parked cars covered part of mess from view, but basically the whole front is full of trash. [Like these pics, Tammy?]

looks like 50% of New Haven properties to me.

Tax Assessor's information:
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC - yeah really rich alright...
have to agree with Joe, that about half - more in some areas - of New Haven properties look like garbage dumps.

Vision Appraisal information...

State of Connecticut Commercial Recording Division information...
lists 45 Orchard St. as the mailing address.... which was previously owned by - can you guess?
New Rich development corporation...

Looks like William Demaio III owes taxes on 45 Orchard St.
The web of sleazynes in New Haven is thick...

The current assets of this "fake" LLC (actually David L. Richards):
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 263 DIXWELL AV
(2nd floor is the "LLC's" mailing address)
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT CO LLC 31 HARDING PL
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 12 WEST READ ST
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 299 GREENWICH AV
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 467 WHALLEY AV
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 60 DONNA DR

Quite a bit of potential property to obtain if residents wanted to initiate a class-action lawsuit against this "corporation", e.g. for affecting our quality of life, for knowingly harboring drug dealers, for the resultant lowering of the value of our neighboring properties. And because it's a "fake" LLC, any other assets of David L. Richards are game to claim as restitution for damages and suffering to neighboring residents...

To my good neighbors: together we will drive this vermin from our neighborhood.
CONTACT ME:
schaeferchristopher@yahoo.com

So the landlord is supposed to clean up after the tenants now?

I've had scumbag rental tenants/landlords next to me before. Best thing to do is work on getting the tenant out of the hood. I one time had the FBI and city police in my house waiting for the neighbor to come home. Most of the time really trashy people have warrants for something, figure it out.

The landlord is responsible for the condition of the property. City hall is totally corrupt; Johnny and his friends, Jessica, Rob, etc. are like horrible tenants that can't be evicted from city hall...

umm, no. the landlord has no legal reason to pick up garbage and dog crap and dead dogs and prostitutes and crack bags for his tenants. legally he cant do a thing unless they dont pay rent then it takes a LONG time to do anything.

NEVER live next to a rental if you can. problem solved.

Havenite, umm, yes. Legally the property owner is responsible for whatever occurs on his property. If there is drug dealing occurring on the property, the federal government can seize the property. That's how it works in court. New Haven city hall is too lazy, corrupt and PC to crack down on slumlords and horrible "citizens" who populate some of these slums.

Connecticut General Statutes,Chapter 830, Sec. 47a-15. Noncompliance by tenant… Landlord's remedies….if there is a material noncompliance…which materially affects the health and safety of the other tenants or materially affects the physical condition of the premises…and the landlord chooses to evict based on such noncompliance, the landlord shall deliver a written notice to the tenant specifying the acts or omissions constituting the breach... For the purposes of this section, "serious nuisance" means (A) inflicting bodily harm upon another tenant or the landlord or threatening to inflict such harm with the present ability to effect the harm and under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that such threat will be carried out, (B) substantial and willful destruction of part of the dwelling unit or premises, (C) conduct which presents an immediate and serious danger to the safety of other tenants or the landlord, or (D) using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for prostitution or the illegal sale of drugs…that the tenant failed to require other persons on the premises with his consent to conduct themselves in a manner that will not constitute a serious nuisance…the burden shall be on the tenant to show that he had no knowledge of the creation of the serious nuisance.
Sec. 47a-32. (Formerly Sec. 52-540). Nuisance defined. In any action of summary process based upon nuisance, that term shall be taken to include, but shall not be limited to, any conduct which interferes substantially with the comfort or safety of other tenants or occupants of the same or adjacent buildings or structures. [Note: this last sentence provides the legal basis for adjacent residents to file a lawsuit against landlords who fail to take action against “nuisance tenants”.]

The Nuisance Abatement and Quality of Life Act (Connecticut General Statutes Section 19a-343, et. seq.) authorizes state prosecutors to bring civil nuisance actions against persons and PROPERTY that are involved in certain types of illegal activity.
Unlike ordinary criminal prosecutions, nuisance abatement actions focus on cleaning up properties that are magnets for illegal activity, in addition to punishing wrongdoers.

Public nuisance actions are filed in the Superior Court for the Judicial District where the property is located. The prosecutor will seek court orders or negotiate a stipulated agreement for whatever relief is necessary to stop the criminal activity underlying the nuisance. Many remedies may be possible, ranging from screening prospective tenants for a property to closing the premises.
The Nuisance Abatement prosecutors assemble a team of municipal and state inspectors and arrange for administrative inspections of the nuisance properties. The team will visit each location and each individual agency will conduct an inspection.
Inspectors may cite landlords for violations and arrests may be made. If conditions on a property pose an immediate danger to the health or safety of the tenants or surrounding neighbors, an administrative agency can ordered the building closed.
The Chief State's Attorney's Office, in partnership with neighborhood groups and police departments, is identifying properties where individuals are engaged in chronic illegal activity endangering both law-abiding tenants and the surrounding neighborhood. Examples of such criminal activity include drug sales and prostitution.
Once a location is identified, the Nuisance Abatement Unit notifies the landlord of the problems and asks for a meeting between the landlord or property manager and the Nuisance Abatement prosecutors and police. The two sides will work to develop a written Memorandum of Understanding spelling out the steps the property owner will take to clean up the property.
These steps can include:
• Evicting undesirable tenants.
• Authorizing increased police patrols of the property.
• Making changes or repairs to improve building security.
• Attending a Landlord Training Class.
If the owner or manager takes the actions agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding and the nuisance ceases, the State in turn agrees not to bring a Nuisance Abatement prosecution based on the past problems with the property.
If the landlord or manager fails to honor their commitments, or if the nuisance persists despite their efforts, the Nuisance Abatement Unit may bring a public nuisance action. Further, if a landlord is actually profiting from illegal activity on the property, the State may even prosecute a forfeiture, asking for confiscation and condemnation of the building.

To prove that a public nuisance exists, the plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that the condition or conduct complained of interferes with a RIGHT COMMON TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Nuisances are public where they produce a common injury. The test is not the number of persons annoyed, but the possibility of annoyance to the public by the INVASION OF ITS RIGHTS. A public nuisance is one that injures the citizens generally who may be so circumstanced as to come within its influence. Whether an interference is unreasonable in the public nuisance context depends on (a) whether the conduct involves a significant interference with the public health, the public safety, THE PUBLIC PEACE, the public comfort or the public convenience, or (b)WHETHER THE CONDUCT IS PROSCRIBED BY LAW.
(see State versus Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177; 1987)
While the defendant in a nuisance action frequently is the owner of the property alleged to be the source of nuisance, property ownership is not a prerequisite to nuisance liability. [i.e. just because ownership has been transferred to a “Limited Liability Corporation” aka LLC—which most absentee landlord do—they are not automatically off the hook re. nuisance liability].
A critical factor in this test is whether the defendant exercises control over the property that is the source of nuisance. Similarly, when circumstances show that a defendant exercises de facto control over nuisance-causing property, the fact that title or possession of the property has been transferred to other does not absolve the defendant of liability for the nuisance.
The law of private nuisance springs from the general principle that it is the duty of every person to make a reasonable use of his own property so as to occasion no unnecessary damage or annoyance to his NEIGHBOR. In determining unreasonableness, consideration must be given not only to the interests of the person harmed but also to the interests of the actor and to the interests of THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. Ultimately, the question of reasonableness is whether the interference is beyond that which the plaintiff should bear, under all of the circumstances of the particular case, without being compensated.
In Pestey v. Cushman, 259 Conn. 345 (2002), based on a jury verdict, the trial court entered a judgment for the neighbors of $100,000.The neighbor’s opinion about what caused his property’s value to diminish was properly admitted as testimony by the court.

You had better find some better evidence then because the pics you provided dont look that bad.

Let us all know how the process goes.

Please see my latest posts on related issue #38490 - "drugs" and let's keep future posts re. this property there. Will make things easier for me. Thanks.

joe what a loooooouser!

Two years old.