A Google street view image capture of Church Street South, as of October 2015.
New Haven housing project residents today filed a class action lawsuit charging the property owner with “demolition by neglect,” alleging the developer bought the complex with the intent of eventually tearing it down and building upscale housing in its place.
So far, 271 residents, including 95 adults and 176 children, of the Church Street South housing complex have joined the suit against Newton, Massachusetts-based Northland Investment Corp. Its CEO Lawrence (Larry) Gottesdiener was also named as a separate defendant.
The suit filed today in U.S. District Court for the state of Connecticut charges the company, its executive and a variety of its shell companies with negligence, recklessness, emotional distress and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
“Northland didn’t buy this property in order to provide housing for the people who lived there. It wanted to empty it and knock it down,” Attorney David Rosen, who is representing the residents of Church Street South, said in a statement. “The way they are emptying it is demolition by neglect. Years of serious neglect have created unlivable conditions and have sickened many of the residents and displaced most of them from their homes.”
According to the complaint, Northland acquired Church Street South in 2008 with the intent of ultimately tearing it down and building luxury housing there instead. Northland paid approximately $3.9 million for the property, which consisted of 301 apartment units on a 13-acre parcel located at the intersection of Church Street, Union Avenue and South Orange Street in New Haven, across the street from Union Station.
Along with the property, Northland also acquired the right to collect subsidized rent from its tenants, which amounted to about $3 million each year in rent subsidies.
According to the complaint, when Northland purchased the property, the company was informed that Church Street South badly needed structural repairs in order to be decent safe and sanitary. Instead of making those repairs, however, Northland intentionally delayed and neglected serious problems with the roofing, heating, plumbing and more, in order to render the property uninhabitable, the complaint said. Then, Northland would be able to raze the property and build upscale housing in its place.
The plaintiffs alleged that Northland made “plainly insufficient repairs” and only making repairs when ordered to by city and federal officials responding to hazards that created life-threatening dangers.
The 32-page complaint detailed a laundry list of problems with the property that residents said Northland allowed to fester, including leaking roofs and plumbing, broken doors and window, faulty plumbing and electrical systems, water leakage, broken bathroom and kitchen fixtures, toxic mold infestation and carbon monoxide leaks.
The conditions at Church Street South invited multiple investigations by city and federal officials, including a July 2010 inspection by the city that found code violations in 48 of 120 apartments inspected; a January 2011 carbon monoxide leak from a defectively installed furnace that sent five tenants to the hospital, displaced another 26 tenants and resulted in orders from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the city to remediate conditions; and inspections in 2013 that revealed “several life-threatening conditions and systemic deficiencies.”
Northland “knew that these families would be deterred from complaining about substandard and illegal conditions at the complex because they had no other place to go if their apartments were condemned,” the lawsuit said.
In September 2015, HUD returned to Church Street South to find more than 1,000 health and safety deficiencies and ultimately gave the complex 20 out of 100 possible points. Because of the unlivable conditions, families were ordered to leave their apartments and moved out into crowded hotel rooms. After the first group of families left, the complaint stated, announced that Church Street South was “functionally obsolete” and that all other tenants would have to be relocated.
“Allowing conditions to deteriorate to that point furthered Northland’s plan to redevelop the complex for more profitable use,” the complaint said.
Conditions at the housing complex resulted in tenants suffering injuries and medical conditions, including but not limited to: “allergic rhinitis; sinusitis; respiratory problems secondary to mold exposure; chronic swollen neck glands with tenderness; muscle spasms; headaches; sore throats; nasal congestion; nausea; loss of appetite; dizziness; lethargy; fatigue; difficulty concentrating and cognitive impairment; hives; skin rashes and exacerbated eczema; hypersensitivity to allergens; lowered immunity; dysphoria; physical pain; difficulty swallowing and digesting food; nose bleeds; triggered or exacerbated preexisting sensitivities to mold, fungi, dust mites, bacteria and other allergens; anxiety and emotional distress; and the side effects of medications made necessary by these conditions.”
Speaking by phone this afternoon, Rosen said he could not estimate what damages resulting from those hazardous living conditions could total and said that would be up to a jury to decide.
A PR representative said today by email that Northland does not comment on pending litigation.
The case is currently awaiting certification as a class action lawsuit.
