I agree 100% with this Op Ed. If we want to advance as a state and foster an environment of equity and upward mobility, we absolutely need state-level action to force reform in our NIMBY-est suburbs. We cannot realize our full potential as a state as long as we let wealthy towns wall themselves off, reap the benefits of the cities they surround, and refuse to make basic concessions in return.

u/senatorduff, as my representative in the state senate, Let’s Go! We need more action on these issues!

Edit: for clarity, I’m asking the Senator to gather support within the state democratic caucus for bold action on land use and education reform. As the op ed indicates, allowing towns to tackle these issues on their own is not working.

This is silly. It’s not a matter of NIMBY ism, it’s a matter of common sense. High quality of life is more expensive. Grow up

Edit: the fact that this is being downvoted shows how ridiculous this sub is

I can't afford to live in nice areas with low crime and good schools so you should change and let me live there too. /s

Seriously, apply the same logic to cars. I can afford a Honda but that guy has Ferrari and I want one so he should call Ferrari and make them give me one half off

Seems odd to call out Duff who has been working for the taxpayers for years, what have you done to further your case?

Have you thought about the balancing act that has to take place so that ct doesnt lose its highest tax payers to other states?

I think Duff generally does a good job, and I’ll keep voting for him. I also think we need to keep bringing these kinds of issues to the forefront- this kind of action will be vigorously opposed by the folks who benefit from the current system of land use regulation, and it is important to let elected officials know that many voters support more dramatic changes to housing and education policy.

Edit (addition): As an elected official, just because you’re working hard on behalf of your constituents doesn’t mean your constituents should stop asking for things!

We have allowed a regulatory system that artificially drives up prices in those towns. This is not a market for cars, it is a tightly regulated system, designed to benefit incumbent residents.

If the free market were allowed to actually dictate development in Fairfield county towns, there would be apartment buildings across from the train station in Darien.

[deleted]

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats

^(I'm a bot | )^(Why & About)^( | )^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)

Also, the rich don’t move in response to policy changes nearly as much as they’d like us to think:

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats

Never going to happen, especially not in CT.

Teeechnically, there are (soon to be) apartments in Darien across from the (Noroton Heights) train station.

Now, are they affordable to the lay person is the question...

You new urbanists make me laugh. I’m literally a multi family real estate developer and all y’all who aren’t in the industry immediately jump to transit based development because it’s the easiest way to defend and disguise affordable housing when in reality it does the opposite

The more we build, the more affordable they will get.

I am a fan of any and all kinds of improvements to increase density- reduce lot size and setback requirements, allow multi family units as of right in more zones (preferably duplexes and triplexes allowed everywhere), make it easier to build larger multi-unit developments.

I also think we should embark on more publicly funded housing and deed restricted affordable developments. I think the solution is all of the above.

Also, loosening zoning restrictions will not only help developers build luxury units, it will make it easier for public housing and non-profits as well.

Never said you shouldn't ask him for things, but you were insuniating he has done nothing.

You can just look at the ct hedge funds moving to Florida to disprove that guardian article.

We don't care about a nationwide trend, we live in CT. And in CT we have already seen it happening.

You’re right- didn’t mean to insinuate that, edited my comment accordingly.

You do realize the reason Connecticut is so beautiful and holds it’s charm is because we haven’t adopted those things. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective but to those who value that we hate the idea of changing for density, while those who can’t afford the nice party’s want to create denser towns so they can afford it. What they don’t know is that those towns would lose their charm and people would stop moving there, defeating the whole purpose and value of moving there

I would argue that NYC is still the financial capital of the country, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. By making it easier for people who work in NYC to live in Connecticut (i.e. building more housing in NYC-accessible Fairfield county), the state will draw in more population, thus increasing the tax base, and benefitting local businesses who service those residents.

No they won't. Rental companies make it more expensive, not less.

They don't care about making alkiving less expensive, they are naturally only there to create money for their owners.

Apartments will sit empty instead of reducing the rent, or keeping it the same. This is already happening in stamford and norwalk.

If you want actual low income housing then yes if agree with you... Which Darien already has on Allen O'Neil.

It's also interesting you talk about fairifels County when you live in Litchfield County which has less apartments.... Maybe focus in your area first before casting stones

Those towns along the metro north in Fairfield county aren’t valuable because they’re charming, they’re valuable because they’re within commuting distance of New York City.

Woodstock is a perfectly charming place, but there aren’t thousands of people clamoring to move there because it isn’t commutable to a major metropolitan hub, with (relatively) well functioning public transportation.

I want all of the above, and more of it!

More housing units produced will result in overall cheaper housing. I don’t believe that there is any commodity where an increase in supply will cause prices to rise. If we increase the number of housing units that developers are allowed to build, the price per housing unit will go down.

Also my apologies, I have moved to Fairfield county since the post you reference.

There are plenty of charming commuter towns in the surrounding areas in three states. People would move there

Price per housing unit is a bs stat. It's not making apartments more affordable, it's literally decreasing property values. That doesn't help anyone.

We've increased the population of lower Fairfield County like crazy, tons of new apartment buildings etc.

Guess what, traffic is a nightmare, the roads we have can't handle everyone.

What takes 15 minutes without traffic is now a 50-60 minute drive.

10 years ago that drive was 25-30 minutes, routinely.

You want more apartments, look in your own county, you need the money and tax base more then them.

I live in Norwalk, I moved down recently for work. And believe me, I want more apartments in Litchfield county as well!

> If we want to advance as a state and foster an environment of equity and upward mobility….

We don’t. That’s why it isn’t happening. It’s called lip service. I at least have the courage to say it.

Also (sorry) but if rental companies are only interested in create money for their owners, why would they leave apartments vacant? It seems like that’s just leaving money on the table- with a vacant apartment you’re just paying the carrying costs of taxes/upkeep, with no return.

If you reduce the rent you devalue your own property, and then get other tenants asking for reduced rents etc.

I down own a rental company, you can ask them why they do it, I have just have lived, and have friends who currently live in apartment buildings with vacant apartments which would obviously rent if they were reduced.

They do it because it’s ok to take a loss for a few months to hold out for higher rent on a longer term lease. Vacancy of a high value unit looks better on paper than a lower than market lease.

Affordable housing is a fallacy. The only reason it is ever built is for the tax credits, then once ten years has passed it goes to market rate.

Yeah, but that’s holding out for a higher rent, it’s not just keeping a unit vacant to keep it vacant. Presumably if someone paid the asking price they would rent it to them.

Wouldn’t an environment with more competitors (i.e. more housing units available to rent) make this practice less economically feasible?

Which is why we should also allow the construction of more market-rate housing!

Also we don’t want cheaper housing, cheaper housing is a bad thing.

If housing were cheaper wouldn’t that allow people to enjoy a higher standard of living? If I were paying less on my mortgage (or rent), I could spend that money on other things. I would be more likely to go on vacation, start a family, etc. it seems like a very desirable goal to me. I don’t know what the downside is.

You shouldn’t be able to have a higher standard of living if you can’t afford it. I want a house in the hamptons personally, but I can’t afford it. I’m not calling for them to get cheaper.

So you’re saying that even if we have the ability to make housing less expensive for the average person, we should not try to do that?

Exactly what I’m saying. When did we become so entitled that we demand nice things for cheap? If you spent half the time you are fighting for affordable housing actually working, maybe you could afford to live in a nice place. This is America, you have to pay up for nice things. Stop complaining

Making appartments that already exist affordable is not the same as building affordable housing way to miss the point.

Large portions of our economy are predicated on building nice things for cheap. We love Americans who make nice things cheap. Henry Ford is widely celebrated for inventing a way to build an item formerly reserved for only the rich (cars) and making it much cheaper and accessible to more people.

Most, if not all, consumer goods are much cheaper now relative to average salaries than than they were when they were introduced, because companies innovated to make nice things cheap for everyday people.

Housing costs have risen though, because the pace of construction has not kept up with demand.

Why shouldn’t we let entrepreneurs do what they do best, and make nice housing cheaper? We just need to pare back some of the excessive regulations and let Americans do what they do best.

I love America, what’s more American than letting Americans get out there and build shit?

I like you ignored the traffic issue, as if adding more people won't make on already terrible situation much worse.

Let the other counties catch up first, let the state use some of the tax money FC generates for the state actually improve livability in the area before throwing more people in.

CT is plenty big, no reason to turn the 95 corridor into New Rochelle quite yet.

I am literally one of those Americans building shit and explaining to you why it isn’t good for our home state yet you’re not listening bc it goes against your opinions.

Plot twist. It’s not all a class war. They wanted to send Danbury kids to Bethel… Bethel has increasing enrollment. They do not have the room to take on kids from Danbury. It was an unrealistic ask.

Why shouldn’t they be able to decide what goes up in there own town?

Ah, so the insane property taxes NC and Darien residents pay should go to people that don’t contribute to nor live in the same community. How about improving Norwalk schools?

The argument that wealthier towns don’t pay for infrastructure is just as crazy. The overwhelming majority of power production, besides some independent municipalities, are privately owned in which consumers pay for the service, not residents of where the plant sits. Hospitals? Privately run as well and tend to gravitate to urban areas due to population density and are subsidized by the State with everyone’s tax dollars.

Class warfare is abhorrent and counter productive.

I remember reading a while back that commercial building owners are perfectly ok leaving their buildings vacant for YEARS as it becomes some sort of write off and can be more advantageous than reducing rent prices. Same concept may be applied to residential as I’d guess their projections are based on a certain level of vacancy.

So does every town along the rail line really need to build build build then? Stamford housing units in downtown has exploded in the past 10 years adding over 10,000 units and has the infrastructure to support the demand. Norwalk is building too with a similar capacity as a city. Why would you demand smaller towns take on similar development that is out of place, extremely rare or nonexistent?

The root of the problem is local property taxes that get funneled into local school districts, which then become known as the best district, which drives up the local housing prices, etc. It's all a feedback loop. We have no way of knowing if the instruction in New Canaan or Darien schools is actually good. When nearly all of the kids have wealthy parents that both have at least Bachelor's degrees (and in many households, both parents have advanced degrees), those students will do well regardless of the schools. I don't have an easy fix to propose, but honestly I wouldn't want my kids to grow up in these towns or go to these schools (we live in Stamford and kids go to Stamford public schools). They're little hothouses for wealthy, entitled people whose kids are all stressed out about being successful, and these kids leave school rarely having interacted with someone not like them.