Tagged: New Haven

Stamford Has $1.9 Million Budget Surplus

So Stamford has a nearly $2 million dollar operating budget surplus and do you know why? Just look at the south end! They’re building stuff. Commercial, big project stuff. Because Stamford invests in itself and bonds out to do infrastructure improvements so they can get things moving.

Remember what Norwalk’s legislative priority has been? Bueller ….. Bueller? Well, Ill just have to fire up the way back machine and just recap every dumb decision this body of elected flunkies has managed to mangle, muddle and spindle into death by obstruction. And let’s n0t let them off the hook with the old economy sucks excuse. Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven, Fairfield, and Darien are all building. We instead can’t even figure out how to get $5 million that was sits allocated to the City of Norwalk because our elected officials want to play a pissing contest over which developer should “benefit” from it.  Forget what part of Norwalk might need to get with the 20th century let alone the 21st century.

From the Advocate:

Most notably, the city saw better-than-expected building department permit revenues, with such permits bringing in roughly $4.4 million, or $1.4 million above the city’s $3 million estimate, which Privitera called “conservative.” Building permit revenue has been declining since a high of $8.5 million in 2006-07, last year totaling $6.5 million.

Continue reading →

New Haven Posts School Survey Results

Wouldn’t it be nice if any part of Norwalk government could actually post a survey and it’s subsequent results?

from a press release:

New Haven Public Schools Releases School by School Learning Environment Survey Results

(NEW HAVEN)- Via a cyber-launch, New Haven Public Schools announced
school-by-school results today of its district-wide Learning Environment
Continue reading →

5 Homicides in 8 Days, New Haven Violence Spikes

New Haven has always been a rough town, but the recent surge  in violence has prompted the newly sworn in police chief to attack the crime corridor:

The latest killing was a continuation of a surge in recent violence, with the Newhallville and Dixwell neighborhoods particularly hard hit. It occurred even as the city’s new police chief, Frank Limon, launched Operation Corridor Friday night, flooding the so-called crime corridor with additional cops to combat the spike. Approximately 15 extra police officers were brought in and the beefed up presence lasted until about 3 a.m., about and hour and 15 minutes before the killing.

Narcotics investigators conducted two raids on Dickerman Street and Hurlburt Street in the Hill, an area that has seen a spike in gun violence. Four people have been shot at Hulburt and Rosette Street within the last month alone.

Violent crime in other cities is always a concern to police departments since the network between drugs and gangs often extends beyond town borders. What’s interesting in the crime reports coming out of New Haven is in this graf:

Saturday’s killing also continued another trend, in which most recent homicide victims have been older than what the city has seen in the past. Many victims this year — eight out of 10 — have been in their late 20s, 30s and older, leading police to theorize that, in some of the cases, they were ex-offenders who were gunned down by the new generation of gang members and drug dealers when the victims got out of jail and tried to re-establish their old turf.

All the talk about early release, state budget cuts and facility closures is just as much a contributing factor towards crime prevention as is cops on the street.

Hartford Legislators Mull Red Light Cameras

Other states have them. Cameras atop traffic lights that automatically snap a photo of cars that run red lights. They are, to put it simply, controversial. The chief arguments for them go along these lines. Police Departments don’t have the manpower to enforce every traffic law, motorists know it, so they drive recklessly. The chief argument against them is that they violate some vague civil liberties and are money makers for governments.

Neither position really covers the issue in a fair manner. Like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

In Connecticut, no municipality is allowed to use them. The question before the legislature is decide on whether to allow them. Today, Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. and NHPD Assistant Chief KenGillespie will join the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), members of the Connecticut General Assembly, Yale-New Haven Hospital and the CT Livable Streets Campaign to announce support for the legislation, at a press conference in New Haven.

In March of last year, S.B. 149 made it out of the Transportation Committee, only to get stalled out in the much and mire of the endless budget debates. That bill featured the magnanimous gesture of a 50/50 revenue split with municipalities. I’d almost bet that somehow the burden of installation and maintenance fell 100% to the municipality.

The New Haven Independent reports the ACLU position:

The ACLU said it has not changed its position on the cameras, spokesman Patrick Doyle said. It still violates people’s privacy and due process rights, Doyle argued.

He criticized the impersonal nature of the camera-ticket strategy.

“When you get pulled over [by a police officer], there is interaction with a person,” he said. “The policeman will ask you what’s going on. That’s part of due process.”

The CT Livable Streets project proposes legislation here and gathers facts and presentations about the issue here.

Meanwhile the issue of just where does revenue go from traffic violations in Connecticut is itself mired in controversy. Good governance pacticies suggest that No local government should retain traffic fines. The money collected in local courts should be transferred to the state and returned via a local aid formula based on population. Yet what happens once money goes to the state? The municipalities in Fairfield County know the answer, it doesn’t come back here.

Governor Rell last year proposed adding cameras to record speeders on I-95. You can tell she doesn’t often travel I-95 in Fairfield County, but I digress. Her idea then was to split the revenues between the state and the camera operators. The legislature wisely shot it down.

Moving violation ticket fines go to the state. The municipality collects only $10 out of each ticket. If the State managed to actually reinvest ticket fines into road safety improvements, like funding new traffic signals and improving safety for pedestrians maybe the revenue split would make sense. But instead the money seems to go into the endless bottom of the general fund.

Automating ticket enforcement of moving violations is not a bad idea. Bu the money it generates should not go to private companies and should not go for anything but capital expenditures towards improving road safety. Without that focus, it would just be another unfunded piece of legislation not based in reality.

A Bonding They Will Go-Go

What separates Norwalk from Stamford and New Haven when it comes to getting things built? Well we look no farther than bonds, municipal bonds. Harbor Point, the place where we keep reading about corporate relocations heading into, just received $145 million in a bond sale. The Advocate reports the details:

“This financing is the largest of its kind since the credit crisis began, made possible by the project’s location, private and public support, and experienced development team,” said Ramiro Albarran, a managing director at Stone & Youngberg.

Of the bonds, $16 million were authorized under the Recovery Zone Bond Program, a federal stimulus program providing low-cost financing to shovel-ready projects. The bonds, which are taxable and due in 2039, will receive a federal reimbursement for 45 percent of the interest. Taking the interest subsidy into account, the net interest rate of the recovery bonds will be 6.875 percent, according to Albarran.

The remaining $129 million was raised through the sale of tax-exempt special obligation revenue bonds, a class of municipal bonds. Within that category, Albarran said $113 million of the bonds had a 7.875 percent interest rate and a maturity date of 2039, while $15.9 million had a 7 percent interest rate and a maturity date of 2022.

The city, which had reserved the right to approve the interest rate carried by the bonds, had anticipated an interest rate between 6 and 9 percent.

The developer is solely responsible for paying back the bonds. As part of its agreement with the city, 50 percent of any additional tax revenue earned in the Harbor Point district will go toward making bond payments, while the remaining half will go toward the city’s general fund.

In a press release, Carl Kuehner, president and CEO of Building and Land Technology, said the financing would allow the company to “increase the pace of development” and “create jobs during this difficult economy.”

The plans for Harbor Point include 4,000 units of housing, 400,000 square feet of retail space, office buildings, two hotels, a school, marina and more than 11 acres of parks.

Its first retail tenant, Fairway supermarket, is expected to open an 80,000- square-foot store at the corner of Canal and Market streets in August.

Lest you think that it’s all about Stamford, the City of New Haven also announced its sizzling bond sale.

NEW HAVEN- Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. and the Bond Sale Committee of the
City of New Haven announced today that they successfully offered
$50,400,000 of bonds in a competitive bidding process.  The sale
attracted 12 bidders nationwide and was achieved after the City’s
credit rating was confirmed by the three national rating agencies. The
list included many bidders who were bidding on the City’s bonds for
the first time.

For this bond sale, the City took advantage of the new Federal program
which allows the New Haven to offer a series of bonds which qualify for
an interest subsidy of 35 percent from the Federal government under the
Build America Bonds (BABs) Federal Stimulus Program. The interest rate
payable by the City was determined for both the Series A exempt and
Series B BABS. The tax exempt bonds were issued at an interest rate
payable by the City of 1.75 percent and the overall rate payable by the
City after application of the Federal tax credit was 3.97 percent.

Recognizing the success of this bond sale DeStefano said, “The City
was able to recognize really low interest rates which is good for tax
payers and is also a strong commentary on the City’s stable
finances.”

“The City’s overall savings represent a historic achievement and
reflect confidence in our financial condition during a challenging
economic environment and a national recession,” said Lawrence Rusconi,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The City is estimated to have saved approximately $3.5 million through
the use of the new program.

And for those of you interested in the Build America Program from Bloomberg.com:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act the president signed almost a year ago included a provision to subsidize the interest rate on bonds for capital projects if governments sold taxable instead of tax-exempt debt.

‘One-for-One’

States and municipalities typically choose to sell Build America debt to finance roads, schools and sewers when their after-subsidy cost of capital is lower. The bonds have become a “one-for-one transfer” of sales from the tax-exempt market, Loop Capital Markets said in a December report.

A lower subsidy may mean higher-rated governments and those selling shorter-term debt will find it more economic to sell traditional tax-exempts instead of subsidized taxable securities, leaving lower-rated issuers to dominate the Build America market, DeGroot said.

“Before it was sort of a no-brainer,” selling bonds with a 35 percent subsidy, said Brian Mayhew, chief financial officer of the Bay Area Toll Authority, which sold $1.3 billion of 40- year bonds under the program last year. “Now there will be a bit more of an analysis” to see whether sales make sense with a lower subsidy, he said.

The proposal to make the program permanent may draw more Build America buyers, lowering yields and increasing sales of the securities this year, said Matt Dalton, chief executive of Belle Haven Investments Inc. in White Plains, New York, who oversees about $350 million.

‘More Players’

“The more players, obviously, the tighter they should trade relative to Treasuries, which in turn helps make them more viable for municipal authorities to bring to the market,” Dalton said. “If there are enough people that care about taxable municipals, the liquidity will allow the issuers to issue in larger size.”

Racism Cuts Both Ways

The reliance of standardized tests to determine someone’s intelligence or employment ability is likely one of the great downfalls of modern society. Just think about where Albert Einstein would have ended up if his entire career was going to be determined by his performance on a standardized test. Yet, the furor apparently over the Supreme Court decision to reverse an appellate decision has sparked some pretty racist remarks coming from someone who should know better.

“We can’t just sit still on this. This is a dangerous decision,” Curtis said. “The 5-4 decision was right down conservative/liberal lines. Sixty percent of the New Haven population is minority and the test was set up so no one else (other than whites) would be able to pass it.

Only “whites” could pass a test? That must have been some powerful skin color related test. I’m sure the Hispanics were confused, should they pass the test because they could be white, or join in with the minority population and fail the test? Maybe a few facts are in order, you know, most people kinda like them. According to the WIKI:

The racial makeup of the city is 63.46% White, 37.36% African American, 0.43% Native American, 1.90% Asian, 0.06% Pacific Islander, 10.89% from other races, and 3.91% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino residents of any race were 9.39% of the population. Non-Hispanic whites made 75.57% of the population.

It seems confusing there doesn’t it? Whites, about which there is some uncertainty are either 63 or 75 percent of the population of the city of New Haven, which is about 124k. Can’ the WIKI make up its mind? Or maybe we’ve gotten to a point where it’s not so easy to figure out what someone’s race is these days because the idea of race is just so 1960s. Maybe, like our president, there’s a whole slew of people who consider themselves to be kinda like mutts and are looking to live their lives according to abilities not labels.

Now about that test. The WSJ published this editorial at the time of the Supreme Court hearing.

… when the Court hears argument in Ricci v. DeStefano. The issue in Ricci was simply stated by Judge José Cabranes, dissenting from a cursory, unenlightening opinion by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. “At its core,” he wrote, “this case presents a straight-forward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?”

The employer was the New Haven, Conn., fire department, which in 2003 had a number of vacancies for new lieutenants and captains. The department administered written and oral tests to candidates for these promotions, as required by state civil service provisions and city law. But the city’s civil service board refused to certify the results and no promotions were approved. Seventeen white candidates and one Hispanic candidate sued, charging a denial of their 14th Amendment rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other federal laws.

The board found the racially disparate results of the tests unacceptable. New Haven’s population is 37.4% black, but no African-American was among the top performers on either exam. The highest-scoring black candidate for a captaincy ranked 16th, behind 12 whites and three Latinos. On the lieutenant’s exam, the strongest black performers ranked 14th, 15th and 16th.

Oh but that’s the Wall Street Journal, they couldn’t possibly have anything but a conservative opinion bias. So here’s the NYT:

In 2003, Lieutenant Vargas was one of 56 people in the department who passed a test for promotion; 15 were black or Hispanic. When city officials discovered that only two of those were likely to be immediately promoted, they decided to throw out the test, citing concerns that minority candidates might again sue, alleging discrimination.

It’s that decision to throw out the test because of the threat of a law suit that the Supreme Court actually ruled on. In the decision Justice Kennedy wrote, “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.” 

It is totally racist for Reverend Lindsay Curtis to state that only whites could pass the New Haven firefighter promotion test. In fact, blacks did pass the test. It is wrong for him to state that the minority population in New Haven is 60 percent when it is not. This is the kind of outrageous inflammatory rhetoric that perpetuates racism in America. 

source: The Hour, NAACP calls firefighter ruling ‘a dangerous decision’, By CHRIS BOSAK, 7/8/09

source: New York Times, Bias Suit a Test of Resolve for Hispanic Man, By A. G. SULZBERGER, 7/2/09

Public Power Authority Dust Up In New Haven

With UI planning to leave New Haven for headquarters in Orange, alderman are pursuing a public power authority. Orange, meanwhile, has been fighting Stew Leonard’s from opening there, while next door Milford has landed a While Foods. Yes, amazingly, Milford, which not has what appears to be a 50% retail vacancy rate on the post road, has a Whole Foods. Er, I digress. From the New Haven Register:

“We don’t think UI is doing what it should be for the city,” said aldermanic President Carl Goldfield, D-29. “It’s now picking up and moving, continually asking for rate increases. It’s showing no loyalty to the city.”

The strongly worded resolution, drafted by aldermen Goldfield, Moti Sandman, D-28, and Roland Lemar, D-9, blasts UI’s decision to move to Orange and claims the company has “demonstrated through its incessant demands for unjustified rate increases that its paramount concern is the interests of its shareholders and management and not the interest of the public.”

The resolution calls for hearings on alternatives to UI, including a publicly owned power system and local electric power generation, but does not recommend specific action.

“If UI can’t get the job done, this might be the way to do it,” said city spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga. “With all the costs they are going to incur with this move (to Orange), it’s no wonder we’re paying some of the highest rates in the nation.”

UI defended its record Thursday, claiming research showed the Orange move would save ratepayers $20-25 million over the next 20 years.

“We service 17 municipalities in our service area. We make our business decisions based on what is best for all of those municipalities,” UI spokeswoman Anita Steeves said.

Steeves said a public power system would be cost-prohibitive, claiming the city would lose $3.4 million annually in taxes UI pays on its equipment, poles, wires and substations.

“When we leave New Haven, we still pay taxes on that,” she said.

Wallingford and five other Connecticut communities — Groton, Norwich, Jewett City, Norwalk and Bozrah — as well as the Mohegan Tribe have public power entities.

Norwalk?

If such a system were to become a reality in New Haven, the city would have two choices: either acquiring existing power lines from UI or building its own network of transmission lines, an option Goldfield said the city would not pursue.

Acquisition of UI’s lines would be overseen in part by the state Department of Public Utility Control, said Beryl Lyons, a spokeswoman for the New Britain-based regulatory agency.

“We would hold hearings to make sure that the purchase price was fair and how it would affect customers,” Lyons said.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said if the city were to go forward with its plan, it would be “a huge and historic step in the right direction, not just for New Haven, but for municipalities around the state.”

Blumenthal has urged state lawmakers for several years to create a statewide power authority to help lower electric costs in Connecticut, which are among the nation’s highest.

Look no father than the DPUC for why electricity in Connecticut costs as much as it does as in Hawaii. At least Hawaii has an excuse, it’s a series of islands, in the pacific and everything must be shipped in. Connecticut has no excuse.

Converting from being served by an investor-owned utility to a public power entity “is not an easy process,” said Ursula Schryver, director of customer programs for the American Public Power Association, a Washington-based group that serves the more than 2,000 nonprofit, community- and state-owned electric utilities in the United States.

“They’re going to be in for a fight because the investor-owned utility isn’t going to sell its power lines willingly,” Schryver said.

But between 1997 and 2007, 20 communities served by investor-owned utilities converted to public power systems, she said.

Schryver said the main driving forces behind converting to public power are the rising cost of electricity and a desire to have better control over the types of power — particularly from renewable sources — that are used.

If a community and the investor-owned utility cannot reach an agreement over how much to pay for power lines, they could be acquired through eminent domain, Schryver said.

source: New Haven Register, UI move may trigger city power struggle, By Elizabeth Benton and Luther Turmelle, January 23, 2009

Mid-Sized Cities Band Together

In college football, there is no playoff to determine the national champion. Instead a series of bowl games settles the score, or not, as the convoluted formula deployed by the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) administrators, ranks and revises the pecking order of the top 25 college football teams, and then messes with who gets to play who in the bowl games. The Connecticut legislature in Hartford has much in common with the BCS, which is why there is debate about just who is the real national champion in college football, and in Hartford, just who is getting state funding.

The eight largest cities in Connecticut are Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Stamford, Waterbury, Norwalk, Danbury and New Britain could be Big 8. Except that the bottom 5 don’t have much in common with the big 3. For the leaders of 17 mid-sized towns, the big 3 are the haves, at least in terms of state funding and state legislative priorities. The 17  have banded together to  seek relief from Hartford’s penchant for unfunded mandates.

Invited by the mayors of West Hartford, East Hartford and Middletown, a group of 17 communities from throughout the state and representing a mix of Democratic and Republican administrations has met twice so far. They are completing a list of priorities this weekend to give to their legislators and plan a news conference at the state Capitol Jan. 6.

Joining the lead communities at the meetings this month were Bristol, Meriden, Fairfield, Hamden, Manchester, West Haven, Stratford, Enfield, Groton Town, Groton City, Torrington, Vernon, East Haven and New London.

The principal theme is this: The group simultaneously wants to distinguish itself from the eight largest cities Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Stamford, Waterbury, Norwalk, Danbury and New Britain while emulating what the top three do best: cooperating on a legislative agenda.

The state is saddled with a gaping deficit and local aid is likely to drop next year. As a result, all these communities are faced with the prospect of raising taxes again even if spending is cut.

Perhaps the bottom 5 of the top 8 might want to get around to co-operating on legislative agendas. Co-opting the fight against unfunded mandates would be one. And the mid-sized city conference, in keeping with football analogies, has identified a few unfunded mandates.

The group’s priorities include: changing the way housing values are determined, from computer-driven mass assessments to a formula based on actual sale prices; fast-tracking state approvals on millions of dollars worth of development projects that are ready to proceed; delaying a new state law extending juvenile-court jurisdiction to 16- and 17-year-olds, which would require staffing and facility changes at local police stations that could cost as much as $100 million statewide; and putting off a new requirement for in-school suspensions, which would take up staff time and space.

So let’s see what school systems have triggered the in-school suspension law. According to a report issued by Connecticut Voices For Children, an education advocacy group,  Bridgeport reported 22 percent of its school population received at least one out of school suspension, followed by Hartford at 19 percent, New Haven, New London and New Britain coming in at 17 percent. The state average was 7 percent. Note that the schools with the highest out of school suspension net the greatest amount of state aide for education. The school systems that don’t, rely in property taxes to fund their schools. And so the burden of a legislative decision to target a select group of school systems with endemic problems falls to tax payers of school systems that would rather, we hope, put their tax dollars into classroom instruction.

Then there’s the DOT. This dysfunctional state agency squanders millions and in addition sits on project approvals so that cities have to contend with loss of property tax revenue because projects are delayed.  Rell and the legislature, essentially tut tut, about the agency but haven’t managed to split it, streamline it or even prod it into the 20th century.

Undoubtedly there are more unfunded mandates that could be addressed, more cost controls that the legislature could be addressing. But there’s an absence of discussion that continues.

source: Courant, Mid-Size Connecticut Towns Seek Power In Numbers, By JOSH KOVNER, December 27, 2008

Taxicab Safety A Big Issue

We’ll start with the last few paragraphs in Brian Lockhart’s eye opening article.

When program review staff reviewed the results of the DMV-certified private garage inspections required biennially for fleet owners to renew vehicle registration, they found in some cases low and even zero percent failure rates.

In one case cited in the report, a Stamford-based service garage gave an area taxi service a zero percent failure rate despite the DOT’s giving the same service a 78 percent failure rate on its fleet.

Yes, this would be those taxicab companies that were complaining about being moved from one side of the SoNo train station to the other. Apparently safety of the cabs is not high on the taxicab compay priority list. Lockhart’s article:

Lawmakers want better oversight of Connecticut’s taxi and livery services after a scathing legislative report released Tuesday found vehicle safety standards are poorly enforced.

The findings included the results of surprise inspections of taxis conducted by the Departments of Motor Vehicles and Transportation in August at the Stamford and New Haven train stations and Bradley International Airport.

Of the 43 vehicles reviewed by DMV and DOT staff, 41 failed.

“It’s important we do everything possible so our cab industry inspires public confidence,” said Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven.

In March, Looney asked the legislature’s Program Review and Investigations Committee to conduct a study of the state’s taxis and livery cars.

Looney said he had heard several complaints about poor industry oversight, particularly after the retirements of some DOT senior regulators.

According to the report, state law requires the DOT to approve vehicles before they are put into service and the agency can perform subsequent inspections any time.

Fleet owners must perform self-inspections and maintain written records of the results at least once every three months.

Every two years, vehicles must pass inspection by a DMV-authorized repair shop to receive a renewed registration.

One of the first problems encountered by the program review committee’s staff was outdated record keeping.

“None of the results of taxi vehicle inspections are recorded on an automated system at either DOT or DMV,” the report states. “Almost all the analyses presented É are based on available paper files.”Committee staff also found the DOT has no records of the agency’s checking to determine whether taxi and livery companies are performing their quarterly self-inspections and maintaining the paperwork – despite evidence companies might not be keeping up with the program.

According to the report, the DOT does not regularly exercise its right to perform ad hoc inspections.

But when some were performed in 2005 and 2006, high failure rates suggested the vehicles were not being self-inspected on the required quarterly basis.

Of the 43 taxis inspected in August, 29 percent failed because of suspension problems; 29 percent failed because of parking brake problems; 24 percent had steering issues; 22 percent had problems with the restraint system; 20 percent had bad tires; and 11 percent had meter issues.

When program review staff reviewed the results of the DMV-certified private garage inspections required biennially for fleet owners to renew vehicle registration, they found in some cases low and even zero percent failure rates.

In one case cited in the report, a Stamford-based service garage gave an area taxi service a zero percent failure rate despite the DOT’s giving the same service a 78 percent failure rate on its fleet.

“It shows the private garages are in cahoots with the cab companies in finding no violations,” said state Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, a program review committee chairman.

Meyer blamed much of the problem on the DOT, saying the agency does not appear interested in oversight of the taxi and livery services. A DOT spokesman could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening.

Although the program review report recommends bolstering the DOT’s inspections, Meyer and Looney said they are looking at alternatives.

One of the less appealing options would be fully deregulating the industry at the state level and leaving the oversight up to the cities and towns served by the taxi companies.

But Meyer also is weighing turning the responsibility over to the state Department of Consumer Protection. He said the program review committee reconvenes Dec. 17 to discuss its options and vote on recommendations.

source: Advocate, Taxi safety report raises some red flags, By Brian Lockhart, 12/10/2008

New Haven, Tall Building, Zip Car Rentals, Train Station, Sigh …

Some cities get the whole idea of residential development. New Haven is one of them. From the Courant:

By mid-2010, some folks might even be ready to drop $6,000 a month for a view of the New Haven Green — or so Fairfield developer Bruce Becker hopes.

That’s about what it will cost to live in one of 12 three-bedroom penthouses atop 360 State Street, the $180 million, 500-unit rental apartment tower Becker is building at Chapel and State streets.

With a tentative opening date of August 2010, the tower will be New Haven’s second-tallest structure and, by some estimates, the state’s largest residential building.

A penthouse in Hartford 21, the capital city’s premier luxury apartment tower, also costs about $6,000 a month.

“There are waiting lists at all the buildings of similar quality” in New Haven, Becker said Monday after he, his investors and public officials gathered at the site for a groundbreaking.

Construction workers actually began excavating a foundation for the 31-story tower in early October. Most units will be studio and one-bedroom apartments, starting at an estimated $1,500 a month.

Becker is counting on Yale University graduate students, faculty and employees to fill the 450 market-rate units, as well as suburban empty-nesters and single commuters to Stamford. The project also includes 50 below-market units.

The 700,000-square-foot project stands across from a train station, one block east of the green and a few blocks from New Haven’s celebrated Wooster Square pizzerias.

The project will include four levels of elevated parking with 500 spaces, topped by a terrace with a swimming pool. Becker said the garage would include a Zipcar car rental station.

A major unanswered question is which grocer will be recruited as the main retail tenant. Becker said Monday that an unnamed “independent grocer” is in the lead now and “may actually be the best choice.”

“However,” he said, “we still want to be able to consider proposals from Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. But we don’t yet feel we’re in a position to get their full attention. … The current climate for retail is a little soft. We think we’re going to be in a stronger position a year from now.”

City officials, meanwhile, continue to negotiate a development agreement for the former site of Veterans Memorial Coliseum with Hartford 21 owner Northland Investment Corp.

Initial plans for that project, two blocks south of the Becker site, also call for a 30-story residential tower. The site would also be the home for a new Long Wharf Theatre.

Oh and a grocery store as an anchor tenant. Le sigh.

source: Courant, $6,000-A-Month Penthouses Planned For New Haven Tower, By ERIC GERSHON, December 2, 2008