Housing shortage and NIMBYs

Submitted by briang71 t3_123ojv7 in Connecticut

If there's such a shortage of affordable housing and an abundance of people who don't want poor people living near them, why don't they utilize all the free space alongside the freeways?

Especially along 84 north of hartford and 395. There's so much land there and it wouldn't be in anyone's back yard either especially if they did ramps right off the highway into the housing complex and back out to the highway again.

I think nimbys need to have more compassion for less fortunate people or at least propose some solutions instead of just complaining.

I can't stand people who just sit there and complain but also don't come up with any solutions, they remind me of my teenagers. Can't even come up with a suggestion, nope, just complain.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RededHaid t1_jdvkqf8 wrote

You would have poor people living beside a highway as a show of compassion?

22

Knineteen t1_jdvzndd wrote

Yup, that’s how this all works. If you don’t like something then take care of it yourself rather than bitching about someone else doing it for you.

1

briang71 OP t1_jdvtbc1 wrote

Ya, I mean put up the sound blockers too. I just think folks would be happier out where it's more like nature rather than a city with all the pollution and crime.

−6

RededHaid t1_jdvubf8 wrote

They'd need cars or public transportation. Funding?

4

BeachAdjacent t1_jdvzcj3 wrote

I'd rather see pre-existing hardscape be converted before we plow down even more wild scaping. Even narrow bands of wildflowers along a highway can be incredibly beneficial for native and migratory fauna and pollinators. Crystal Mall in Waterford and the Westbrook Outlet are both essentially dead. Instead of courting amazon to convert them into megawarehouses, could they be renovated into housing?

16

kayakyakr t1_jdwgzju wrote

IIRC, that was the plan for Crystal Mall in Waterford.

This kind of mall conversion can be incredibly successful, and was mixed retail and residential was actually part of the original design for a shopping mall. The Arcade in Providence is a good example of a converted mall, though it is also a pretty small mall overall.

Converting malls to mixed use also opens up their hardscape for redevelopment. Those parking lots don't need to be near as big when it's not all retail.

Another conversion that worked out includes Highland Mall in Austin that became the new Austin Community College main campus. Doubled the classroom capacity of ACC, plus added on-campus housing for the first time.

3

silasmoeckel t1_jdvjlul wrote

Massive swaths of vacant/underused property exist in cities and you have all the other infrastructure in place.

Stop trying to export urban problems to the burbs as a magical fix. We dont have the capacity to deal with this. I see the Hartford planners going uh look 17 children per class in little school they can absorb nearly half again as many students without needing much more that the existing teacher and aid. Sure 26 kids could fit but you quickly look like urban schools and start having urban problems.

I hear talk about spending billions to reroute highways in Hartford and put in parks. How about some low income detached homes or even condo like setups seems a lot more critical than OMG you can not easily walk from this neighborhood to the other.

15

Kolzig33189 t1_jdvn5vl wrote

You essentially made the same comment I was going to. Property (especially vacant property) already exists in a lot of our cities where it wouldn’t cost millions to run utilities to because they’re already there.

10

ValuableNorth7868 t1_jdvl8id wrote

Its not even a question of capacity, CT zoning requirements have a lust for McMansions rather than starter homes. The burbs are specifically blueprinted to not solve the housing problem.

−1

kayakyakr t1_jdwh5wc wrote

Dunno why you're being downvoted for the truth of it.

0

mkt853 t1_jdvyd2k wrote

Where will they work? It's one thing to have housing, but you need to have a job too. There's not much going on in the places you propose unless you're busing them into the cities.

7

Gooniefarm t1_jdvqua8 wrote

So put the poor people in the middle of the woods next to a highway? How will they get anywhere without a car? Who's paying to run sewer, water, etc out there?

Makes much more sense to build affordable housing in areas with existing infrastructure and public transportation. Plenty of vacant commercial property and abandoned industrial sites that would fit the purpose as long as the site isn't contaminated.

6

briang71 OP t1_jdvuocg wrote

Well, public transportation ct fastback.

Part of my thought process it to let people live in more natural areas with trees and stuff.

I'm not sure abandoned industrial sites is better than the wood, cost alone... how many things that are abandoned are left in decent shape .. not many.

−1

FFPatrick t1_jdwql1w wrote

The woods sounds great, until you need a 50’ setback for your well, a 50’ set back around your septic and an area for septic reserve and all the sudden you’re back to 2 and 3 acre lots

4

TerantQ t1_jdvsv8e wrote

Least sociopathic neoliberal

5

Pruedrive t1_jdvlh5e wrote

Wait.. you want housing with direct access to major highways?

4

briang71 OP t1_jdvtplc wrote

Yes why not, that exists already. I've lived literally less than 1 tenth of a mile to a highway entrance ramp.

But if they did it out yonder, they would have room to make a decently long road leading in so no one is hearing the highway noise.

0

Pruedrive t1_jdvv1gi wrote

I'd be concerned about direct access not being safe depending how much space folks are given to get up to speed and merge into highway traffic. Also during peek commute hours, those areas intaking and outting commuters into the flow would more than likely generate some wicked traffic situations. Also from a more human aspect living so close to an active highway probably will add to folks stress levels and contribute to a deterioration to overall individual mental health.

Like your hearts in the right place, no doubt, execution may need a little more fine tuning.

2

HeyYoJelLo t1_jdw5m20 wrote

I'm sure the drug dealers and pimps will be closest to the exit

−2

BandsAnimals t1_jdvm1lz wrote

Any room in your backyard for me and my family?

3

rockerdude1002 t1_jdvxneg wrote

I have some room in my shed if interested, 1,200 a month.

1

BandsAnimals t1_jdvz6as wrote

Is heat and hot water included?

1

asspirate420 t1_jdy7lga wrote

fuck no, and fuck you for asking

now the price is 2700 plus mandatory monthly tip (i recommend at minimum 70%)

no pets

1

AvogadrosMoleSauce t1_jdvyriv wrote

Better; tear down the freeways and build housing on the right of way.

3

awebr t1_jdyfjix wrote

Within about 500-1000 feet of highways is some of the worst air quality. This is also why cities that have highways ripping through their centers have much higher rates of residents with asthma. Not to mention the noise pollution would be incredible and noise also contributes to reduced health.

Sorry but your proposal is basically another NIMBY idea. Build affordable housing even if it makes rich people sad

3

stinkstankstunkiii t1_jdvsc4k wrote

some of the empty lots are contaminated from factories,etc.

2

Viceversa10 t1_jdvpy3e wrote

I live in the woods. I bought the house bc of the privacy. If I wanted to live in a city with no property or privacy I would have bought a house there.

Just because YOU want more "affordable" housing doesn't mean everyone else does.

Look at all the section 8 housing, projects, "low income" housing, and apartments. Anyone who says they want any of that near them is insane. Garbage, dirty, loud, high crime. No one in their right mind would want that in a quiet town.

First thing that should happen is fix the crime/illegal activities in the cities. Second, Get people to actually take care of their houses/buildings/apartment. Then, just then maybe more people will want to build multi family buildings.

I guess I'm part of the "problem" for wanting a nice house and neighborhood rather than a run down drug house and crime ridden neighborhood.

1

stinkstankstunkiii t1_jdvspow wrote

wow...when have YOU ever lived near section 8 housing? there's ppl on section 8 who work and pay their taxes too, AND live in HOUSES. Plenty of ppl on section 8 living in apartments, maintaining their homes, plenty of ppl living in low income housing DOING THE SAME.

1

Viceversa10 t1_jdvtb0w wrote

I drive through Waterbury everyday. I pick up a coworker who lives in section 8 housing. I drive to Bridgeport to fish on my boat in Long Island sound. I drive through Stratford and Milford weekly. I've seen enough to back my claims. 90%+ don't give two shits.

0

stinkstankstunkiii t1_jdvtfdh wrote

blah blah blah. enjoy living in your bubble of self righteousness, ignorance and prejudice

−1

Viceversa10 t1_jdw5p5q wrote

If it means I get the house and property I want, sure, call me whatever you want. 🤡

−4

1b1situacion t1_jdx2fel wrote

There’s plenty of housing in Bridgeport. Anyone complaining about “nimbys” can move there

1

phunky_1 t1_je0248d wrote

A step in the right direction would be a law that all single family homes and occupied condos must be owned by an individual or an estate planning trust, not a business.

That would help the situation with investors scooping up properties to flip or rent out as well as taking properties off the market to be used as short term rentals.

1

curbthemeplays t1_je3urj8 wrote

Messy zoning like that isn’t the answer. We need to majorly raise the density of our cities.

1

maxanderson350 t1_jdvkuo9 wrote

The NIMBY problem in CT is far more extensive than merely concern about poor people - even developments for well-off people are routinely attacked and blocked in CT.

A solution I would like to see implemented in CT is a law preventing people from suing to stop or hold-up town-approved or supported developments.

0

AdHistorical7107 t1_jdzgsly wrote

There are no developments for affordable housing. Developers want to build 10 luxury units, but only have to make 3 "affordable".

There's lots of deflection. It's not just a NIMBY problem. Developers just want to keep building where they please, what they please. Now they have a tool to circumvent local zoning laws.

Gotta attack it from all angles here.

2

CTrandomdude t1_jdwspsj wrote

Most people do not have an issue with providing more affordable housing. There is plenty of space available to build or convert housing in areas that can support this type of housing.

Building out in small towns is just idiotic. Lower income people are best located in areas where you don’t need a car and closer to services and agencies they would likely need such as medical care. To be cost effective they are also likely going to be high density housing such as apartments and high rises.

Why is there not enough then? For a developer there is just not enough money in it. Lots of red tape and as a developer you want to build something you can likely sell at a later date.

To me it makes the most sense for the government to hire a builder to construct the housing on land already owned by the state. So the land is free. Then to hire a private property management company to run it. In the end this should not cost much if anything for taxpayers.

We don’t see this as our politicians are really only interested in talk and not into problem solving. They just like to point fingers.

0

AdHistorical7107 t1_jdzgv0x wrote

Now you're talking about taking away state parks....

I no like.

1

CTrandomdude t1_jdzqfnh wrote

No one said anything about taking away state parks. The state owns a staggering amount of unused land including old abandoned buildings and raw land.

1

Justagreewithme t1_jdxr849 wrote

I’m not the one complaining about a housing shortage.

0