After Losing Vote, Builder May Bail

by Paul Bass | Dec 11, 2015 1:56 am

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

Posted to: Business/ Economic Development, City Hall, Housing, The Hill

Jessica Holmes had a gun — a figurative gun — pointed to her head Thursday night. She didn’t blink. At least Holmes concluded that a figurative gun, in the form of an “either/or” choice that sounded fishy, was being pointed by city officials. She rejected that choice, and voted with her colleagues to table a decision on whether to allow a controversial development project to proceed. Holmes, an East Rock alder, was chairing a public meeting at City Hall that could prove crucial to the fate of the project planned for an amoeba-shaped stretch of the Hill decimated by mid-20th Century urban renewal. Developer Randy Salvatore is looking to pay the city $1.25 million for two of ten pieces of property there (and then a to-be-determined “fair market value” worth millions more) in order to build 140 apartments, 7,000 square feet of stores, 120,000 square feet of research space, and 50,000 square feet of offices on 20 acres bounded by Church Street South, Amistad Street, Cedar Street, Congress Avenue, College Street, and South Frontage Road. (Read more about the plan here and here.) First Salvatore needs the city’s Board of Alders to vote to rezone the land in question from a BA to a BD-3 district, accommodating taller buildings (up to 70 feet) and denser development with a wider mix of uses (like apartments and labs). He needs the alders to vote as well to amend the project area’s map as well as a previous land-sale agreement the city struck in 1989 with a potential developer who never ended up building there. (That developer has now brought in Salvatore as a partner) Salvatore has won neighborhood support for two other projects in town, a recently completed luxury apartment building at Chapel and Howe streets and a newly announced proposed renovation of the former C. Cowles factory on Water Street. But neighbors have raised a range of objections to his Hill plan. Those objections carried over to the public hearing Holmes chaired Thursday night, a joint meeting of the board’s Community Development and Legislation committees. At a two-hour public session—a carry-over from a previous extended hearing — city officials and Salvatore pleaded with the ten committee members present to approve the zoning and sale-agreement changes and send them to the full board for final approval. Neighbors criticized it for including too little affordable housing, too-tall buildings, the wrong kind of businesses, or, most of all, too little public input. After the public session, the committees voted unanimously to table the proposed changes until officials return to the neighborhood to meet with seniors at the Tower One/Tower East complex as well as the steering committee of a “Hill-to-Downtown” planning group. Holmes praised Salvatore’s willingness to work with the neighborhood as well as the “improvements” made to the original plan for the complex. But she and her colleagues said the neighborhood needs to have more say first in how to make the project even better before the alders will allow it to proceed. “This is not to say we are not in favor of beginning a partnership” based on the proposal’s underlying principles, Holmes said. But after the vote, a “disappointed” Salvatore said he will now reexamine whether to proceed with the project. “I’ve really got to reconsider everything right now,” he said. “We invested a lot of time in this project. I thought we had [community support]. We met with a lot of people. ... I’m a little confused. I’m a little distraught. Obviously [the project] is in jeopardy. I would like to develop where people want me to develop. I don’t want to be here if the community doesn’t want me to be here.” The 9th “Whereas” A turning point in the evening came when officials sought to salvage the project’s progress with what Holmes concluded was a false dilemma. She reached that conclusion in part by paying close attention to the “whereas” clauses in the documents submitted to her committee. The officials made the salvage plea after neighbors like Anita Cotton (pictured above) of Tower One/Tower East testified against the project. Cotton said she and her neighbors already “have so much pollution from the traffic coming off the highway” and would rather see the lot next to them turned into a park rather than, as Salvatore envisions, a lab building. Donna Greene of Salem street argued that “we need more grocery stores,” not bioscience facilities. “They’re making work space for everybody that doesn’t live in New Haven,” complained Helen Dawson-Martin of Liberty Street, who sits on that Hill-to-Downtown steering committee, a group formed with city a couple of years ago to produce a long-term plan for developing the area between the train station and the Yale medical district, which includes the proposed Salvatore development. Another speaker, Anstress Farwell of the Urban Design League, criticized the plan for including only 10 percent affordable housing—and defining “affordable” for people who earn 80 to 120 percent of the area’s median income. Hill Alder Dolores Colon (at left in photo), who represents the neighborhood, testified that despite a letter sent by Tower One/Tower East’s president in support of the project, most seniors there with whom she spoke this week oppose the project—mostly because they hadn’t heard about it. (Colon took some of the blame for not informing them.) She said those neighbors and others consider the proposal a “done deal” crafted before they had enough say. She submitted a letter from five members of the steering committee, including former Hill Alder (now state Banking Commissioner Jorge Perez), opposing the proposal for now because city planners and Salvatore didn’t bring it before the Hill-to-Down steering committee until late in the process. City Economic Development Administrator Matthew Nemerson came forward to try to rescue the project by reminding the alders that this isn’t a new land-sale agreement (technically called a Development Land Disposition Agreement or DLDA). It’s a much-improved updating of an existing DLDA struck in 1989 and in force until 2025. Under the original plan the owner would pay the city only $150,000 for all the land and put up a dreaded (in new-urbanist circles) parking lot next to Tower One/Tower East. And the owner can still carry out that undesirable plan as of right, he suggested. “Do you have any reason to believe that would ever happen?” Holmes asked Nemerson. “I do,” he responded. “It hasn’t happened all these years!” Holmes pointed out, noting that the old plan has remained in place with no action for 26 years. The market has changed, Nemerson responded; New Haven’s hot now. Plus, he said, two schools that would be torn down under that originally plan had previously been occupied (meaning it would take longer to clear them out). They’re empty now. ‘The clock’s ticking,” he said. Holmes wasn’t buying. Two experts—city attorney John Ward and Carolyn Kone, attorney for the current and previous developer—swooped to either side of Nemerson at the table. “Welcome!” Nemerson proclaimed. “The lawyers have arrived.” The lawyers assured Holmes that the developer can, and may very well indeed, proceed with the undesirable previous plan if the alders failed to advance the zoning and LDLA changes Thursday night. Kone said the old plan included putting up that parking garage as well as assisted-living facilities. Holmes offered a reason why she remained doubtful that the only choice was to immediately advance the new plan or else see the old plan proceed. Or that the original plan would ever materialize at all. The reason came in the very proposed order Nemerson’s department submitted to the alders to approve the LDLA change. The document begins with 19 “whereas” clauses. The ninth of those whereases begins: “WHEREAS A.M.A. [the pre-Salvatore partnership owning the property] has determined that the implementation of the Project has become impractical due to market conditions ...” In other words, the developer and city officials themselves argued that the changes should be approved—because the original plan isn’t economically feasible to carry out. Salvatore took a turn assuring the alders that he will continue to meet with all interested parties, as he has in recent months, and that he is confident he can meet all concerns. But he needs these initial zoning and LDLA changes in order to start fleshing out details and get started on what wil be a years-long process, he said. Livable City Initiative (LCI) Executive Director Serena Neal-Sanjurjo reminded the alders that her staff has met with neighbors for years to develop the Hill-to-Downtown plan, and she promised that it will continue to work closely with neighbors on the details on the proposed portion of the district that Salvatore would develop. It was too late. Colon formally proposed (in video) that the committee table all three votes—on the zoning and map changes and the amended DLDA—until planners meet with the Tower One/Tower East seniors and the Hill-to-Downtown steering committee. Her proposal passed unanimously. The project was officially stalled. Tomorrow’s Another Day After the vote, Nemerson pledged to respond to the request to organize meetings with neighbors. And he vowed to work hard to convince Salvatore to stick with the project. “We heard loud and clear that we have to do better. We have to do more. This is a city that wants more conversation,” he said. “No other city—except maybe a few neighborhoods in New York”—would tell a developer “who wants to invest” more than $100 million that his plan is “not good enough,” Nemerson added. “You know what? That’s what makes New Haven great. We’re going to figure out how to do it.” Jessica Holmes has heard such criticism before. Years ago she helped kill a proposal to build new housing at the old Star Supply factory in her Goatville neighborhood. Then, as now, she argued that planners failed to take into consideration neighborhood concerns about parking and gentrification. Critics accused her of killing needed new jobs and taxes. But the developer ended up returning to the neighborhood, holding meetings, crafting what all sides considered a better plan—and now the project is under construction. Thursday night Holmes and colleagues Colon and Adam Marchand made a point of stressing that they’re looking to improve, not stop, Salvatore’s Hill plan. “This is a bump. This is not the end. At least I hope it’s not,” Holmes remarked. Holmes said the same in a conversation after the meeting with another disappointed player, Cliff WInkel. Winkel is the developer who originally struck the 1989 DLDA with the city to build on the property and has now brought Salvatore in as a partner for the new version of the project. “This is the old Board of Aldermen,” Winkel grumbled. He claimed he just “may have to” go ahead and build that big concrete garage next to Tower One/Tower East and new assisted-living facilities. “This is definitely not a ‘no’” to the new plan, Holmes assured him. The two shook hands. “We’ll get there,” Winkel told her.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Wikus van de Merwe on December 11, 2015 7:09am 1989 to 2015, so 26 years? I’ll be interested to see the next step of this saga in 2041. I wonder if the portion of the collective hive mind that inhabits that section of the city will still be able to muster enough nimby to shut it down for another two and a half decades.

posted by: Bradley on December 11, 2015 8:42am I like and respect Jessica. I worked with her on the Star Supply project, which is turning out very well in part due to her efforts. But that success was due in large part to timing. The developer of that project was applying for zoning changes at a time when rental vacancy rates were extraordinarily low. Since then hundreds of units have been built and more than one thousand are under construction or have been approved. Moreover, the Star Suppy developer needed a zone change to build housing on the site. That is not the case here. While the Star Supply site zoning process resulted in a better development, it also had unintended consequences. Amazon was dissuaded from locating its new distribution facility iat the CT Transit bus depot site as a result of the protracted negotiations at the Star Supply site. (This is according to a state official who was intimately involved with the negotiations with Amazon.) The distribution facility was built elsewhere in the state. New developers have come in with a very good proposal for the bus depot site. But if approved, it will result in far fewer jobs, particularly for people without college degrees.

posted by: robn on December 11, 2015 8:46am Star Supplyis a good analogy because it was held up for the same reason; neighbors without driveways who staked claim to street parking. Ridiculous.

posted by: Esbey on December 11, 2015 9:57am Alder Jessica Holmes is leading a fight to keep property taxes high by stopping new tax-paying development. I wonder if the folks who voted for her are happy with their high taxes; she must think so. Alder Conlon must think there are too many jobs in New Haven; no more job-creating biotech buildings for us. She is going to lie to local residents, telling them to just think up what they would like to see in the plan (parks! grocery stores! manufacturing jobs!) without any money to pay for them. It is cruel. They say they are “looking to improve the plan,” by which they mean demand changes that may make the project uneconomical and therefore non-existent. If the plans dies, we know who to blame. And it is not just this plan. What developer wants to walk into this NIMBY hold-up mess? There is no question that even if this development is salvaged, Alder Holmes is discouraging new development and driving taxes up.

posted by: anonymous on December 11, 2015 10:07am The Alders are voting to support the interests of wealthy property owners, who want to see the rents they charge continue to increase by 20% every year due to the severe lack of housing in New Haven. The longer that the Alders can delay new housing like this, the better off the top 1% will be. Given the severe housing crisis we face in which many city residents (but probably no Alders) are doubling and tripling up into tiny apartments, any new housing development in the city should be immediately fast-tracked and approved, regardless of how many affordable units it has. Those 500 residents who would have moved into Salvatore’s complex next year will now be seeking housing in our neighborhoods and displacing those residents into overcrowded or inconvenient units in places like West Haven.

posted by: BetweenTwoRocks I don’t know how anybody can read this without getting a little annoyed by.. well… everyone. The residents of Tower One and Two would prefer a park? Great. Who’s gonna pay for that? And what, exactly, do you think a park in the middle of The Hill is gonna end up looking like, exactly? And hey, I’m all for more grocery stores, too, but again—who’s gonna do it? I don’t see anybody volunteering to open a grocery store. Elm City Market already seemingly operates at a loss. How did all of these residents, who have never even heard of this development, develop such strong feelings about it? However, I have to say that the tactics employed by Nemerson and Salvatore were pretty gross as well. “If you don’t let us build this, we’re just going to build a giant parking garage SO THERE.” I mean, really? I understand this is how it works—negotiation tactics and all—but it just seems there should be a more efficient process whereby we don’t end up with such wild swings in opinion. We all agree we need to increase the taxpayer base and create more development, especially in the economically suppressed areas. Why is it this hard? Isn’t Colon representing these people? Why is everybody in her district in the dark? Frustrating to say the least.

posted by: Noteworthy on December 11, 2015 10:27am The NHI won’t publish what I really think about every comment from every single person who opposed this $100 million development, including the alders and the public. Absolutely astounding. And embarrassing. #GSCIA

posted by: Atticus Shrugged on December 11, 2015 11:32am The Board of Alders has stalled progress for little to no reason. And it indeed shows the problem of letting people who do not have relevant business experience be decision makers. That you would continue to let a neighborhood mired in poverty remain that way because neighbors do not feel their concerns have been sufficiently heard is ludicrous. That the alders or neighbors want more “affordable” housing misses the point that building new housing is expensive and unless the developer is seeking LIHTC, utterly unaffordable. And if the developer is seeking tax credits, the state government will determine whether the mix is appropriate. That anyone can say, “they’re building for people who don’t live here” and not understand that is the point is silly. Yes, the buildings are designed to bring a market that has left New Haven back to New Haven. The rising tide will actually make the Hill neighborhood better. And more diverse. There has not been a single, legitimate business-minded complaint. And that actually needs to stop. The alders should take their position seriously and start behaving as though they owe all of New Haven a duty of care and stop acting in their own self interest. More importantly, the Harp administration truly needs to do a complete overhaul of zoning to make progress easier. But the Board would most likely halt that because it’s how alders make a name for themselves.

posted by: Adelaide on December 11, 2015 11:41am A HUGE TY to the BOA!! And now Mr. Salvatore it is time for you to pack up and return to from where u came. At the monthly Management Team mtg. held this past TUes. with Hill North and South, the mood in the room - a room filled with HILL RESIDENTS not developers and lawyers btw - was a definite and resounding NO. In the plan proposed there is no room for GOOD jobs. They are low paying, non union, no benefits jobs. Two of the buildings say offices however, these are offices holding less than 5 emps. each anddd they again are typically low paying held by women jobs.The housing is ridiculously OVER priced. THe Novella 2 bed. rm. ROOMATE STYLE apt. starts at $2700.00 a month!! No one I know in or out of the Hill can afford that!! Maybe I need to find wealthier friends!! New Haven is not and never has been ugly Stamford. Unlike Stamford we do not support jobs given to those who live out of state! Many Stamford emps. live in NY! We will not tolerate an out of town developer when the talent is HERE. We give lip service to local businesses - time to pony up to reality guys!! Antress, TY TY TY!!! Medical emergency kept me away and you have my heart!! We can not and we will not tolerate this level of residential segregation. Dont say gentrification - that is too gentle. Call it what it is - us vs. them!! And to that we say NO! Harp, we say NO!! Salvatore we say NO!! Nemerson, we say NO! Oh and one more thing, ever notice how when these guys are pushed back they start with the threats?? Good, dont continue Salvatore, thats what we want! Or and Have a Happy Holiday from THE HILL!

posted by: STANDUP on December 11, 2015 11:48am I agree with Jessica Holmes. Its about the neighborhood and the people that LIVE in the neighborhood. Thank you for showing the respect for their lives and hard earned tax dollars . I care and would also appreciate being able to add my two cents on what goes on in my home. Yes, we also have to make sure its successful for all parties.

posted by: Justacommentor2 on December 11, 2015 11:48am NHI please clarify in the article as it is my understanding that the $1.25 million were for the purchase of the 2 schools and the other parcels the Developer would pay Fair Market Value (which is best determined -for the City’s Benefit- AFTER the zone change is made creating more value in the land). This could have been MILLIONS of dollars in the sale of land for the City as well as a more vibrant Hill neighborhood. The Developer also agreed to work collaboratively with Neighbors and Residents….This is a circus…ESPECIALLY since NOTHING BUT the Church is there now. What do people want?? 3 Senior residents is NOT representative of the over 300 or more residents at Tower One / Tower East (already a tall building technically downtown)....and a Park is just not an efficient use based on that location…move to the suburbs if you don’t want obstructed views..you live in a CITY…. The Developer agreed to work with the Community…Many Meeting were held…and the same people who CLAIM they have not been aware are in other NHI articles having attended meetings from back from AUGUST!!! Crazy…I’ve heard many say New Haven is going to start wearing a DO NOT DEVELOP sign…after this deboggle i’m starting to believe it…Very disappointed in the elected officials at this…this was clearly a home run for a neighborhood that needs it…he isn’t having this problem in Wooster Square…Alder Colon should be ashamed of herself…How can he discuss the details of a development that he DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS TO…This was making an old city agreement better…I guess the Hill Residents will feel it in the end…hope they don’t continue to complain after this opportunity passed…these were complicated lots that no one else really wanted to build on…Good Luck to RMS and its soon to be successful C Cowles redevelopment…With actions like this, the Hill will have a hard time seeing progress.

[Ed.: Yes, you are correct. The $1.25 is for two parcels out of 10 for the land. The rest will carry an as-yet undecided “fair market value” which would certainly add millions of dollars more.]

posted by: Scot on December 11, 2015 12:01pm The current proposal sounds great to me. Nevertheless, a few things I wished this article addressed:

1. How did Winkel retain exclusive rights to the land when the 1989 deal didn’t come to fruition? How is someone allowed to maintain such rights when they do nothing for 26 years?

2. If the current plan falls through (say Salvatore backs out because he can’t get the zone changes he wants), then what happens? Can the city seek bids from other developers or does the 1989 contract prohibit that from happening (which would seem inexplicable to me)?

3. $1.25 million seems incredibly low for 20 acres of desirable downtown property. Where did this number come from, was it from the 1989 contract? wouldn’t there be adjustments for inflation and considering New Haven is not the same city it was in 1989?

4. Has the city reached out to any other developers, or have any other developers expressed interest in the area, in the event the current developers back out? The 1989 contract sounds like a god-awful deal for the city and a great deal for Winkel. Can the NHI elaborate on the details of the contract, and why the city is still bound by it after 26 years of nothing happening? Just very curious how much the city could sell this land for, and what other proposals might be on the table, if the 1989 contract could have been terminated.

posted by: NHGreen02 on December 11, 2015 12:18pm It is embarrassing that a gaggle of people who are too old to be around for the next stage of New Haven are constantly putting selfish things in front of those which would benefit the next generation. The notion that an old person wants to focus on a manufacturing plant that won’t be coming should be a side comment that we all pleasantly allow and then move on to the reality of the situation. I am starting to think that we need about five people on a city council instead of a squadron of unqualified obstructionists.

posted by: DRAD on December 11, 2015 12:22pm We really do no need better Alders. Thirty alders is just too many and allows the unprepared and unqualified to contribute to serious discussions about the future and direction of this city. It is inconceivable to me that the knee-jerk reaction of poorly represented and informed residents can derail development of a section of the city that has been left to rot for over a generation. Also, to my fellow NHI comment posters - the gratuitous use of capital letters is juvenile.

posted by: Morgan Barth on December 11, 2015 12:33pm Alders Holmes, Marchand and Colon are making a very big and very risky bet that the developer will be willing to come back to the table and play these games. On the one hand, the BoA made this wager and essentially won with Star. On the other hand most of the time New Haven loses and the development goes to the suburbs or out of state. As a city and as a state we are getting really, really good and crushing innovation, driving away business and jobs (at all levels.) Yes, I know New Haven is still haunted by the ghosts of urban renewal past—and we should remain vigilant about any proposal that destroys housing stock…and should never go back to the bad old days of using eminent domain to build highways, etc. I used to work on Prince Street…and believe me this development is not displacing anything or anyone other than empty lots, surface parking and two abandoned school buildings. The neighborhood is dead thanks to the 50s/60s scar of Route 34. And yet building high density housing, research, commercial is the best bet to bring back any vibrancy. There is already a relatively new park in the vicinity - Amistad Park. I also hope the neighborhood gets a grocery store…but that doesn’t happen by wishing and hoping and blocking development - it happens when there is a sufficient critical mass in the neighborhood to support a store. I think the Tower residents are right that they live in an isolated space with insufficient amenities - and no doubt that the highway throws off pollution…but I do not see how blocking the very development that would make the area more livable is productive. Bottom line, we need to update zoning laws. I’m no expert, but by observing these processes it seems that the zoning variances is the place where all these projects get held up by NIMBY complaints and pie-in-the-sky ideas for these alternative fantasy projects for which there is no real money or interest. Alders: Help us understand your thinking here, please!

posted by: 1644 on December 11, 2015 12:34pm Pure idiocy on the part of Holmes and the city. Making workspace for people who do not live in the city? WHo does that woman think pay the taxes that support her? Moreover, if quality apartments are built, a good number of those workers will live in the city, supporting city businesses even more than they would just working in the city. So, instead of increasing the Grand List to lighten the load on East Rock taxpayers, Holmes votes to keep the land unproductive. Idiocy.

posted by: BetweenTwoRocks It absolutely blows my mind that people would prefer two empty schools and a parking lot to new development because it’s not for (current) New Haven residents and the jobs aren’t good enough. How many jobs is the current parking lot providing? None? Oh, good. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

posted by: mohovs on December 11, 2015 1:23pm The real issue is that the Zoning Code in New Haven is out dated and doesn’t address progressive urban planning. Nemerson says “No other city—except maybe a few neighborhoods in New York”—would tell a developer “who wants to invest” more than $100 million that his plan is “not good enough,” The truth is many cities have better zoning codes that express the vision for that particular city. Thus directing the developer down a path that the city desires. The fact that a parking garage can be built as of rite, and anything of real worth needs a special approval is proof that the code poorly represents the future view of New Haven. Thank you Alder Holmes for asking the tough questions.

posted by: AverageTaxpayer on December 11, 2015 1:32pm @ NHI, PLEASE HELP FOLLOW THE MONEY! 1. Certainly this can’t be 20acres for $1.25 Million? The Salvation Army parcel, at .89acre just went for $5,050,000, and the Landion/Route 34 West giveaway was 5.39acres for $2.65 Million. So something seems wrong here. [Ed: Two of the parcels would go for $1.25 million—the estimate is $3-5 million for the rest based on fair makret value.] 2. It kind of sounds as if the City is honoring the $1.25 Million sales price 26 years later, and also throwing in a couple of schools as well? Can that possibly be true? [Original price was more in $150,000 range—I fixed the typo on that from late last night.] 3. Finally, someone suggested that Yale and/or YNHH might be a silent partner on this deal, as they’ve been on several recent developments. Could the NHI help suss that out? All in all I marvel that such a big transaction can be on the verge of taking place without more exact finacial details available to the citizenry. Projected/guaranteed tax revenues should be part of the decision-making on any of these lands deals too. NHI, can you help us out here? Thanks as always!

posted by: theNEWnewhaven on December 11, 2015 1:34pm “Dont say gentrification - that is too gentle. Call it what it is - us vs. them!! And to that we say NO! Harp, we say NO!! Salvatore we say NO!! Nemerson, we say NO!” ( Cringes while reading) WOW. How embarrassing. This collection of naysayers are so entitled I cannot comprehend your mindset. This area is a mess, derelict, and sad. This development is a HUGE opportunity for us ALL. Stop being so selfish and realize what this will do for the city as a whole. PLEASE, developers…do not give up on us… We have a much larger community mindset than alders who do not inform and elderly who complain about pollution living alongside a highway in the downtown core of a medium sized city in the heart of the megalopolis Bos-Wash corridor. So embarrassing.

posted by: Paul Wessel on December 11, 2015 1:50pm Ironic story about grocery stores, the Board of Alders, and the Hill: About 10 years ago, CTown, a grocer which has figured out a successful formula for operating in inner-city neighborhoods, wanted to add a second store to New Haven. They had successfully taken over the old Pegnataro’s in Fair Haven and wanted to open on Greenwich Avenue in Kimberly Square in the Hill. CTown needed City approval and a Hill alder stopped it because CTown had not presented to the Management Team. A Management Team meeting was scheduled. Few neighborhood residents showed but the existing merchants turned out in force and voted to oppose the entry by a competitor. After the meeting, CTown, its architect and a city economic development staffer were standing outside the meeting hall trying to figure out alternate locations. The alder came up to the group and assured that despite the vote, the approval would be forthcoming. It did. CTown opened and continues to operate in Hill - about a mile from Tower One. It’s the Kabuki Theater of urban economic development.

posted by: HewNaven on December 11, 2015 3:21pm This whole episode, and others like it, really boil down to the following binary choice: Do CURRENT residents and potential NEIGHBORS of a given development proposal know what is best for themselves, or do people from OUTSIDE the neighborhood know what is better. Of course, the truth is some combination of those 2 choices, so anyone arguing exclusively for one option is LYING.

posted by: Razzie on December 11, 2015 3:35pm Hmnn .... This scenario reminds me of the Courtyard Marriott Residence Inn situation a little more than 1 year ago. http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/new_hotel_development_hits_roadblock/ http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/welcome_to_new_haven_kind_of/ http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/opposition_surfaces_to_new_downtown_inn/ The end result of that Aldermanic dabble into development policy was the developer’s summary pull out from the New Haven market. And instead of a new Residence Inn (and its contribution to the Grand list and additional jobs for New Haven residents) we are left with a run down surface lot covered by an unsightly wood pile full of God knows what! This game of “development Chicken” by the Alders needs to stop.

posted by: robn on December 11, 2015 4:02pm HN You’ve presented a false binary. As I understand it the developers have a long ago negotiated right to buy the land from the city (affecting ALL taxpayers, not just those in the neighborhood).

posted by: robn on December 11, 2015 4:04pm RAZZIE, Is it correct that the Marriot developers flat out walked?

posted by: NHGreen02 on December 11, 2015 4:22pm Neighborhoods — or just those who have the time to show up to meetings — shouldn’t possess the power to make dumb decisions that are harmful to the whole city. Reading that someone wants a grocery store within blocks of another one is ridiculous. These are not people who understand supply and demand. Their opinion should matter little.

posted by: Politics 101 on December 11, 2015 4:23pm HewNaven: Respectfully, that’s not really the question. The question is whether current residents are entitled to greater input in a community’s development than are those who don’t currently (don’t yet, as other commenters have stated it) reside in the community. I tend to think that there’s no principled reason to privilege the perspective of current residents. Development decisions have spill over effects (building a coal fired power plant in neighborhood A results in air pollution in neighborhood B, town C’s refusal to build multi-family housing raises rents in town D, a mall in place E kills downtown retail in place F, city G’s refusal to develop densely near transit nodes undermines an entire transit system, etc.) that we are too quick to underestimate. And, more precisely to your question regarding who knows best, we all tend to assume that current residents know the neighborhood better than anyone else and, therefore, are best-situated to make decisions regarding development. But, on the contrary, the economics scholarship persuasively argues that current residents are irrationally risk-averse. They refuse to acknowledge region-level market dynamics and stubbornly refuse to be cognizant of spill-over effects. Simply put, they make bad decisions. We shouldn’t disenfranchise them, but we shouldn’t disproportionately empower them to the detriment of folks in the broader region. Of course we do disproportionately empower them and the effects on the economy and housing prices in particular are really quite terrible. In the suburbs we call those bad decisions exclusionary zoning and we sometimes, in our saner moments, enact and enforce state laws intended to cabin that dreadful phenomenon. But it’s equally a problem in our cities; it just manifests differently. I hope Alder Holmes made the right bet. She didn’t just place it on behalf of Hill residents, she placed it on behalf of all of us.

posted by: Esbey on December 11, 2015 4:52pm Robn, yes the owners of the Marriott, facing Alder Frank Douglass’ outrageous hold-up attempt, sold the property and left town. That is the risk that Alder Holmes is now taking, on our behalf, with the entire Hill to Downtown development. I hope she personally pays some noticeable part of my real estate taxes if it turns out she bet wrong. Here is an article noting the sale and Alder Douglass’ on-going harassment efforts, now directed against the new owners: http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20151121/alder-objects-to-liquor-license-applied-for-by-courtyard-by-marriott-new-haven-at-yale-hearing-scheduled

posted by: anonymous on December 11, 2015 5:13pm Razzie, did the Marriott developers walk because of these Alders? If so, that would be huge news.

posted by: HewNaven on December 11, 2015 5:16pm I hope Alder Holmes made the right bet. She didn’t just place it on behalf

of Hill residents, she placed it on behalf of all of us. Correct. Anyone in a position of power will make decisions on the behalf of others. Good observation. You may also observe that the process by which we select our leaders is called an ELECTION. And that would be your only opportunity to change the hands of power, if you wish. But, the numbers are against you: The “poor and desperate” neighbors greatly outnumber the rich and opportunistic carpetbaggers, and the former have more fight. Look at how quickly Salvatore got ready to walk away from this deal.

posted by: Razzie on December 11, 2015 5:52pm ROBN— FYI see the NHReg article here: http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20151121/alder-objects-to-liquor-license-applied-for-by-courtyard-by-marriott-new-haven-at-yale-hearing-scheduled

It notes that the prior Courtyard owner bailed after being shut down by the “community”, and the current owner has no plans to revive the proposal. {Plus, the option on the parcel expires during Sept., 2016}

posted by: The Realist on December 11, 2015 6:02pm Thank God for Alder Holmes!! As a member of the 1%, and owner of many properties of the East Rock Neighborhood, I LOVE the fact that this *union supported* Alder has made it a habit of blocking, frustrating and generally irritating big developers who want to create more housing in the area. Frankly - more housing in the area is the last thing I want. The more housing there is, the lower the rents I can charge on my apartments. Basic economics. Last summer was a big shocker - I did my normal ‘bump up’ on my recently vacated apartments in the East Rock neighborhood… yet low and behold, no one took them! I couldnt believe it! I actually had to reduce rent to bring in renters!! Well, that wont do. So, I say Nemerson and Salvatore, you can take a hike! Leave New Haven alone! Listen to those people who want parks! We dont want your 100 million! Go away!! and best of all - Ms Holmes, you have my vote and considerable donations coming your way. Keep up the good work! Dont listen to the haters - just do what you think is right!

posted by: TheMadcap on December 11, 2015 11:51pm We’d all like more grocery stores but we can barely keep the ones we have. Elm Market had to be bailed out and Stop and Shop is among the worst performing in its district(the only lower one is in Bridgeport. “Basic economics” I feel like anyone who ever says this took a few weeks of an Econ 101 class and now wants to apply all all simplified concepts to the real world.

posted by: NHresid on December 12, 2015 12:25am We need to talk about a very basic economic concept: unbalanced expenditure and income. Good schools for our children, adequate police and fire department coverage of all our neighborhoods, snow/garbage removal, etc. are on the expenditure side of our balance sheet. One of the highest taxes in the state are on the other. The problem is that the residents who are carrying the burden—pay those outrageous taxes—are getting fed up because they do not see good public schools for their children or enough police coverage to feel safe. What do you think they do? They move to suburbs where taxes are lower and quality of public services is higher and who can blame them. Jessica Holmes is effectively draining NH’s tax revenue with poor decisions that affect all of us.

Who will be left in NH to pay for those parks, Saturday Academies, and affordable housing?

She is driving the young professionals who are willing to pay top dollar out of New Haven.

It is irresponsible and makes no common sense.

posted by: Bradley on December 12, 2015 2:19pm Robn. to be fair to Jessica and other people involved with the Star Supply negotiations, the issue was not just parking, although it was a major concern. Other issues included the height of one of the buildings and its proximity to neighboring properties (which the developer addressed) and the lack of affordable housing (not addressed). One difference between the Star Supply project and this one is the salience of affordable housing. While a number of neighbors in the Star Supply development wanted to see affordable housing as part of the development, it was not a “do or die” issue for them. I suspect the context is rather different in the Hill.

posted by: Wine fest on December 12, 2015 2:26pm Please tell me what is the reason and purpose these alders rejected this deal?? It it just a feel good moment for them to say I got the power to say no just for the hell of it…next question do all of these people who sit on these boards own property and pay taxes?? How many people in the Hill own property and pay taxes ?? My reason for this question is if you sit on a board and don’t do none of the above, my opinion is you don’t no how to make colarat business decisions that’s going to benefit other people paying high taxes in this city…If you don’t own property and pay taxes you are cluess to what other people are concerned about..How you going to allow a couple of people to determine a deal like that, when it benefits the whole city tax wise…people want parks,grocery stores,affordable housing etc…question to all who want this. Who is going to pay for the upkeep of these great ideals?? Yes we need affordable housing but that means taxpayers have to pick up the slack for the half that don’t pay full rent prices plus our own share of property taxes…Every one have a need and a want but that dosent nessary means it’s conducive..before people run for office they should go thur a vetting process to see what they no about how government is run, not someone who wake up one morning and say I’m going to run for office just to show them how power trips are perform.

posted by: AverageTaxpayer on December 12, 2015 3:31pm Is Yale or YNHH hospital a silent partner with Salvatore? Looking at the map, Yale owns everything around these 20acres, following Yale’s recent acquisition of the Physicians’ Building block, bordered by South Frontage-Church Street South-Lafayette-Washington streets. Yale owns everything south of Amistad Street, (the old Lee High School and the lab building where that infamous murder took place). Combined with Yale’s real estate between Congrss Avenue and this site, it’s very hard to imagine the University isn’t driving this re-development from the shadows, as their desire to link the Medical Complex to the Union Station is well-known. (Keep in mind the Church Street South housing project is about to disappear.) Personally I’m in favor of the re-development. But I’m also in favor of business in this town being conducted in an above-board fashion, and not by hidden agendas and other contrivances. (Like that which killed the proposed Residnence Inn on Howe Street.) The idea that Winkel still controls the exclusive development rights to those parcels,—26 years later!—is a joke. Frankly he should take his threats and go home. Sure, he and his new partnership is a useful vehicle for ram-rodding this deal down our throats. But why does anyone expect the public to get behind any deal including that guy? (continued below)

posted by: AverageTaxpayer on December 12, 2015 3:35pm (part two of comment above) Kudos to Holmes and for Colon for slowing this down. It’s the biggest parcel ever re-developed downtown, and there should be no time pressure in the vetting process. When I look back at the very serious process which took place as part of the old Coliseum site’s redevelopment, I’m dismayed it isn’t the norm for any City land disposition. Why not have open processes? And to those worried that somehow they just “killed” this redevelopment, please just take another look at the map, and realize how insanely valuable this real estate has become, particularly now that Church Street South is about to be razed. There is absolutely no way that this site doesn’t get redeveloped as Yale’s interests in seeing that happen are GIGANTIC. Finally, once again, would the NHI please ask if YNHH, or Yale, (including their investments office, or directed alumni), aren’t silent partners on this deal? It’s seems incredibly naive to believe they aren’t.

posted by: Stephen Harris on December 13, 2015 11:17am This is a good development that should go forward as it starts to redevelop the dead space between the train station and the med center. At the risk of being yelled at: I always thought the neighborhood management teams were given way too much input because they have very parochial view. Urban planning is by nature wholistic. The needs of the City come before any one small geographic area. By the way, what’s the status of the zoning regulation review/rewrite? That should be fast tracked.

posted by: fml on December 13, 2015 2:30pm I fully support the efforts of Alders Colon and Holmes to reconsider the DLDA that will dispose a large and very valuable section of the Hill to a single developer and that seeks to change the zoning of this land from the residential zoning that had long been assigned to it. It seems questionable that an outside developer should be allowed to “buy” the rights for development that were negotiated with a previous buyer who seemed not to need a zoning change. There is great concern in the Hill that the city is proceeding with unwise haste to transfer development of these parcels to a single developer, including the sale of city property for rates that are certainly below what would be obtained in an open bidding process. The relaxation of parking also is unwise and certainly will harm the quality of life of Hill residents, given the parking crisis that already exists as a result of exorbitantly expensive parking for employees at the medical center. It must be of paramount importance that any development not compromise the quality of life of people who already live in the Hill, and the relaxation of parking requirements will do just that. The automobile is the vehicle of choice and necessity for the residents of the Hill. It is for practically everyone else as well. It is a pure new urbanist fantasy that bicycles and showering facilities will make any significant difference in the parking crisis of the neighborhood. It seems certain that the new residential units and commercial enterprises will result in a net addition of parking to already overcrowded public on-street parking. The residents of the Hill, most of whom rely on on-street parking in front of their homes, then will have to compete with new residents as well as the employees of the medical center. Parking near one’s own house should not be considered a luxury by commenters who are not familiar with this hassle. And it is just silly to manufacture a Manhattan-style competition for on-street parking.

posted by: fml on December 13, 2015 2:31pm (continued)

Time and momentum are on the side of the Hill and of New Haven in general. As Mr. Nemerson said, “New Haven’s hot.” So is this part of the Hill, believe it or not, given its strategic location between the medical center and the train station. We should and will grow organically, parcel by parcel, and not be “developed” in large planned swaths by single outside developers, even if the developer has the best of intentions and histories, as is the case here (although I find the Novella building unbearably unattractive). Such large planned development of the city has a poor track record. The Hill is not so desperate as to need to accept this offer, and I hope we reconsider. Finally, despite being a 27 year resident of the HiIl and active participant in the Hill South Community Management team, I had no idea whatsoever of the meetings that were held with “neighbors” to discuss the rezoning. There seems to have been a failure in giving notice to interested parties.

posted by: 1644 on December 13, 2015 6:23pm fml:

The decision to sell the land was made in 1989. That is not on the table. Moreover, “impractical due to market conditions” does not mean it cannot be done profitably. It means it’s no longer the most profitable plan. Holmes and Colon have let the developer know they will increases his costs on the better plan. So, the most profitable plan may be the original one, and the developer can cut his losses and proceed with it. The result for the city? A lower sale price for its land, and less tax revenue from a less valuable development. And, of course fewer jobs for Hill residents.

posted by: robn on December 14, 2015 10:41am “Greatest Small City”? Or “Where Ambition Comes To Die”? The leftist obstructionist BOA shouldn’t be blocking this. The Devs are paying fair market value for the property (unlike the orig $1 deal), it’s mixed use, it has 10% affordable, and 70’ tall buildings wouldn’t be inappropriate in this part of town if the Devs maintained a lower street wall. The street parking issue can be cured by a wave of the BOAs magic wand (they can enforce the existing neighborhood permits with towing or booting). (BTW, I have it in good authority that western Newhallville is plagued with construction worker parking because of a neighborhood black market scam of people selling their parking permits to contractors…self inflicted wound.) Exactly how many developments in NHV have been put on ice because the BOA is putting the squeeze on Developers? I’m in the awkward position of feeling sorry for Mayor Harp and Matt Nemerson who are constantly on the lookout for a piano strung up over their door (held by a rope leading to the BOA chambers).

posted by: Sagimore on December 15, 2015 12:51pm Rent stays high in east rock, so do the taxes. This guy is walking on this deal.

posted by: Adelaide on December 16, 2015 5:36pm We who live in THE HILL are the experts of the Hill. How dare so many of you insult our intelligence and who in their right mond would ever think we are elitists?? Get a dictionary for crying out loud. Once again, the 1% fails to grasp the point. It ISNT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY!!! It is including the RESIDENTS in the decision making process! We live here NOW! We want a say NOW! There is NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS PLAN!!! $2700.00 a month for rent is NOT affordable housing!! There are no GOOD JOBS in this plan. There are developers who LIVE IN NEW HAVEN who would love the opportunity to develop this property. This naysayers and people who believe some how they are so much smarter than the current residents ( talk about elitists) have a lot of nerve telling us what to do with our yard. Tell you what, the next time your houses are up for constuction I’ll be right over to tell you what to do, how to raise your kids and belittle you..Deal ? Good!

posted by: robn on December 16, 2015 6:30pm Hill residents don’t solely own the property; they share it with a hundred thousand other New Haveners.