[CREW747]

Thoughts?Would this ever actually happen in Connecticut?

https://slate.com/business/2018/12/m...ng-racism.html

https://slate.com/business/2018/12/o...ly-zoning.html

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by CREW747

Thoughts?Would this ever actually happen in Connecticut?

https://slate.com/business/2018/12/m...ng-racism.html

https://slate.com/business/2018/12/o...ly-zoning.html

This is garbage. Single family zoning is not racial discrimination. It is economic descimination. People want to live with people of similar economic backgrounds. Most don’t care about race. They care more about what will impact their home values. For many their homes are their single largest investment. Doing away with single family zoning will hurt cities because no one is going to buy where there is a chance their largest investment will be hurt. I doubt Connecticut will embrace this. Certainly not the suburbs. Jay

[CREW747]

I agree 100 percent.I do think this could open the flood gates for other liberal states to consider similar ideas though.

[in_newengland]

Originally Posted by CREW747

I agree 100 percent.I do think this could open the flood gates for other liberal states to consider similar ideas though.

I hope not. It would spoil the attractiveness of our towns. I've always seen single family zoning simply as a way to preserve the look of a town. The street shown in the photo would look awful with apartment complexes and big buildings or large multi-family dwellings.

I don't think single family zoning really discriminates against anyone except people who don't want to/can't afford to live in a single family house. I can't afford a single family house anymore. I don't feel discriminated against at all. Of course, I don't need a house anymore either; I only need a small apartment. I don't think my apartment complex would look very good if it were mixed in with a row of single family homes and I'm glad it's off the road and down its own driveway. Nobody is being discriminated against, but everyone would have to look at the chaotic ugliness that would be created if they did away with single family zoning.

[ryanthegoldengod]

Originally Posted by CTartist

You think CT is losing millionaires?

States with the highest per capita of millionaires.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/stat...er-capita.html

Maryland.......7.87% (the thieving thieves in government)
New Jersey....7.86% (the thieving thieves on Wall Street)
Connecticut...7.75% (the thieving thieves on Wall Street)

When Washington DC moves from Maryland that is when they should worry and when Wall Street moves from NYC is when we in CT can start to worry.

Until then the states with the most government and Wall Street thieves will be on top.

Item of note, only .12% is between the three top. You might as well say the top three are about the same.

Thieving thieves? That's a little harsh. I prefer to call them slimy parasites.

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by CREW747

Thoughts?Would this ever actually happen in Connecticut?

https://slate.com/business/2018/12/m...ng-racism.html

https://slate.com/business/2018/12/o...ly-zoning.html

Crazy. So instead of tearing down a single family house for a McMansion, let's allow a triplex instead, with no parking minimums.

And who's to say the resulting units would still be affordable?

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JayCT

This is garbage. Single family zoning is not racial discrimination. It is economic descimination. People want to live with people of similar economic backgrounds. Most don’t care about race. They care more about what will impact their home values. For many their homes are their single largest investment. Doing away with single family zoning will hurt cities because no one is going to buy where there is a chance their largest investment will be hurt. I doubt Connecticut will embrace this. Certainly not the suburbs. Jay

There's little to say that exclusionary zoning is actually beneficial to home prices. There are many towns in CT that have a decent mix of single, multifamily, and apartments that are still some of the most sought after locales in the country. If the sewers can handle it, smaller properties in tight areas actually are a boon for even the wealthier municipalities (splitting up what would be 1 property at $10k tax with 10 that pay $4k each for instance). It's not feasible for every town, but the knee jerk reaction to mixed-use and slightly higher density is just leaving good money on the table for many towns.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

There's little to say that exclusionary zoning is actually beneficial to home prices. There are many towns in CT that have a decent mix of single, multifamily, and apartments that are still some of the most sought after locales in the country. If the sewers can handle it, smaller properties in tight areas actually are a boon for even the wealthier municipalities (splitting up what would be 1 property at $10k tax with 10 that pay $4k each for instance). It's not feasible for every town, but the knee jerk reaction to mixed-use and slightly higher density is just leaving good money on the table for many towns.

Yep that's the thing. Also In Canada it's common to allow a aux apartment in a single family house even in single family zoned ares (like renting out an inlaw suite) That actually seems to have increased property values as people could replace some ownership costs with rental income.
The zoning CT has created one very real form of discrimination, access to quality education
.

[cttransplant85]

Connecticut will almost certainly need a federal bailout sometime within the next couple decades. Will probably need prolonged annual bailouts, become a permanent welfare state like Hartord is to the state, like Puerto Rico is the US, like Spain and Greece are to the EU. The debt, unfunded pension liabilities, outrageous state union contracts, in combination with a shrinking and aging population is a recipe for disaster. Tax increases have proved to be ineffective at generating any significant amount of new revenue. There in lies the issue with progressivism, it isn’t self sustainable.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by cttransplant85

Connecticut will almost certainly need a federal bailout sometime within the next couple decades. Will probably need prolonged annual bailouts, become a permanent welfare state like Hartord is to the state, like Puerto Rico is the US, like Spain and Greece are to the EU. The debt, unfunded pension liabilities, outrageous state union contracts, in combination with a shrinking and aging population is a recipe for disaster. Tax increases have proved to be ineffective at generating any significant amount of new revenue. There in lies the issue with progressivism, it isn’t self sustainable.

Well I guess that would be a reverse as CT currently has some of the least federal assistance of any state.