Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Accurate assessment. Its the zoning equivalent of NIMBY, except in this case, certain people are excluded.
I tend to prefer local rule, but NOT involving housing or institutions designed to help those most needing it. In those cases, I favor allowing local decisions only if they meet minimum quantities of say, low income housing, spelled out objectively (as units per '000s residents) by the state or Feds.
The state has requirements for each town to provide affordable housing. It is a contentious issue in some communities. Should town’s with large lot zoning be forced to provide affordable housing? If so how do they accomplish that when there are no sewers or water to serve those units? Septic systems and well water is difficult to affordably provide these when rocky soils and steep topography are common. Not easily solved. Jay
"Connecticut lost $16.33 billion in annual federally adjusted gross income between 1992 and 2016. It was one of 25 states that lost income during that period due to migration."
"The ratio of income leaving Connecticut versus that moving into the state is larger now than it was for most of the past two decades."
Kidyankee, BobNJ1960 (and the others) are right about the money leaving. The CT Post is a pretty liberal paper so if they admit it...I believe it.
I do not want some bureaucrat in a far off city making decisions on what is happening in my town. As I pointed out, this is a recipe for failure. Do you want to see high rises in suburban areas? Industrial uses in residential neighborhoods? The spread of suburban sprawl? Do you want to destroy our highly successful education system? I don't and I doubt most people would when they see the real danger of large scale government. Bigger is not better.
We have regional planning agencies that oversee planning on a regional basis. They also provide towns with a cooperative to buy goods and services at reduced rates. Their programs are expanding to include more things that will help save towns money. I do not want to risk what good we have for the sake of saving what really is a couple of pennies. Jay
Right but that's not the point being made here. The fast of the matter is from my experiences is that unlike other states that have wide ranging state laws CT is largely town by town, city by city. That dramatically limits competition which drives up costs. Look at licensing for example. The licensing for many professions is on the state rather than local level. Doctors, lawyers, teachers etc. One of the leading causes for some wages inflation is state organizations of professionals that block recognition of licenses. That and the fact that some states are pretty small where say one area dominates (Providence in Rhode Island) or have populations so low that it doesn't attract many at all (Wyoming, Vermont etc). So think about it. If there's some statewide plumbing code or medical certification that opens up opportunities to the WHOLE state. Of course that's provided that state has one. Having different standards per locality adds to switching costs and that compounds with time. There are other countries where frankly they are a unitary state and you do not have to do any of this (China and UK come to mind immediately).
There's nothing wrong with zoning and planning. CT is way behind the times. 30 years in procurement laws, 50 years in affordable housing 25 years in educational reform and the list goes on and on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
I also don’t agree with your take on towns in our state. We have some pretty nice small cities that are the center of larger metropolitan areas which are very livable. You downplay the affluence and highly educated population of our state. We aren’t one of the wealthiest and best educated states for no reason and that affluence and education are pretty much across the entire state. Certainly more so than other states.
Yeah about that.
The trouble with CT frankly is that it pretends that having a weak fragmented state government and putting blind trust into the private sector will ensure prosperity. That is far from the case. Look at the casinos. The tribes don't *really* have to put a 3rd casino in CT if they somehow take over Wynn Boston. Military bases most certainly can close and move away as they don't *have* to be in a certain area there's been consolidation for decades if not generations (Springfield in the mid 60's, Weymouth in the mid 90's for starters).
But of course there's that darling of the state...the insurance industry. Obviously with about 65,000 jobs in the state it dominates, it clearly dominates. But again it really doesn't care about CT at this point. Want proof?
Foundations vs Hartford.
The major companies of Aetna (some I know call it "mother Aetna just as my family in the Cinncinati area call Proctor and Gamble "Proctor and God") Hartford and Travelers call came together to give ten million and possibly up to 40 million over the next four years to Hartford. https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...487702181.html
Well isn't that special....
Because so far no insurance company in CT has stepped up to provide one red cent to those suffering under the broken foundations. Let that link in for a moment. You have up to 35,000 homes that potentially need new foundations and might be demolished. At a low cost of say 75,000 each you are looking at least two billion. Again where are the insurance companies? This is as ironic as someone in Louisiana freezing to death next to a oil refinery! The towns don't have the money, the state doesn't and the feds under the current administration haven't really done much. I would hate to be political but frankly there's no incentive for the current president to do anything for CT, it's not like it's a battleground state, same with neighboring states of NY, MA and RI.
I know there's some here that bash cities and might bash Hartford. I don't "love" the city as the layout needs much to be desired but I want to like it. There is potential there with the right planning, aid and determination.
But what is it *really* saying when insurance companies are more willing to bailout a city then the suburbs? Probably because they have no faith in them for starters. You can talk about having good schools and affluence all you want but frankly even on a grander nationwide scale most jobs are in cities, not suburban or rural areas. The same with most college campuses. Some might say you want "privacy" in the suburbs. Right and that might have made sense before social media. Being able to drive to malls to shop might have made sense before the internet etc. Younger people are not as apt to want to have kids (so school districts are of less of a concern) or drive as much as before (so they want to be closer to urban areas) and it is not as if suburbs have large amounts of rental properties. The migration to cities in CT is at a trickle now but as it goes it will become a flow and then a flood as houses have to be torn down.
I'm not a democrat at all but you don't have to be an economist to understand you get more from your investments in urban areas vs suburban. The economy of scale frankly just isn't there otherwise or at least the further it is from transit to urban areas.
Also to note you cannot exactly have local rules override state and federal, especially when federal funds are involved. With respect to housing in Mass there were significant reforms in 2014. Local lists were abolished (not section 8 I mean actual public housing). It made no sense for waiting lists in some parts and empty units in others.
Some might argue about high income earners in the suburbs but frankly if someone is really affluent they make more on investments rather than labor. It can be argued that you want high paying jobs for the reason that other industries then compete with them and that tends to raise incomes (i.e. wage inflation). Low cost low wage places like hair/nail salons, dollar stores and barber shops do not really compete. If a industry becomes more of a commodity then it won't compete on anything other than a general location. In other words if you have those ones mentioned near you why bother going further out?
The problem then becomes that affluence does not always mean constant cashflow. Purchasing can then be marginal. First degree, first apartment, first car, first house etc. After awhile people just stop buying or it slows. You cannot expect a 60 year old to want to get a new bachelor degree or someone 75 getting a new car or an 80 year old getting new appliances. Of course there can be exceptions but there are products that simply aren't sold in the same cycles. Just as if you work in the car industry the real indicator for growth is not new car sales but rather new drivers licenses issued because those are potential new customers rather then ones you already know. Just like in the gold rush of 1849 the people that really made the money weren't the minors but those selling the supplies to them.
Eventually what happens is with any economy after enough people have bought enough the cycle slows down. You have to have some form of social mobility (I'm not saying via government programs) to expand a customer base and maintain profits in businesses. That means doing outreach to people that might be "left behind". It might be drug reform and criminal justice reform. If CT wants to grow it really has to fix the relationship between local and state relations and investment more in urban areas.
"Connecticut lost $16.33 billion in annual federally adjusted gross income between 1992 and 2016. It was one of 25 states that lost income during that period due to migration."
"The ratio of income leaving Connecticut versus that moving into the state is larger now than it was for most of the past two decades."
Kidyankee, BobNJ1960 (and the others) are right about the money leaving. The CT Post is a pretty liberal paper so if they admit it...I believe it.
You should read the actual report though. It says that the growing wealth of the people that stay makes up for the loss of income due to migration. Of course that does not make headlines or sell newspapers so the Connecticut Post chose to focus on the negative and ignore the facts. Jay
Allowing aux apartments in single family homes would help. CA has started doing that and it's common in other countries. Honestly when I was growing up several houses in my neighborhood had unapproved apartments in them. One the family living in the apartment behind the garage (immigrants from South America) ended up buying the house when the owner moved. The other was rented by a number of teachers and artists over the years until the owner passed away and the town cracked down.
Either way we need to look at housing in the state.
Over 140,000 extremely low income households in Ct. Just 51,050 apartments suitable to house them.
Nobody wants affordable housing in their town. It crushes the mill rate due to all the demands on the public school system and lowers school ratings which depress property prices.
As a social engineering thing, of those 140,000 extremely low income households, the vast majority are poorly educated single mothers. The last thing you want is public policy that rewards picking that generational poverty path.
Nobody wants affordable housing in their town. It crushes the mill rate due to all the demands on the public school system and lowers school ratings which depress property prices.
As a social engineering thing, of those 140,000 extremely low income households, the vast majority are poorly educated single mothers. The last thing you want is public policy that rewards picking that generational poverty path.
Absolute USDA Grade A Bull-oney. Very few studies of the heaps and heaps that have been conducted have shown your theory on affordable housing to actually, you know, happen. In fact the wide majority have shown the exact opposite of what you claim. What you're spreading is a fear rooted in classist and frankly acutely racist thinking/propaganda with little to no basis in the real world.
Your second paragraph pretty much gives away the game, ignoring indigent elderly entirely. Just. Wow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably because they have no faith in them for starters. You can talk about having good schools and affluence all you want but frankly even on a grander nationwide scale most jobs are in cities, not suburban or rural areas. The same with most college campuses. Some might say you want "privacy" in the suburbs. Right and that might have made sense before social media. Being able to drive to malls to shop might have made sense before the internet etc. Younger people are not as apt to want to have kids (so school districts are of less of a concern) or drive as much as before (so they want to be closer to urban areas) and it is not as if suburbs have large amounts of rental properties. The migration to cities in CT is at a trickle now but as it goes it will become a flow and then a flood as houses have to be torn down.
Jay
