[JayCT]

You keep misquoting and/or misrepresenting what I said. Is this deliberate? If it is that is trolling. Please be careful of accusing me of saying things that I did not. It throws question on your already shaky credibility.

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

I mean you talk about scaring off golden gooses but home grown and incoming employers is what really gives CT it's economic dynamism. As Bob posted a lot more good companies with good jobs want inside the urban spine of CT... the insane housing costs would make recruitment and retention difficult so they look elsewhere. There has to be a healthy amount of growth to plant the seeds of trees we will never see.

Of course businesses want more affordable housing, most people do but the question is a what price?

8-30g is currently allows developers to build what they want, where they want. Already a developer is building a five story monstrosity along the scenic Merritt Parkway. That will mar the beauty of it which affects people’s impressions of our state. If that keeps continuing, the things that make our state so attractive will be gone. And they can’t come back. As the song says “Pave paradise, put up a parking lot”.

There has to be a healthy balance between growth and preservation and conservation. To get that you MUST plan for it and direct development to those areas that make sense and stop the horrible random development 8-30g has given us. And that begins at the local level because the towns know themselves better than the state.

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Thinking that our past strengths will always carry through is probably the biggest mistake that the big cities in the state made... Bridgeport based it's future on manufacturing as a mass employer and tax payer would come back. The world changed, and adaption to current and near future trends is critical.

The fact that Connecticut is among the Top 10 in per capita Gross Domestic Product is not based in the past. It is routed in the present and should not be diminished.

No one has a crystal ball or can predict the future. Unfortunately Bridgeport was a victim of a nation wide trend of manufacturing leaving our country. Now after the pandemic, we realized the importance making things here and some manufacturing is beginning to come back to this country. I doubt Bridgeport will see much of an increase in manufacturing. Those days are gone.

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Again, you're making that judgement call in the face of polling. I'm not saying become Houston... but we can't keep doing what we're doing.

What polling? It’s a fact that during last major recession our state’s unemployment rate was under 10% and many of the high growth states were well over that. That is because of the stable economy we have. Look at the facts.

And don’t you see that 8-30g is creating “Houston” all across our state? You say you aren’t saying that but allowing developers to build what they want, where they want is creating “Houston” in just about every town. Can we really keep doing that?

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

If you took every human and humanoid ancestor that had ever lived they would fit on the Isle of Man. Congestion is caused by cars and car dependence and it's time to start to gear infrastructure to reasonably manage the future. There's really no way around it. The average SFH has an average of 9.4 trips per day in CT... and 75% of those trips are under 3 miles. That's the cause of traffic congestion. Full stop.

There's a reason why the walkable areas are getting a premium of almost 20% compared to non-walkable.

I understand that people are paying a premium to be in walkable areas but you can’t make the entire state walkable. It just won’t work. As Wilton2ParkAve pointed out our real congestion problem is on our major highways and not the local streets. No amount of walkability improvement changes that.

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

I'm for a huge variety of housing... I know many families that grew up comfortably in a duplex (mostly their parent's owned it and rented out the other half). And while apartments are very needed in our state, I'm not for only apartments... You are with a refusal to build anything less than mansions in sfh zoned areas.

Where did I say that I refused to build “anything less than mansions in sfh zoned areas”? You once again are misquoting me or misunderstanding what I said.

You say you know many families that grew up in a duplex, well you are talking to one right here.

I grew up in a small apartment in a two family home on Tunxis Hill. It was small. My bedroom was actually a flexible room between the kitchen and living room that could be used as a dining room or a bedroom. My siblings room was a small converted porch. Our playroom was an unfinished attic. It was VERY modest with small rooms.

I hated it. There was little privacy and you always had to worry about disturbing the tenant below. I remember getting many complaints from them about noise, just when we had friends over. It was not pleasant and why I refused to have my family live in a multi family home and why I am such a strong advocate for single family homes.

Did you grow up in a multi family home? From your statement above it sure doesn’t sound like it so you really don’t know what it’s like being a kid living in a small apartment within feet of some other family. Did you not be able to have friends over at night because it might disturb the neighbors? Did you have to have small birthday party’s or family gatherings because your apartment wasn’t big enough? Did you have little privacy in your bedroom because it had a door to the kitchen and another one to the living room? Did you have a yard that you had to share with another family? I’m sure if you did you’d have a new respect for single family homes. You won’t change my mind about that.

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Isn't the whole point yours to sell the house at maximum price?

So if you bought your house and it took up 25% of monthly income and someone needs to spend upwards of 30% of monthly income because of artificially restrained supply that is syphoning.

It’s called “living within your means”. If you really want that home of your own, you sacrifice to get it. That means eating out less; it means cutting corners where you can; it means not making anything but only the necessary purchases; it means driving a more modest car; it means taking cheap vacations or even no vacations. This is what my wife and I did and most of our home owning friends and family did to buy our homes.

Have you done that or anything even close to that? From what I see and know about you, you haven’t had any of this.

And then you have the nerve to question why I and people like me are so fiercely fighting to protect our home’s property value???

You also have the nerve to try to shame us because we aren’t enthusiastic to share that with people we don’t know so they can live where you do at a lower price than you had to pay? Really???

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Overly strong zoning codes have shown to be extremely risky for everyone, just in different stages and different intensities until it gets everyone.

What risks do strong zoning provide? That makes no sense. You buy a property in a certain zone. You know what’s allowed in that zone and what isn’t. That’s the very definition of little or no risk.

What is risky is 8-30g. It’s the very definition of risky because it allows greedy developers to circumvent strong zoning and build whatever they want, wherever they want. How can you not see that?

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Why should I keep on providing sources when you misread them because they don't fit your narrative. I mean dude, you claimed that suburban sprawl was somehow better for the environment. That's... mindblowing.

How about this, do your research and find out why I said it... it didn't come out of nowhere.

There you go again. I never said “suburban sprawl” was better for the environment. I said lower density suburban development was better for the environment than the high density urban development you are promoting. I gave the reasons why I said that. They are based on many years of my engineering experience and education. Any environmentalist will tell you that one half or one unit per acre is a lot better than 40 units per acre. That’s pretty clear. If you claim otherwise, please back that up with a source for it. That’s not unreasonable to ask.

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

And it gets to the core of the issue, NIMBYs are very quick to heavily "protect" their interests as they see fit... however like even here they seem to dismiss or belittle the concerns of others that are also legitimate. It's not really conducive to a healthy debate.

What? You are the one dismissing and belittling those who are trying to protect what they’ve worked hard to obtain. You really expect people to give to others so they can have what we’ve worked hard to get, at a lower price. And then you attempt to shame us for that? Again have you ever worked hard for something? What nerve you have. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

No one has a crystal ball or can predict the future. Unfortunately Bridgeport was a victim of a nation wide trend of manufacturing leaving our country. Now after the pandemic, we realized the importance making things here and some manufacturing is beginning to come back to this country. I doubt Bridgeport will see much of an increase in manufacturing. Those days are gone.

Many cities lost as much industry as Bridgeport, and reinvented themselves. Bridgeport did not, and what we see is industry gone, with little in the way of corp activity replacing it.

No, I do not do cart wheels over a Bass Pro Shop. The music venue is nice, but Bridgeport never rebuilt the middle class or above payroll of its lost manufacturing with other forms of employment at equal wages, adjusted for inflation inside its borders, again. If it ever does, it is decades away from fruition.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Didn't something like 75% of CT municipalities lose population and had lower Grand List returns right before COVID (2020 Census)? Which means the growing areas are limited, no?

No. The population drop was referring to the changes from that previously reported. The numbers previously reported were estimates which had a significant margin of error. The growth from 2010 to 2020 was based on actual census counts so that’s the most accurate. I don’t think that many towns experienced a population loss from 2010 to 2020. It may have been the difference between the estimated numbers verses the actual numbers.

Also I know of no town or city in the state that had a drop in Grand List. If you know of any I’d sure like to know. Jay

[CTartist]

Here is a good bill that is being proposed.
https://www.greenwichsentinel.com/20...0g-legislation
(I saw this on the Desegregate CT website)

This Tuesday, the Housing Committee of the General Assembly will have a public hearing on several bills, including one that incorporated some of the proposals in Fazio’s bills: HB5326.

“The bill’s most important reform is that it counts all “naturally occurring” affordable housing into a municipality’s calculation of its affordable housing under 8-30g,” Fazio explained. “State statute 8-30g allows for certain development to bypass virtually all zoning regulations if the town doesn’t have at least 10% of its housing stock that is public housing or deed-restricted affordable housing. If a housing unit is affordable but not deed restricted or government housing, it does not count. That makes no sense. A town should be able to get credit for all affordable housing, no matter what form, and also be empowered to promote whatever form of affordable housing it likes—rather than just have one kind imposed on it.”


This is a very good bill and will increase a towns affordable housing without having to deed restrict it. I will use my town as an example. I found this on my towns website by happenstance while looking for something else. This is about our accessory apartments.

"Trumbull has one of the most progressive accessory apartment policies in Connecticut. All approved units are deed restricted as affordable for forty years.................Last year, Trumbull changed accessory apartment deed restrictions from 80% of area median income to 60% of area median income in order to create a deeper level of affordability............Trumbull conducted a complete census of its affordable housing in 2019 and added 120 additional deed restricted units to our inventory."
https://www.trumbull-ct.gov/CivicAle...=1590&ARC=2403


Here is another example. If a town like Westport or Fairfield puts in market rent apartments that are a mix of studios and one bedrooms in a 50/50 mix I am sure the studios would be counted as affordable housing just by the fact they are about 50% smaller than the average house/apartment in those towns.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Here is a good bill that is being proposed.
https://www.greenwichsentinel.com/20...0g-legislation
(I saw this on the Desegregate CT website)

This Tuesday, the Housing Committee of the General Assembly will have a public hearing on several bills, including one that incorporated some of the proposals in Fazio’s bills: HB5326.

“The bill’s most important reform is that it counts all “naturally occurring” affordable housing into a municipality’s calculation of its affordable housing under 8-30g,” Fazio explained. “State statute 8-30g allows for certain development to bypass virtually all zoning regulations if the town doesn’t have at least 10% of its housing stock that is public housing or deed-restricted affordable housing. If a housing unit is affordable but not deed restricted or government housing, it does not count. That makes no sense. A town should be able to get credit for all affordable housing, no matter what form, and also be empowered to promote whatever form of affordable housing it likes—rather than just have one kind imposed on it.”


This is a very good bill and will increase a towns affordable housing without having to deed restrict it.

IMO, w/o deed restrictions, if they come off the market as affordable and the town sinks below the target, they should lose significant state funding until they raise themselves back up to hit the target.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Here is a good bill that is being proposed.
https://www.greenwichsentinel.com/20...0g-legislation
(I saw this on the Desegregate CT website)

This Tuesday, the Housing Committee of the General Assembly will have a public hearing on several bills, including one that incorporated some of the proposals in Fazio’s bills: HB5326.

“The bill’s most important reform is that it counts all “naturally occurring” affordable housing into a municipality’s calculation of its affordable housing under 8-30g,” Fazio explained. “State statute 8-30g allows for certain development to bypass virtually all zoning regulations if the town doesn’t have at least 10% of its housing stock that is public housing or deed-restricted affordable housing. If a housing unit is affordable but not deed restricted or government housing, it does not count. That makes no sense. A town should be able to get credit for all affordable housing, no matter what form, and also be empowered to promote whatever form of affordable housing it likes—rather than just have one kind imposed on it.”


This is a very good bill and will increase a towns affordable housing without having to deed restrict it. I will use my town as an example. I found this on my towns website by happenstance while looking for something else. This is about our accessory apartments.

"Trumbull has one of the most progressive accessory apartment policies in Connecticut. All approved units are deed restricted as affordable for forty years.................Last year, Trumbull changed accessory apartment deed restrictions from 80% of area median income to 60% of area median income in order to create a deeper level of affordability............Trumbull conducted a complete census of its affordable housing in 2019 and added 120 additional deed restricted units to our inventory."
https://www.trumbull-ct.gov/CivicAle...=1590&ARC=2403


Here is another example. If a town like Westport or Fairfield puts in market rent apartments that are a mix of studios and one bedrooms in a 50/50 mix I am sure the studios would be counted as affordable housing just by the fact they are about 50% smaller than the average house/apartment in those towns.

I would say that a good compromise would be once a town got to 5% of total units affordable then it would be 8% of the new Market rate stock but I think then towns would just stifle all growth to prevent it. I simply don't trust many of the towns to work in good faith as they've proved they can't.

[mdovell]

I'm still wondering why some think ADU's shouldn't count. Look I get it but the definitions are getting more specific which makes it much harder.

First it was affordable housing

Then it was affordable single family homes

Then it seems to be affordable single family homes in FFC.

What can be affordable to some in one area isn't in another. If someone works at a dollar general in say Putnam they probably aren't going to be able to afford a house in FFC. There's plenty of other homes out there but it might not be immediately near physical employment. OK fine so you save on a house and you actually drive to work...big deal.

[okbymeman]

The state needs to shift focus from building these stupid apartment buildings in little towns and instead focus on revitalizing the cities. No one wants to live in some dumpy apartment building in a family exurb. Fix the damn urban cores already, it’s embarrassing. Or keep building “affordable housing” in places where no one wants to be and then watch as all the employers leave for Boston and NYC. Great plan.

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by okbymeman

The state needs to shift focus from building these stupid apartment buildings in little towns and instead focus on revitalizing the cities. No one wants to live in some dumpy apartment building in a family exurb. Fix the damn urban cores already, it’s embarrassing. Or keep building “affordable housing” in places where no one wants to be and then watch as all the employers leave for Boston and NYC. Great plan.

+1

I think I said that pages ago - there are so many areas in the cities where tall buildings can be revitalized or built new and no one will say boo. And it gives people the public transportation and walkability they want.

But wait, they are not targeting the cities at all. Wonder why that is.....

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by WouldLoveTo

Wonder why that is.....

Because DeSeg CT is run and funded by a NYC based RE development company with billions in real estate assets and holdings. Development in high valued suburbs will only enhance the portfolios.