealth for a very few. This is what is happening in New Haven and in other cities throughout our country. We must not allow this country so rich in resources, creativity, hardworking families, to continue this path in order to super enrich the 1%. We cannot get out and stay out of debt until we demand an end to the spiral of debt, the endless wars and demand an end to the control of our “democratic” federal government by the lobbyists of the 1% and the powerful corporations. No to privatization and austerity - globally and locally.

posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2013 5:57pm It looks horrible, but is there really a legal issue if you are an elected official, and you use your power to sell public assets to your own employer?

posted by: Dwightstreeter on June 4, 2013 6:16pm New Haven needs an Ethics Commission, an Ethics Officer to advise and enforce (currently the Mayor is the enforcer) and well written rules to guide people who may have a conflict of interest. Why wait for the “gotcha” moment? The Charter Revision Commission did not address this.

posted by: Xavier on June 4, 2013 8:17pm Good street theater. It would be helpful if the NHI did a piece on each one of these groups so we can know who they represent, who their leadership it, and how many people they represent. I think we deserve to know that, especially if the NHI routinely gives these people press. Shameful to sell our streets to Yale.

Shameful behavior in the chamber. I commend the police and Perez for a calm response to the situation.

posted by: cedarhillresident! on June 4, 2013 8:50pm Abstain or not to abstain that is the question!

@anonymous I think a few are wondering the same thing. Is it actionable.

posted by: WeR1nhv on June 4, 2013 10:42pm There are no winners here. Except for Yale. And perhaps the union-bashing “progressives” who will benefit from the divide and conquer Yale almost effortlessly executed with this deal. The Elickers, the Strattons, and of course the Fernadezes should pick up some momentum in their political aspirations now - with the support of activists who wouldn’t otherwise line up with these neo-liberals in sheep’s clothing. On the bright side, though we got mere pennies for the streets, at least we didn’t end up losing them in a costly drawn-out court battle with Yale. I wonder if any of you would have preferred that?

posted by: Brian Tang on June 4, 2013 11:10pm Does anyone regret Library Street (between Jonathan Edwards College and Branford College) having become Library Walk? Putting High and Wall on a similar trajectory sounds great to me. These narrow streets are best reserved for bikes, pedestrians, and local access. Since the properties on either side are entirely Yale, transferring responsibility for the design, construction, maintenance, and upkeep of these pedestrian-oriented public spaces to Yale sounds like a perfectly sensible idea to me. In fact I would love for an additional block of High St—from Chapel to Elm—to be similarly converted to a public plaza with accommodation for two-way bicycle traffic and safe conditions for people walking from Old Campus to Library Walk. The city can’t afford this, but maybe Yale could. That said, it would be better to approach this by starting with the vision—an interconnected network of linear plazas to link downtown along High St, Wall St, Orange, and Crown—and then from there see how Yale could help make this dream a reality by taking responsibility for the portion that passes through its campus.

posted by: Bill Saunders on June 5, 2013 2:42am Cedarhill and Anonymous, From a reent discussion I had tonight, I think it is VERY actionable.

posted by: anonymous on June 5, 2013 9:16am Brian: I agree that putting High and Wall on a similar trajectory sounds great. Certainly they are far from that ideal at the moment. However, because of this vote, the public no longer has any control over that. At the whim of the Yale Corporation, the streets may be closed to the public, or in the case of Wall may continue to operate as high-speed one way roads.

posted by: NH observer on June 5, 2013 9:34am 3-million seems quite cheap for FOREVER - wouldn’t charging an annual fee (like a lease) have been a better idea… considering Yale doesn’t have to pay taxes on their real estate in the city - even for those building where they charge astronomical rates to businesses? They live in New Haven too, why not help carry the burden?

posted by: HhE on June 5, 2013 10:23am I am opposed to bull horns at BoA meeting almost as much as I am opposed to this sale. I am sure Yale will gate off this area. They may wait until the controversy dies down, or until a crime takes place here, but I am sure it will happen. NH observer, Yale pays property tax on all of its commercial properties. Yes Brian Tang, save that now Yale can close off these streets. Had we left well enough alone—as I had recommended when this first came up—we would have had the good without the risk. Instead, we shook Yale down for 3 million that has already been spent. It is a bad business all around.

posted by: VinnyOx on June 5, 2013 12:17pm Oh wow. The alders who are also employed by Yale University definitely should have abstained. There’s definitely a red flag there - and I’m just going to have to agree with anonymous when I say didn’t those same folks JUST endorse Harp?

posted by: streever Brian:

I agree with that end goal, but sadly, this deal gives Yale the latitude to do anything—including bulldozing and replacing those streets with kiosks selling DIY bike to car conversion kits. The status quo would have been to agree to Yale continuing to have sole vehicular access, for free, with another review in the future.

posted by: quinnipiacave on June 6, 2013 6:27am It’s dismaying to read these comments, which are all too typical of what I see, over and over, from NHI readers: near hysteria (they’re going to gate these streets!), paranoia, belief that any large institution is, by default, evil, and overbearing animosity for Yale, which has done a lot for New Haven over the past twenty years and is committed to continuing what has been a very productive relationship for both parties. The alders who voted for this deal did the sensible thing. The streets had already been sold to Yale over twenty years ago. Some of those involved in the original deal have said the “review” was only meant to determine whether the transfer is working (which it clearly is). The only reason more money was asked for was because some union-backed alders saw an opportunity to discomfit Yale and hold it’s feet to the fire. Yale dutifully coughed up more cash. The city didn’t sell the “streets” (actually, four blocks which go nowhere in particular) for $3M; Yale has contributed over $50M as part of the deal. The city got more money for streets that some alders correctly noted are largely unused and won’t be missed. I’m particularly disappointed by Justin Elicker (who just lost my vote), and Doug Hausladen, who seems to be trying out his righteous-anger, campaign face. Pathetic.

posted by: westville man on June 6, 2013 9:02am @ Quinnipiacave- nice comment. Simply slam the readership to get in your opinion.

I am one who happens to think that Yale has taken more than it has given. It hasnt been a great partner. To those who say New Haven would be Bridgeport w/o Yale, I say Yale wouldn’t be a billion dollar corporation w/o New Haven. That’s not hysteria. The land grabs that are going on are alarming. No taxes are coming in from them (with due respect to Hhe, Yale decides what’s commercial and what’s “educational”)

For what it’s worth, I have worked in New Haven for 30 yrs, lived here for 15, hold an advanced degree and have family & friends who work at Yale. I’m not crazy, i just know what’s fair when I see it.

posted by: Curious on June 6, 2013 10:40am quinnipiacave, welcome to the NHI comments. Always good to see a first-time poster. I don’t see how THIS loses Elicker your vote, as he’s been pretty steady on this opinion the while time.

posted by: robn on June 6, 2013 11:31am It’s false to say that the deal 20 years ago was a sale or a lease with permanent terms. If that were so, what exactly would be the purpose of the infamous 20th year review?

posted by: streever @quinnipiacave

I’m not sure what to make of your comment. The streets are, indeed, under-utilized. They have been closed to public traffic for 20 years, so I’m not surprised by that, but I don’t think it is a fair sole judgement on the situation. We don’t know that no one wants to use them, or that they don’t have a better use in some other form. The most sensible resolution would have been to simply hold the review, state that the city doesn’t see a current need to take back ownership of the roads in question, and then allow Yale to continue using them with another review in the future. What you call paranoia, I call, the knowledge that “Forever” is a very long time. While I—and I suspect you—trust the current leadership of Yale to not abuse the unmanaged ownership of the streets that they now have, I don’t trust the leadership of Yale in 50 years. The deal at the very least should have set some common sense protections in place, to ensure that Yale can’t excessively change, gate, or fill-in the streets in question. To not do so is a short-sighted. I’m not convinced that you were a Justin voter before: I don’t think that his desire to see common-sense protections for the future here is enough to convince someone to vote against him! Obviously, you don’t have to convince me, but I’m very skeptical that his moderate position on this matter would have swayed you. If you are sincere, I wonder if you aren’t conflating people who you think are being less moderate on the issue with Elicker? I assure you, the comments section of the NHI is not a good place to find Elicker’s position or policies.

posted by: anonymous on June 6, 2013 1:39pm WV, no matter what your feelings are about Yale, the fact is that the Board Leadership has permanently given away some of the most important public space in our city, which citizens use every day and night to get around town, go to work, visit friends, and shop at local stores. Once it is gone you can’t get it back. Most members of the Board of Aldermen are “civic elites” (relatively speaking) who probably drive everywhere. So they don’t realize what the city really looks like to the majority of city residents, who don’t use a car to get around.

posted by: SaveOurCity on June 6, 2013 2:13pm I am far from a supporter of, or apologist for, Yale. However, I am far more confident that the Yale Board of Trustees will have the wisdom and financial wherewithal to manage these streets for the than I am that City hall will have the same.

posted by: quinnipiacave on June 6, 2013 8:46pm @streever

The streets are only underutilized by vehicles. They are highly utilized by pedestrians and cyclists, exactly the thing NHI commenters are constantly clamoring for…unless it involves Yale then, oops, I guess you need to oppose it. We do know that the present arrangement has worked very well for 20 years. They’re streets, the only “other form” they might take would be one in which they’re open to vehicles. If citizens were clamoring for the right to be able to continue down High Street for two more blocks to Grove, I missed it. People seem to think Yale should have paid more for some ill defined reason. We don’t charge more for something based on the wealth of the buyer; we set a fair price determined by the market. The valuation of the streets was set by a neutral third party. Does anyone honestly believe that any other party would have paid more than $3M for these streets, surrounded by Yale’s campus, for the right to maintain them? It’s amusing to listen to you decide on my political views based on no knowledge of me whatsoever, other than a few paragraphs here. It’s possible that Elicker actually believes what he said on this issue, in which case I think he simply has incredibly poor judgment. More likely, he’s pandering to the unions, a reliable vote-pulling block in the city, in which case, well, never mind.

posted by: HhE on June 6, 2013 10:42pm quinnipiacave, I am mostly with you for the first two paragraphs of your two posts. Mostly. Where I take issue with your position is your two third paragraphs. Justin Elicker and Doug Hausladen are opposed to this sell of a city asset to plug a budget gap, as are many of us. The original deal allowed for periodic reviews to ensure this arrangement was suitable to both parties (things change). Justin Elicker and Doug Hausladen have been consistent leaders in getting government to be more responsive and transparent. Justin pandering to the unions? I cannot see anyone who has been playing close attention to New Haven politics drawing that conclusion. Streever’s assessment of your apparent position did strike me as rather well reasoned. To my mind, shaking down Yale was ill advised. Yale is the 600 pound gorilla in the room that gets to sit where it wants. Fortunately, it is a friendly gorilla. What I opine ought to have happened. “Hello Yale, City of New Haven here. How are you? Well, it has been twenty years, and we think the street deal is working well all in all. What do you think?” If there were any minor issues, they could be worked out then. “Well, let us agree to review this again in twenty years time.”

posted by: streever @quinnipiacave

I’m not actually deciding your political views, but telling you that there is a logical disconnect: Elicker pandering to unions? The union supports this sale, so I am confused by your position—not dictating it. It doesn’t seem to make sense. The point I think you are missing is that the original deal with Yale was contingent on reviews. The new deal is contingent on nothing. While, yes, we both trust Yale’s current administration, it seems very naive to me to imagine that—50 years from now—Yale will still operate the same way with the city. Harvard doesn’t have the same relationship with Boston currently that Yale does with us. We don’t have the same relationship with Yale that we did 30 years ago, when Yale was actually trying to gate off their campus. How do you know another 10 years won’t bring us an isolationist Yale? You don’t, so why give up the rights to these streets forever, when we could have maintained our 20 year review? Times, and people, change. I don’t think we should give up a set of streets which you agree are heavily utilized by pedestrians **forever**, which is the key issue people have with this. I recycle and limit my consumption, because people 50 years in the future may appreciate it. I assume you do to. I wish that our lawmakers also cared about the future, but this fire-sale of city property doesn’t demonstrate that. I agree with Hhe as to what should have happened—and that is exactly what Elicker proposed. It isn’t some unreasonable, shrieking insanity, as you seem to think.