How can we incentivize real discussions around solutions to home affordability in CT?

Submitted by otter_spud t3_ye2buh in Connecticut

Housing and development is obviously a hot-button issue in CT with a lot of flame throwing between NIMBYs and YIMBYs. Personally I lean YIMBY, but I think we need to find the right balance between local community preferences and overall societal needs. I don't know the perfect solution but I'd love to have some faith that there is a way to work towards solutions that will improve the situation.

How can we incentivize real discussions with all these different stakeholders in our state without just turning it into another name-calling exercise or political fight? This was prompted by the post about the affordable housing flier sent out by the Bob Gov campaign.

Anyone have any ideas?

30

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kesagatame-and-Chill t1_itvi9ur wrote

It is such a nuanced conversation that I don't think it is possible in the current political climate,

25

Mental_Grapefruit726 t1_itwb7km wrote

Problem here is homeowners here know housing is unaffordable and want others to have access, unless of course it hurts their property values which it would.

We all know the solution is build more housing, it’s just a lot of people here would rather their homes retain their value than see others in affordable living conditions. Homes never should have been an investment.

20

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxemo0 wrote

>Homes never should have been an investment.

Thank you! And it wasn't until shockingly recently.

13

blakeusa25 t1_itxujl0 wrote

And owning second and third rental homes and apartments... corporate buyers and REIT's, Airbnb and the list goes on....

7

buried_lede t1_itypyap wrote

Interesting tidbit I read earlier this week.

Recovery in property values after the 2008 crash ( say from 2010 on) was the first housing recovery in our history not driven by homeowner/occupants but by investors in real estate, large and small. Truly a crime

4

JJ4444_Jules t1_itvh5uf wrote

I think we need to level- set our expectations of which socio-economic and geographic areas would be interested and actually benefit from solutions. Asking very wealthy and suburban areas to install massive, unattractive affordable apartments always spirals at the mere mention and is just for show. There are plenty of communities in CT not as polarized where there would be a more symbiotic benefit, engaging those towns and reps is going to be more productive.

18

iCUman t1_itvyxpc wrote

I disagree. It's immaterial if your town is wealthy or not. The question is whether your community has varied housing stock that can accommodate its citizenry throughout their lifecycle. If young professionals or crusty old folks do not have a place in your town, if your cops and teachers and municipal maintenance workers are in-commuters, if you have a "quaint little downtown" and you simply cannot understand why there aren't more businesses in those vacant storefronts - the answer is (say it with me) affordable housing.

Literally no one who advocates for affordable housing sees "massive, unattractive affordable apartments" as the only answer. Low-density MFH, condos/townhomes, mixed use residential/commercial properties can all be leveraged to keep our communities vibrant and affordable instead of the unsustainable sprawl, traffic and expense that exclusionary SFH zoning dooms a municipality to suffer.

18

JJ4444_Jules t1_itw5h5b wrote

I actually agree with you, not saying it’s right at all…. But if you look at the last publicized ( and polarized) forums such as Woodbridge or Greenwich, the proposals are not usually amendable to the local architecture OR services. Let’s be honest, affordable housing needs access to public transportation and a lot with a walk score of 2 is really punishment for the people who manage to get an affordable apartment. I think working with towns in the mid-range of public access of services , who honestly won’t hire an entire team of lawyers like the last 2 townships to fight it is a great way to actually get it done- and sooner. Hamden, Southington, West Haven, Naugatuck, etc have more access to public services and transportation and have expressed interest in the past of allowing well built facilities. I’m not saying it’s right to not allow affordable housing in certain places, but for the 17 years you will fight to get ONE duplex in Greenwich you could have built 25 in other towns and helped that many more. Time is the issue, inflation is killing families they need these built NOW

7

iCUman t1_itwi57x wrote

This isn't an either or scenario though. Building more affordable housing in places like Naugatuck and Southington doesn't preclude places like Woodbridge and Greenwich from doing the same. And if you don't want developers choosing how that takes shape, the answer isn't to waste your citizen's tax dollars hiring a crack team of lawyers that will inevitably lose the 8-30g appeal. The answer is to seriously address housing affordability in your POCD, and get your numbers over 10% so developers can't file for relief under that statute.

5

silasmoeckel t1_itvleqn wrote

Pretty much this.

Thus far these has been very heavy on the stick, penalize burbs/rural that dont comply with the wants of the urban majority.

1

ThePermafrost t1_itw2vbp wrote

It’s perfectly reasonable to gatekeep wealthy towns. Nobody is entitled to live anywhere they want. I’d be fully in support of putting in some more multifamily housing in Hartford, Bloomfield, Bristol, Rockville, New Britain, or other blighted areas for low income individuals. Clean up those areas and make them nice instead of trying to creep into already established towns.

0

afleetingmoment t1_itw80xs wrote

That would work for me if we had county- or state-level resource sharing here. It's unrealistic for wealthy towns/people to point at the cash-strapped cities and say "you deal with all the problems."

The irony of course is that the wealthy towns rely fully on people from the poorer cities - to staff their homes and restaurants, do construction, mow their lawns, etc.

Until we stop "othering" the problems and work on mutually beneficial plans, the cycle will continue.

12

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwh2qi wrote

I personally don’t see an issue with an area relying on lower demographics to do unskilled labor and blue collar work. That’s how it’s been for centuries. It also benefits both parties. I can speak on the trades because I work with and am friends with many tradies. They don’t want to live in Greenwich but they’re happy to upcharge the shit out of them to mow their lawns then go home to their lower income communities with a large paycheck. Never understood the argument that if you work in a city you should be able to afford it

4

afleetingmoment t1_itwhgup wrote

I 100% agree, all I'm pointing out is that unless and until the various towns group together and sort out the housing issue, it will never go anywhere. If the wealthy towns just sit back and wait for the cities with far less resources to figure it out, it will never happen. We need to work together since as you said, both parties benefit.

3

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwigsd wrote

So should the wealthy communities be taking their own tax revenue to build housing in poor cities? Fairfield county already funds the majority of the state with its taxes

4

afleetingmoment t1_itwjet0 wrote

In a way, yes.

I'll compare here to where my parents live in Indian River County, Florida. Like here, there are extremely wealthy areas on the barrier island, there are middle-class suburban areas, there are really poor areas, and there are rural areas. Yet the entire county is one school district. Everyone shares various municipal services and resources. All the houses pay in in proportion to their value to create a school system.

4

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwjtrt wrote

I personally disagree that my taxes should benefit communities other than my own but that’s completely ok to disagree on. It definitely could work but I don’t think that idea would make it past the folks that think like me.

Edit: for example, compare Greenwich’s public schools to Florida’s.

1

afleetingmoment t1_itwl5oz wrote

I totally get that view, yet therein lies the problem. Greenwich (and others) wouldn't survive in its current state if not surrounded by towns that can feed it workers. So in my estimation the economic system crosses many town's boundaries... yet due to the structure we have, Greenwich isolates the benefits of that system for itself and can have the best schools, resources, etc.

It's an interesting problem but one that seems solvable through some kind of resource sharing or perhaps the "council of governments" idea.

I don't expect the wealthy to just buoy everyone... nor do I think it's fair to look at a place like Bridgeport with zero available to it and say "you fix all your problems; they're not mine."

3

usernamedunbeentaken t1_itx56u6 wrote

But other communities wouldn't survive if not for the massive taxes that rich communities like Greenwich pay.

You (and others who argue for 'regionalization) are arguing that rich communities should support poorer communities. But the fact is they already do tremendously.

3

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwtsvc wrote

Yea everything you said is correct and I agree with it. I think the divide is those who think that system is a problem or not.

2

TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu0m8yx wrote

> I personally don’t see an issue with an area relying on lower demographics to do unskilled labor and blue collar work. That’s how it’s been for centuries.

Isn’t this kind of an argument in favor of slavery, though? Like, there should be an underclass that serves a community, but the community will reject them and give them nothing in return. I grew up in a wealthy CT suburb full of restaurants, cafes, schools, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and more. All of the people providing the labor to run the town have to live somewhere else because we as a society undervalue their labor while we simultaneously rely completely on it? Seems fucked.

> Never understood the argument that if you work in a city you should be able to afford it

How long should a low wage worker’s commute be?

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_iu170ln wrote

Slavery? That’s a bit of a stretch. I’d argue it’s more of an argument for trickle down economics. Are you suggesting everyone should make the exact same amount of money regardless and all houses should cost the exact same? If so that’s alright but I do disagree with that mentality

0

TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu3rawz wrote

I’m not talking about housing prices here. I’m checking up on this notion:

> I personally don’t see an issue with an area relying on lower demographics to do unskilled labor and blue collar work. That’s how it’s been for centuries.

It sounds like you are explicitly advocating for an underclass to exist from whom the wealthy may extract labor at low cost. These workers in turn are not seen as members of the community despite the fact that they do the community building work of child care, elder care, food service, retail service, delivery service and more. Why are they not allowed to live in the community that they build? Because they are members of a “lower demographic”. I don’t know what you mean but I wanted to point out exactly the kind of system that rests on that belief.

Sure, I used a hot word. But you also didn’t even attempt to answer my question: how long should the commute of these workers be? In another comment I believe you say they shouldn’t even live in Connecticut anymore. So how long should a worker drive or ride a bus to serve your coffee?

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_iu4tlwg wrote

However long it takes to get from a community that they can comfortably afford, like this isn’t some wild notion. And you’re very wrong the lower class does benefit from this system as well. They make good money that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

1

TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu4ywgo wrote

Okay, the coffee shop employee cannot afford to live anywhere in CT. Should they take a bus from RI? Is New Jersey too far?

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_iu5afxb wrote

I see that as an income issue not a travel issue, you’d be hard pressed to find the salary that unskilled labor gets in CT outside of CT. It may not be enough but it’s a whole hell of a lot better than elsewhere. Out of curiosity although I may disagree, how do you think this issue would be solved. I feel like we may disagree morally on this issue but I am always happy to learn how others feel these issues can be fixed. There is a middle ground somewhere and that’s how we fix these issues

1

TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu6es7r wrote

I also see that as an income issue, yes. I responded to initially because of your particular phrasing that it’s a good thing for a community to avail itself of low wage work by another class (or “lower demographic”) of people that aren’t community members. That is an alarming sentiment to me. This work has to be done for society to function. Care work, domestic work, service work, agricultural work, and many other types of work command sub-livable wages. Those workers do the work that supports the functioning and quality of life for wealthy residents. The people who benefit from that labor and the people who perform that labor should be neighbors, members of the same community. Fix it with wage increases, fix it with housing price adjustments, fix it with wealth redistribution and whatever else it takes. But start seeing the people who do the largely invisible, sometimes unpaid, many times underpaid labor in your community as FULL MEMBERS of your community. None of this “lower demographics” keep them in another town business.

1

ThePermafrost t1_itwdpv3 wrote

Interestingly enough, wealthier towns have the highest percentage of teen workers, so those towns are actually rather self sufficient for minimum wage labor. Apparently teens from wealthy families get accustomed to nice things, and then get after school jobs to pay for those nice things.

I’m sure the state offers grant money for projects such as these.

2

afleetingmoment t1_itweol5 wrote

Ha! That's a good joke. Teenagers are definitely cleaning, cooking, chauffeuring, plumbing, wiring, and teaching in all the wealthy towns.

11

ThePermafrost t1_itx3ecd wrote

Yes, teenagers are doing most of the food service, cleaning, and country club jobs in the area. Teaching and Trade work are among some of the highest paid professions in the state, so they can certainly afford to live wherever they work.

0

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxccxo wrote

This may be the most God damned stupid thing I've ever heard.

4

ThePermafrost t1_itxh68w wrote

The median teacher salary equalized for full time is $106,000 in CT. (Link) And tradespeople make $150/hr.

I’m not sure how you think that is somehow correlated to minimum wage work?

1

samskeyti_ t1_iucr4nk wrote

Some tradespeople earn $150/hr. For many it’s ~$50. It really depends on the trade.

1

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxi37w wrote

Damn two in a row... This is now the most God damned stupid thing I've read... Not the brightest are ya?

0

ThePermafrost t1_itxuhe4 wrote

Do you have any sources to back up your unfounded claims or is resorting to childish insults the best you can come up with?

1

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxzb8f wrote

I can do both, but I only have time and energy for the insults because what you said was so patently dumb and your backtracking is simply chefs kiss I don't have to antique spend energy going over it. You said something tone deaf and idiotic, we all do just take the L man

−1

CoarsePage t1_itx7gtp wrote

Buddy, I wouldn't call all these places blighted or undesirable. Sure there are run down areas, maybe the occasional abandoned property, or old factory, but calling these communities blighted is ridiculous.

Furthermore the whole state needs to carry the burden of providing housing for all workers in the state. We've seen what happens when poverty is concentrated in a few areas. State disinvestment followed by the greatest ills of poverty.

3

ThePermafrost t1_itx8jaq wrote

Those areas are definitely blighted. The median income in each of those towns is just about minimum wage. I’ve toured a great deal of properties in all of those towns and can definitely see the disparity between them and the Farmington Valley.

3

CoarsePage t1_itx9uhs wrote

Yeah, there's poverty out here, but that does not mean blighted. Blighted has a legal definition, there are municipal departments that deal with that. It does not mean that it needs to match your aesthetic ideals.

Out of all those towns only new Britain and Hartford have noticeably low median household incomes. The other towns and cities hover around the state median household income.

2

ThePermafrost t1_itxc71m wrote

As someone who has toured huge swaths of real estate in these towns, I can safely say they are blighted. There is an absurdly high number of vacant and derelict properties in these towns specifically. They are not towns people generally choose to live in when provided other alternatives.

Sure, there are small nice parts of these towns, but that doesn’t offset the general blight these towns suffer. The median income of Rockville is $25k. Bristol is higher and less blighted (it’s gotten much better the past decade). And Bloomfield is just the suburbs of Hartford, so it’s affected by Hartford’s Blight, though does ok on its own.

4

CoarsePage t1_itxgvyj wrote

I'm in Bloomfield every day it's not blighted. It's where the headquarters for Cygna are. It's just typical suburban Connecticut. By blighted, do you just mean that poorer people live there.
Where are you getting all these vacant properties from, just looking on Zillow I can count the number of foreclosures for all of these towns on just my two hands. Are you some kind of wannabe slumlord trolling real estate boards and complaining when all there is to buy is slums?

2

ThePermafrost t1_itxus89 wrote

I’ve invested in a number of these towns and have seen the housing inventory. When you have to literally crawl on your hands and knees to reach the toilet in your apartment.. and that’s the standard for housing in the area, I’d call that a blighted area.

Bloomfield I would consider retracting from the blighted list. It’s not blighted be like those other towns.

2

Johnny_Appleweed t1_itw8qbx wrote

If your town relies on low-income people to function then you should have housing for them. It’s bullshit to say, “yeah, I want to live in a town with garbage collection, nicely landscaped yards, and cute little coffee shops but fuck the people who do those jobs, they can’t live here.”

1

ThePermafrost t1_itwddz7 wrote

Exceedingly few people work in the towns they live in. That’s a highly unreasonable ask.

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwfxdz wrote

Say it louder for the people in the back. I have no idea where this idea started but for some reason people feel entitled to live wherever they want. That has never been and should never be the case. Some areas and states even will never be affordable. Just move elsewhere

1

Kolzig33189 t1_itx0mxr wrote

It’s not just a matter of affordability (not discounting that, it’s obviously a factor), but also if the area has the infrastructure necessary for lower income people.

Like how Glastonbury is building a huge section 8 apartment complex on the corner of Hebron Ave and Manchester Rd. There are no bus stops within miles of that area, the closest supermarket is probably 10 miles away in downtown (lower income/section 8 recipients in no way could afford highland park markets ridiculous prices, most middle class people can’t even), and besides the aforementioned HPM small plaza basically across the street that has a restaurant and maybe a package store, there are no businesses/employment opportunities within miles.

If each person living there has a vehicle, it’s less of a problem. But a lot of section 8 recipients don’t have vehicles and rely on public transportation which again doesn’t exist in the area. So I look at that location and wonder how exactly it’s supposed to logically work.

2

HealthyDirection659 t1_itxt0xr wrote

The apt complex in Glastonbury is not section 8. Its not even possible to get a section 8 voucher in CT since the program has been closed to new reciepients since 2014. The complex will accept a few applicants that make 30-50% of the towns median salary and call it "affordable." But even at those rates poor people won't be able to afford the apts.

0

Kolzig33189 t1_itxtlp7 wrote

I don’t live in Glastonbury so maybe things changed but that was a huge deal in the town when they were voting on it, and the specific vote I remember it being section 8 housing specific for at least 50% of the building…did that change post vote?

I find that really hard to believe there hasn’t been a single voucher given in CT in 8 years. Do you have a source for that?

1

HealthyDirection659 t1_ity9gpq wrote

Section 8 is a housing voucher program administered by the Fed Govt. Has nothing to do with state or local Govts. There is no purposefully built section 8 housing at least in CT that I know of. Whatever you heard about section 8 at this Glastonbury complex is incorrect. https://portal.ct.gov/DOH/DOH/Additional-program-pages/How-to-Apply-for-RAP-and-Section-8

0

Kolzig33189 t1_ityzq7q wrote

That doesn’t answer my question of asking for a link to show no section 8 vouchers have been given in CT for 8 years. I’m well aware it’s a federal org (HUD) and not affiliated with state government, but that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said.

1

HealthyDirection659 t1_itzlhoh wrote

Click the link i provided then scrol down. All the info you need is there. Program has been closed since july 1 2014.

0

Kolzig33189 t1_itzm0ij wrote

The link is for a state program (UniteCT) that hasn’t functioned since 2014 and if I’m reading it correctly stopped accepting new applicants sometime in 2007.

I know several families in CT who have been granted section 8 vouchers within the past 10 months or so. Yes they had longer waits than I’m comfortable with the system having but they didn’t apply pre-2014.

Saying none have been given in CT in 8 years remains a ridiculous statement.

0

HealthyDirection659 t1_itzmynm wrote

You can believe what you want. That web page cant be more clear.

0

Kolzig33189 t1_itzqpvs wrote

Again the website you provided has nothing to do with section 8; it’s a site for a state only program called UniteCT. If you search that program, it’s for emergency situations and provided about 12 months of rental assistance when it was active.

As you said earlier, section 8 under HUD is a federal program and does not have time limits for voucher recipients, only income limits. They are not the same programs in any way.

If I told you Big Y has apples in stock and you argue and say “no, they don’t have any oranges” how is that helpful or relevant?

0

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxcmz6 wrote

And wealthy towns have the right to use the parts of a state power it likes and illegally ignore the responsibilities of that exact law? Jesus fuck that's a grim mindset

2

ertebolle t1_itvs7x3 wrote

Honestly: explain why it's in their own selfish best interest.

In my town for example (Wilton) we have extra physical capacity in our public schools - too many classrooms, not enough students - and a bunch of vacant commercial buildings that would be perfect sites for new apartments; more housing means more tax revenue and more customers for our local businesses, and it won't even blow up our school budget.

A lot of other towns also have school systems with a lot of extra classroom capacity or high fixed costs due to administration / physical infrastructure / having to run buses to every little corner of town / etc; Westport may spend an average of $24,000 per student or whatever, but the marginal cost of adding a new student to that system is considerably less than $24,000.

(also, contrary to what a lot of people might think, people do not in fact move into apartments to mooch off your school system, at least not for very long - there was a BoE meeting recently discussing some new apartment building proposals and the added enrollment numbers they were projecting from them were - to me, at least - shockingly low; people at the apartment-renting point in their lives are mostly young workers or empty nesters)

15

ertebolle t1_itvswpo wrote

Also: stop bringing affordability and equity into it; make it simply about building more types of housing because new young residents make your town more vibrant and interesting.

The downside of 8-30g is that it makes it seem like every new apartment is some sort of charity case; build more housing and it'll get cheaper regardless of whether there's an income requirement or not.

10

johnsonutah t1_itw5o0g wrote

This is definitely a big part of the conversations turning sour. Should be focused on more housing stock overall rather than telling people who moved to a town in the last 24 months they are racist because they live in said town

5

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxgo11 wrote

If they're defending a racist strategy, and it's not even subtle, we should kowtow to their feefees?

2

ertebolle t1_ity5sgb wrote

It’s not about feefees, it’s just that antiracism isn’t a project they’re particularly invested in (or feel any sense of obligation to assist with). The tax / cultural benefits to adding new residents are a much better carrot than earning KendiBucks.

3

Whaddaulookinat t1_itybe0f wrote

But not calling out clear dog whistles isn't a viable strategy either, nor is ignoring the clear economic and cultural alliances that can be formed at the state and federal level. The "selfish" case has been made: density helps property value and increases economic vitality, asymmetry issues over changes of taste, etc...

Those that are really against change are against it because they feel demographic threat. Most people are in favor of moderate change in zoning restrictions, those that are opposed should be called out to defend their positions

4

johnsonutah t1_itxiwxg wrote

Living in the suburbs, and wanting to live in the burbs, doesn’t mean you’re racist

2

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxkaiw wrote

But almost to a person anyone that is opposed to any density is racist as shit. Think tunxis Hill in Fairfield is awful? Just cause minorities have the ability to afford there. I live there we have a ball, no matter what Go fuck yourself, I'm done with kid gloves on obvious racist tropes that are trying to be sly. Just had to use that trope didn't you?

Oh and btw where is the source of economic activity? Not in the suburbs nothing happens there. You just want an urban life without the give of living in a community. So again go fuck yourself

2

johnsonutah t1_itxlr67 wrote

Idk what trope you are talking about lol wtf. CT cities are barely sources of economic activity - there are loafs of businesses located outside of CT cities in the burbs. Nobody wants an urban life in CT because most of our cities are underinvested in.

I’m actually in support of investing in our cities, infrastructure and public transportation so that we have improved economic growth and more housing options. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

Also minorities don’t have the ability to afford whatever you are talking about - lower income folks do. Race isn’t a factor to income qualified housing.

2

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxo7p3 wrote

>Idk what trope you are talking about lol wtf. CT cities are barely sources of economic activity - there are loafs of businesses located outside of CT cities in the burbs. Nobody wants an urban life in CT because most of our cities are underinvested in.

The "we want suburbs to stay suburbs" is a constant trope which makes no sense, and often when pressed those that day that nonsense end up showing racist and classist colours

And remember CT is largely urban. The inner ring municipalities are all also urban in form and function. Between the core and inner ring that's 75% of CTs population.

>I’m actually in support of investing in our cities, infrastructure and public transportation so that we have improved economic growth and more housing options. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

And all I'm arguing is we should go back to allowing more pre 1970s style development, like the old trolley towns in more affluent municipalities. Not having every house being a 4000sqft behemoth on an acre isn't a bad thing. No one is calling for turning west Hartford into Blade Runners LA

>Also minorities don’t have the ability to afford whatever you are talking about - lower income folks do. Race isn’t a factor to income qualified housing.

And honestly that's why this zoning pattern emerged, the supreme court said it was allowed and not directly racially motivated (even if it clearly was) and the trend caught on like wildfire. You honestly can't defend the accent of this more recent development mandates and try to uncouple it with racism.

3

johnsonutah t1_itxq3x8 wrote

There’s a myriad of reasons for people saying they want the suburbs to stay the suburbs, the chief ones being they don’t want more neighbors, want a small school system, don’t want additional traffic. It’s no more complicated than that lol.

I already said my piece - I support mixed use development in the burbs especially around train stations.

4

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxrfcg wrote

>the chief ones being they don’t want more neighbors, want a small school system, don’t want additional traffic. It’s no more complicated than that lol.

But ok my family has been in CT for at least a millennia... The suburbs as they are now are very new it's just a silly mindset. And if there was more activism against new sfh on large lots (the number one source oh school children) construction there'd be a point but there isn't which tells us everything.

It's not like these communities have just came to this issue, it's been ongoing since the 70s... No real reason to allow a state power to give selfishness more weight than it deserves frankly

2

johnsonutah t1_itxwy95 wrote

CT has always been a large collection of quiet towns. Our cities used to be meaningful economic centers.

There’s no activism against single family homes cause they ain’t bringing many homes, and there ain’t many being built give. How developed our burbs are (unless you want to clear the woods I guess)

1

usernamedunbeentaken t1_itx66gl wrote

Where are the vacant commercial buildings in Wilton?

More dense housing brings more traffic and clutter and incremental expenses that are disproportionate to the tax revenue generated from dense housing.

And our schools (I have kids in Wilton public schools) may have excess physical capacity (or not I'm not exactly sure which schools you are referring to), but more kids would require more teachers and other expenses. Wilton schools are the way they are because of the wishes of the people of Wilton... we vote for taxes and budgets and cramming more kids with the same number of teachers and aides, or hiring more teachers and aides, are not what Wilton voters want otherwise we wouldn't have the current teacher to student ratio etc.

And the type of people who move to places like Wilton would have school children... the schools are the primary draw. Empty nesters tend to sell to move to cheaper places with lower taxes, and young workers without kids would tend to want to live in more exciting places like Norwalk or Stamford.

3

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxe4db wrote

So not many single people would live in Wilton without kids if available, increasing the tax base with little additional strain to community resources (oh btw Wilton has had severe under enrollment for almost a decade before the COVID surge came in saving the town). I went to school in Wilton, many of my friends grew up there, I worked there for a long long time...

What you're describing is an utter fantasy dear Lord I am honestly just sure you don't interact out know the town as well as you seem to think. It's hard to debate people like you honestly because of the divorce of perspective

7

ertebolle t1_itxajlo wrote

Route 7. Which is already cluttered and ugly and jammed with trucks, and as far as traffic costs go, it’s a state road so any extra paving costs or whatever are their problem.

They fret about declining enrollments at every Annual Town Meeting, and as for capacity I was specifically thinking of Miller Driscoll (which was overbuilt even at the time) but if enrollment is declining then that necessarily means every school now has more room.

And yes, there are marginal costs, but they’re lower than the current per pupil cost. We spend millions of dollars a year running half empty buses because they have so much ground to cover and we only have one school for each grade - you could add a bunch more students without significantly increasing the money we spend on those, not to mention that we’d be spending the same amounts on utilities and IT and coaching and assistant principals and curriculum / testing people and so on.

As for apartments adding lots more kids, they discussed enrollment projections a few BoE meetings ago - they don’t expect apartments to make that much of a difference even if every current proposal gets built, enrollment will still decline.

3

HubcapMotors t1_itwj1bl wrote

>How can we incentivize real discussions with all these different stakeholders in our state without just turning it into another name-calling exercise or political fight?

The issue here is that zoning and land ownership is inherently a political issue.

Politics is the competition between competing interest groups for power; the power relations among individuals especially regarding resources and status.

Land is wealth and a finite resource, and housing is essential for survival and status. You have people concerned with accumulating wealth in competition with those trying to merely eek out a living. There's nothing apolitical about this discussion.

Perhaps you mean partisan, e.g., adherence to a party or cause? Even then, you have firmly defined and contradictory causes: wealth accumulation vs wealth equity (or merely avoiding being homeless, really).

The civility of this discussion around affordable housing is directly linked to the stakes we're talking about here, and the general health and wellbeing of the society.

8

johnsonutah t1_itw6xwm wrote

With every proposed large scale multi family / apartment / affordable housing etc development, have the developers discuss the anticipated headcount impact to the school system, anticipated roadway & traffic impact, and anticipated water / infrastructure impact.

Have the town run the same assessment. Then using both assessments calculate the property tax impact to existing residents, and inform said residents accordingly.

Biggest fear of new development is increasing property taxes by way of greater required services / infrastructure, followed by declining property values (which results in higher property taxes when measured by mil rate).

Lastly, I personally think the conversation should be shifted to focus on building up our cities more with a greater & denser variety of housing stock, coupled with significant infrastructure investments (faster trains, trolley systems, better roadway system eg bury the highway if needed) which would improve the livability & desirability of our metro areas and attract new residents and employers. I find that the conversation around housing is almost exclusively geared towards suburbs and rural areas. And to be clear, I also support building more density around train stations in Fairfield County (and Hartford County).

Regarding why cities should be focused on, just as a real world example: why aren’t there market rate apartments along with shopping, coffee spots and restaurants around the New Haven train station? It’s an important station for the north east corridor. Why hasn’t the street been redesigned so there aren’t shuttle busses blocking the crosswalk and exit, causing a potential hazard and congestion? Unacceptable for the city and state to not rapidly develop this area.

5

ertebolle t1_itw8kqf wrote

This. Very often people have hugely inflated notions of how many new students a new development is likely to bring - my understanding is that relative to the property taxes paid, apartments are often more profitable for towns than single-family homes.

9

johnsonutah t1_itw9vhq wrote

Yup - but on the other hand, if a school system is effectively maxed out as is, and multiple large developments result in a need for a new highschool, new building etc, then there will be a town wide tax increase.

This happened in my town, we needed a new high school and our prop taxes are higher than they were before. I personally don’t care but I can understand the concern when new developments are considered / popping up all over.

I also want to highlight that it’s not just school systems…roadway overhauls, water infrastructure etc matter and are never ever addressed by developers.

1

kayakyakr t1_itwetr0 wrote

Population will increase and someone's going to have to build a new HS. And your increased taxes have now improved your school system, improving services offered by your town. If you look at it that way, it's an upgrade and well worth the price.

But your town could probably also have anticipated the growth and started investing in a larger school or new HS much earlier. Growing up, my town readjusted our HS split before I made it to high school. They launched the new HS by having an all-district 9th grade campus for a few years that funneled into the main campus. As the district population grew, they realigned and made the 9th grade campus a full 4 year HS. This would have been forward thinking and would have had much less an impact than saying, "well, shit, I guess we need a new school now"

−2

johnsonutah t1_itwii9m wrote

Bigger school system doesn’t equal better school system

And forward thinking is kind of the point - if we change the paradigm and roll back zoning across the state, it’s pretty hard for towns to plan.

In fact I think we are arguing for the same thing - transparency by developers and the town regarding infrastructure impacts from new developments, alongside tax assessments of the impacts. If high density multi families results in an uptick in school aged population, requiring infra upgrades, requiring higher prop taxes, it seems reasonable for the residents to be informed of that. It’s also equally good to be informed if that won’t happen, because it means tax rates will potentially go down!

2

Time_Yam301 t1_itxnmeq wrote

New multi-family housing development increases property tax revenue - which is desperately needed by many if not most municipalities in the state - and never decreases it.

Regardless, no municipality should have the right to prohibit multi-family housing within a reasonable walking distance of a train station.

1

ross_guy t1_itx91d3 wrote

NIMBY’s with more than 2 kids are some of my favorite hypocrites. Where do they expect an exponentially growing population to live when they’re actively participating in the problem?

5

kaw027 t1_itwjdbo wrote

My theory is that so long as school funding is so heavily linked to where people live via local taxes I don’t think you can. People who live in affluent towns have a heavy incentive (both in preserving home values and opportunities for their own children) to oppose affordable multi-unit housing, specifically the kind that allows more families to move in, because by definition that means a sharp uptick in students attending local schools without a corresponding increase in funding, resulting in less overall resources for existing students. The same argument can be (and is) made for other local resources btw, such as roads/traffic, public sewer, access to nature etc.

It’s understandable that the discourse gets so personal because both sides have heavy stakes in the outcome: people who need affordable housing versus those who need to preserve their investment in the exclusivity/character/whatever of their town.

3

Time_Yam301 t1_itxn7ka wrote

Connecticut is small enough school funding, and all aspects of public school management, should be state run. Larger municipalities (New York City) and states (Maryland to a degree) are able to do it.

2

pyspark2020 t1_ity18c6 wrote

Nobody wants sections 8 in their neighborhood because it will devalue property values and will bring crime. I used to live near by one in NY and it was really bad.

3

blondeambition39 t1_itxdnba wrote

One thing I’m curious about, that I haven’t really seen solutions discussed, are communities that don’t have “city” water and sewers… I live in a rural town that relies on wells and septic systems, and the biggest challenge to any building, let alone lower income/more dense housing is an adequate water supply. How do you get around that?

Btw, huge agree about having a good transit system, which CT doesn’t. Where I live, not only are there no busses or taxis, but Uber and Lyft have to be booked days in advance, and there are no food or pharmacy deliveries. Everything is at least a 20 minute drive away.

2

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itzydtz wrote

Another important issue is to stop making this issue about poor people getting to live in rich towns at a reduced price because that will always be polarizing and quite frankly will never and should never happen. Make it about redeveloping neglected cities like Bridgeport where the infrastructure is already there to support population growth and housing development.

2

Yowowser t1_itvsf1r wrote

It's all lies. CT is an apartheid state. If you're poor you live in the city with high taxes. If you have money you live in low tax towns with good schools and services. Nobody wants affordability unless their hand is forced and then they get it to faux poor which are old people who have their kids everything before they died

1

G3Saint t1_itvtnlj wrote

What low tax towns? do tell.

11

CaptServo t1_itw8m52 wrote

There's low tax *rate* towns, but the property values are high there so it's a bit of a wash.

10

Yowowser t1_itvuts1 wrote

Well look at Waterbury, 6% full of poor's, minority, crime. Naugatuck 4% Terryville Wolcott 3-3.5%.. Harwinton 3%, thomaston 3%, all with great schools no buns shitting in public, nobody getting shot. You can work in Waterbury get a great salary then go pay half the taxes next door with awesome services. Low crime. The cops park over the townlines and the zombies know they better stay where they belong.

3

CTRealtorCarl t1_itw1h3i wrote

Naugatuck is one of the highest taxed towns in the state.

5

Yowowser t1_itw2kw6 wrote

Yea, but it's a steal compared to Waterbury and the schools are much better. It also has a lot of big city services that 2 to 3 % communities don't offer like real firemen, real ambulance real trash pickup

2

Prestigious-Winter61 t1_itvvwbs wrote

Serious question, what's a zombie in this context?

4

Yowowser t1_itvwrwi wrote

People driving stolen or unregistered cars out of the city. Usually for no other reason than to swipe shit for the easy super pawn shop

4

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwflk3 wrote

There needs to be a real reason to build affordable housing or even just housing slightly below market rate. Right now the only way to profit off of it is by selling tax credits which can be great but often does not outweigh the profits from market rate dev. Another huge issue is that developers don’t want to build below market rate in area that they hold property because it devalues their other developments. It’s an unpopular opinion but I personally believe that affordable housing hurts more than it helps because developers will just go to other states and build to avoid regulation. That hurts our supply of housing this driving the cost up

1

Time_Yam301 t1_itxo88a wrote

Developers couldn't care less who lives in their developments as long as they make money. A combination of subsidized financing, LIHTC, tax abatements - they all make affordable housing financially feasible.

You have to understand these same developers are using debt syndicated by Freddie Mac, the FHA, etc...

New housing development has never really been financially feasible without government intervention.

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itzovmc wrote

That’s incorrect. It is significantly easier to make money developing non affordable housing

1

Time_Yam301 t1_itzys2z wrote

If you're anything but a small-time developer, you care about diversifying risk as much as you do about "making more money". No matter where you build affordable housing, once it is built, it is essentially no risk for a large developer/owner.

As for "ease", it depends on the market. In many places, it isn't legal to build new multi-family housing without an affordable component. In others, the entitlement process is actually easier. The underwriting can take more time, but that's what you have a bunch of $75K/yr analysts for.

As for the entitlement process, this varies a lot in Connecticut. Every municipality is different.

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itzzd41 wrote

That is very wrong, affordable housing may not have as much risk cash flow wise if it’s part of a government program, but there are forms of affordable housing where the government is not paying the rent. That is just as likely to default as market rate rent for less potential profits. Additionally. In a building that is 10% affordable housing, that 10% often times makes up over 40% of damage to apartments and common areas.

1

kayakyakr t1_itwlpxv wrote

I'm more in line with the new urbanists here: I'd like to see increased housing stock in general instead of focusing on enforcing the NIMBY's to deal with affordable housing, which is a loaded term these days. I mean, I want the NIMBY's to be in pain, but by requiring them to accept the construction of town-appropriate housing stock.

Rich town? Luxury Condo's/Townhomes/Duplexes, split lots, ADU's, Luxury Apartments within small MUDs.

Urban? MUD's as far as the eye can see, getting taller and more dense as you get closer to public transit.

Working-class Burbs? Smaller lots, Townhomes, Duplexes, ADU's, and moderately sized MUDs with a focus on building walkable neighborhoods suitable for regional transit.

Rural? ADU's, smaller lot sizes, support for transforming town centers into walkable areas potentially suitable for spoke transit.

How you do it? This is the hard part. This is my idea, but I can't point to anything guaranteeing it would work:

  • In a state this small, you can codify zoning at the state level. Lot size, min house size, ADU allowances, commercial/industrial usage, home business usage. Put those together in a package of different zones. You would have a lot of these in various combinations. Ex:
    • h2 - min lot size 2 acres, min house size 2000 sq ft, 1 primary residence allowed, 1 ADU allowed per 1 acres
    • h4 - min lot size 1 acres, min house size 1600 sq ft, 2 primary residence allowed - or - 2 ADU allowed
    • c1 - min lot size 1 acre, residential & commercial use allowed *insert limits on commercial space*
  • Towns & cities get to carve out neighborhood tracts as a higher-level abstraction
  • Towns & cities develop their own progression ladders (h1 -> h2 -> c1 -> c3 -> ...)
  • Towns & cities apply progression ladder to neighborhood tract
  • Neighborhood tract automatically advances to the next stage on the progression ladder when the current tract is filled with 50% of the properties fitting the current level.
  • Towns & cities are still allowed to create neighborhood overlay districts when they wish to promote some dramatically different form of development, as well as historic district overlays when they wish to maintain areas.
  • Towns & cities are not blocked from adopting "look & feel" amendments, but appeals process should be codified

Benefits:

  • The zoning laws are cohesive across the state, improving predictability and enforcement
  • Towns & Cities still control how their neighborhoods are developed. Tracts can be as large or small as they feel. Adding more lots to a tract protects it from advancing quickly along the ladder, but also opens more lots to be developed in a more dense fashion.
  • NIMBY's still have some measure of power, building long progression ladders before any density is truly added, allowing tracts to be declared historic and protected from additional development
  • YIMBY's & new urbanists get to design the transit centric developments of their dreams.
  • Towns can develop naturally as population patterns demand more housing, creating new or larger walkable town centers
  • Tracts, over time, will be a dynamic mix of 3 different density patterns: leftovers from the earliest, majority from the previous, new developments from the next level of density.
  • Discourages huge, suburban housing developments as the next tier is likely to be a modest increase in density rather than a bunch of small lots.

Downsides:

  • Getting it through the NIMBY's in the first place will be hard because by its very nature it's encouraging a change in current density
  • Doesn't explicitly force transit-centric development, this would need to be intentional
  • Doesn't explicitly force affordable housing construction, which wouldn't make the progressive camp happy
1

Form684 t1_itxcomd wrote

Everyone wants affordable housing, no one wants to build it. It doesn't make sense from a cost perspective. It costs at least 150k+ a unit to build/convert. That's being generous, depending on how the land is it can cost way more. Also, the amount of time it to get plans together, through zoning, surveys, utilities, traffic studies, etc takes a while. It simply costs too much and takes too much time today to build something cheap, especially in CT. Not sure what the solution is but the first thing you will need to tackle is cost.

1

Time_Yam301 t1_itxp8xd wrote

$150K per unit assuming 5 million new housing units required per year, is $750 billion or 2.9% of the current GDP of $25.3 trillion.

I think that's a pretty insignificant allocation of the nation's capital to ensure our people have quality and adequate housing.

And that cost is accurate, but doesn't include land. Though, the government can simply reallocate that via eminent domain.

1

Form684 t1_itxqwpv wrote

Unfortunately, GDP and the federal government budget are vastly different. The government brings in around 2-3 Trillion a year and spends about more or less. 750 Billion is about our military budget per year.

1

Time_Yam301 t1_ity4m4c wrote

No, they aren't. The Congress of the most powerful nation in history is not a household. All United States Dollars in existence were created by Congress or by lending institutions granted the power to create United States Dollars as bank credit.

Why would Congress need to "bring in" numbers in a computer that it created?

Congress creates and allocates capital, which is the result of being granted the power "to coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coins".

This means only Congress has the power to create money, define the value however it sees fit, and establish exchange rates the same.

Congress has no need to tax in order to spend - see the Revolutionary War, Greenbacks of the Civil war, and so on and so on.

1

RetLeoSECT t1_itxkiww wrote

People crashed the real estate market under the mistaken premise that everyone should have a house.

If you cannot afford a house, don't buy one. Don't expect other taxpayers to make it feasible.

1

Time_Yam301 t1_itxpip8 wrote

The United States of America is the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. Only Congress has the sovereign right to make money. The very money you pay to the IRS in taxes.

The purpose of Federal taxes is not to raise revenue, but to control inflation and misallocation of capital due to bank-credit - the power delegated to banks by the Federal Reserve Act to create money as credit.

−1

Time_Yam301 t1_itxmo1l wrote

It's such a simple solution. The state spends billions of dollars maintaining train stations where multi-family housing is illegal across the street. WTF?

  1. Prohibit single-family home zoning state-wide. In an aging state like Connecticut, many children would live with their family if a reasonable additional dwelling unit could be constructed on the site. There are issues with areas not served by public water and sewer. Reasonable requirements for municipalities to provide this service should be made. Many "inexpensive" towns lack these basic public works in most land area, i.e. Shelton.

  2. Mandate multi-family home zoning at a minimum of a 6.0 FAR within 1/2 mile of any heavy rail transit station in the state with a typical density of 750 SF per dwelling unit. No height limit below 10 stories.

  3. Mandate similar within 1/2 to 1-mile at a 3 FAR. No height limit below 5 stories.

  4. Allow, but not require, affordable housing bonuses up to 1/3 of the allowable as-of-right FAR, perhaps scaled.

1

danno596 t1_itxmvgp wrote

No such thing. It’s up and it stuck (cardi b voice)

1

HeWhoisNosy t1_ity8ihn wrote

  1. If work from home is encouraged, I can imagine people will move to more affordable areas of the state. Unless people can earn a living without being dependent on the nyc tristate economy, it will remain congested, overpriced, and unaffordable ( many parts of fairfield county).
  2. Ct can lead the nation by example. How much of real estate in ct is foreign owned? Are there hedged funds buying up residential to force higher rent? If significant, then above should be banned.
  3. Just dealing with all the congestion driving on merit or 95 , I would be against encouraging anymore development in e.g Stamford. I've seen some new multiunits where there is no parking, increases street congestion, and seems out of place.
    Also with some multunits are the lack of privacy, disruptive neighbors, micromanaging hoa rules, etc.
  4. I also believe it's wrong for a town to promote affordable housing only to increase taxes for a town a a whole. E.g. developer builds 100 units and is paid at market value 300k a piece, but the luck winner cost isn only $250k but the rest of the town notices their tax increased at x $ in n order to pay the dev at market value.
1

buried_lede t1_ityk4nn wrote

I wonder if we could agree statewide, at least, that minimum square footage for a house can’t be set above X-sq ft by any town.

Some towns demand houses be a minimum number of square feet that is too big, unreasonably large.

1

buried_lede t1_ityp56d wrote

Sharing this atlas in case anyone is unaware of it.

The articles are interesting but be sure to click through to the atlas itself. It’s interactive and loaded with information about each town’s zoning. It wasn’t possible to find this in one place before this atlas was created and it’s incredibly useful, especially if you are planning to buy a house or land or build or want to convert a barn to a guest house etc

https://www.zoningatlas.org/connecticut

One interesting fact from the articles, something I didn’t know: over 80-percent of residential land in CT has minimum lot size of an acre. That seems super high to me as almost every town has denser areas of 1/4 acre, and so many subdivisions too. Still not sure I really even believe it but that’s what it says.

1

frogontrombone t1_itzdpru wrote

The easiest solution is to give owners the legal right to improve their property. Right now, improvements such as putting an accessory dwelling unit in the rear of a lot are illegal everywhere. Changing that zoning law doubles the land available for development overnight without affecting the "character" of the neighborhood, forcing anyone to do anything, or hurting property values.

There are other solutions, such as legalizing the construction of townhomes and condos up to 3 stories on any residential plot; expanding the definition of "residential" to include coffee shops, restaurants, small stores, daycares, etc.; and changing taxes to disincentivize vacant space or large lawns in the city center. These all have pros and cons and various levels of political will, but the ADU solution is easy, cheap, and has no valid NIMBY arguments because it isn't something they would see in the first place.

1

HealthyDirection659 t1_itzwsn1 wrote

Its cool. You can believe what you want. I have no connection to the section 8 program. The fact you think a new apt complex is being built in Glastonbury in the middle of nowhere to be 50% occupied by section 8 holders is insane enough.

0

AggravatingShop4649 t1_itvn3lv wrote

We can’t stop voting to raise taxes on absolutely everything

−1