Paul Bass Photos
Turcio (inset): Too late now to stop permits.
Racing one step ahead of a labor-backed proposed moratorium, the redeveloper of the Hotel Duncan received a building permit Monday to start knocking down walls to transform the storied mixed-income lodgings into an upscale boutique hotel.
The redeveloper, the Graduate Hotels division of AJ Capital of Chicago, applied for and received a building permit to perform $496,000 worth of exploratory demolition at the 123-year-old Chapel Street hotel, according to Building Official Jim Turcio. He said the city received about $15,000 in fees for the permit.
The permit allows AJ Capital “to open up walls to see structural elements of the building” in anticipation of undergoing an extensive renovation of the 92-room hotel — which included weekly rentals to 39 lower-income boarders for $200 or less — into a 70 or 72-room upscale university-focused hotel on the order of The Study down the block. AJ Capital has found new apartments for all 39 boarders; the last four of whom are expected to move out by Dec. 1.
The permit was taken out four days after members of the Board of Alders affiliated with the UNITE HERE union introduced a resolution to declare a six-month moratorium on any renovation of buildings that included single-room-occupancy (SRO) housing. Lead sponsor Alder Sarah Eidelson said the aim is to stop the Duncan renovation while the city debates and crafts a policy to preserve affordable housing in a rapidly upscaling downtown. The alders have already scheduled a Nov. 30 public hearing on the proposal, leaving open the possibility that it could pass by year’s end. (Click here for a full story on the proposed moratorium.)
Turcio said Monday that under the state building code, any moratorium that gets passed cannot affect his approval of future building permits for the project now that AJ Capital has obtained the original one.
Section 8 – 2h of Chapter 124 of the state General Statutes reads: “An application for a building permit or certificate of occupancy filed with the building official of a city, town or borough prior to the adoption of zoning regulations by such city, town or borough in accordance with this chapter shall not be required to comply with, nor shall it be disapproved for the reason that it does not comply with, such zoning regulations.”
Any subsequent building permits are considered extensions of an existing permit, Turcio said.
Turcio said AJ Capital also applied for a change of ownership on the Duncan’s rooming house license. He approved that one too.
Eidelson and UNITE HERE Local 35 President and International Executive Board member Bob Proto did not respond to phone and text request for comment on the filing of the permit and on how it will affect the fate of the proposal. AJ Capital’s local attorney, Carolyn Kone, said the company, too, had no comment.
Proto also has not responded to requests for comment about whether UNITE HERE has asked AJ Capital to agree to a neutrality agreement on union organizing at the rebuilt Duncan, the way it has when past developers have sought to renovate or expand local hotels. Asked that question last week, Eidelson told the Independent: ““For me this is really about affordable housing.” She said she acted in response to an October community meeting she convened at which two Hotel Duncan tenants and community activists bemoaned the disappearance of downtown rents that working people can afford.
Lemar Diverges From UNITE HERE
At least one politician who has been supported by UNITE HERE — New Haven State Rep. Roland Lemar — broke with the union on the Duncan moratorium.
Speaking Monday on WNHH radio’s “Dateline New Haven” program, Lemar argued that the moratorium would set a dangerous precedent and fail to accomplish its intended goal of preserving affordable housing. He also argued that it would never pass legal muster. The discussion touched on larger issues about how best — and how transparently — to promote a pro-labor agenda in the political arena.
A transcript of that discussion follows:
WNHH: What do you think about this whole Duncan [moratorium]?
Roland Lemar: Development moratoriums in this state — I co-chair the Planning and Development Committee at the state legislature; I see how this impacts development across Connecticut — development moratoria are almost always used in the state to prevent affordable housing from being constructed.
But that’s separate [from what’s happening here] …
That’s separate. Execept we’re giving credence to that sort of local maneuver. So I do not support a development moratorium in New Haven or anywhere else, particularly for an as-of-right development.
Is that just a way for you to make it look like you’re for unions and the poor when you’re helping out a developer? If we do this, that does not mean there will soon be moratoria on affordable housing in New Haven.
I don’t know. Development moratoria are bad. I do not think [they] will ultimately yield the end result that we want. SROs are in need downtown. The changing face of downtown is leaving out a lot of people. We need to make sure that as we grow we’re working with our private market developers to ensure that every development downtown has 20 percent affordable housing. That is my vision for how development should work.
But there’s no leverage to make sure the Duncan [rebuilders can do that] because they don’t need new zoning [approval].
Right. You can’t do it in a private market non-government role. You cannot insert yourself.
They [alders] are arguing you can. They’re arguing you can pass a moratorium to say in fact you do need to play ball with the city.
Courts would suggest otherwise. That is the real crux of this. The approach that they’re taking on this, I think, has legal issues and also puts us in a bad spot where leaders across the state will develop more moratoria to stop affordable housing construction. We see this all the time.
But do you really believe that a left-wing moratorium in New Haven is going to somehow influence towns that want to … pass right-wing moratoria anyway?
Yes. That’s how court decisions work.
What is the legal problem?
Right now what you have to do when you’re considering land use applications or where you’re evaluating whether or not a specific development meets your zoning code, you look at only the use of the land. … What they [the redevelopers] are trying to do at the Duncan runs consistent with our zoning code. So trying to insert yourself for the specific task of limiting the development of one specific [project] …
But it doesn’t mention the Duncan [in official language of the proposed moratorium].
We all know that’s what it’s about. I think courts will determine [that].
But what do you think about the general idea that if you want to build in New Haven, you need to agree that there will be a union shop so that people will make livable wages? That’s why we saw the Marriott not be able to expand. That’s why we saw the Omni be able to expand back in the ‘90s. What if they were honest? What if UNITE HERE alders told the truth, that “We believe that everyone should share in the prosperity of economic development? So if you want to build here, you have to have a union” [so that workers make livable wages]? Wouldn’t a lot of people support that? Wouldn’t your voters support that?
Yeah, I think so. I think a lot of people would support that if you had that conversation. To be fair, I think UNITE HERE has done that.
Nobody’s admitting this [moratorium] has to do with that …
Look, New Haven Rising [a UNITE HERE-affiliated activist group] goes out across the city and they talk about that shared vision of prosperity.
Nobody’s made a single statement that this moratorium has anything to do with a union shop …
I think that’s smart on their part. Because that’s where they would run into some legal [trouble].
So you think it’s smart not to be honest with the public about what their agenda is? Especially since the public would probably support it …
It is smart to not articulate that, because that is how you’ll get it thrown out.
So you think it’s smart for elected officials to lie in order to pass policy.
No.
They’re not telling the truth about why they’re doing it.
I haven’t talked to them about it …
Roland, be honest. What is this about? Is this about a union shop or is this not about a union shop in your opinion?
I’m not intimately engaged in this. I frankly feel that, yeah, if we’re going to have a boutique hotel downtown, I would love for that to be unionized. I think we should have that fight after construction with their workforce. They should go in and aggressively lobby those individuals to form a union after it’s constructed.
But the leverage is now.
They [alders] don’t actually have the leverage now.
If [the developer is] doing everything as of right [under the zoning code], what leverage does the union have later? This is a tough environment for union organizing. Donald Trump is going to be naming people to the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board]. It’d be tough to get a union.
I agree. I just don’t think the pre-development process is the place to insert yourself in a union organizing fight. Particularly when there is no other government lever. You have to fake one. And I don’t think that is going to create the end that we’re looking for.
Does UNITE HERE support you?
They always have. This might push me off the edge a little bit. At the end of the day, I think they know we have their back. Any fight that we can have legally, I’m willing to push the limits the way other politicians haven’t. I think on this one specific issue I think their approach is maybe not going to yield the result that I think it should.
Click on or download the above audio file or click on the Facebook Live video below to hear the full interview with State Rep. Roland Lemar on WNHH radio’s “Dateline New Haven” program, which also included extensive discussion about the state budget and upcoming state elections. The discussion about the Duncan begins at the 35:50 mark