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.
The issue is their ideal new comer is a very narrow subset, well-incomed family that commutes to NYC that wants only a good school system. That's less than 10% of Fairfield County's working population and we're designing our towns around that?? That's criminally negligent at best (literally, many Federal and State cases have proved that). The massive apartments are a clear signal the demand is there, but supply is severely restricted.
The truth is people in the urban counties of CT work and live in CT, do not want to spend as much of their lives commuting, want strong and vibrant town centres. Let's just give it to them, give it to us. We're willing to open up shop here and don't much care if it's with a massive yard (a small one I'd love but that's just me).
Again, this is a canard. The proposed legislation specifically allows towns to transfer that responsibility to other hubs where it makes more sense, leave out historically significant areas, and take into account topological concerns. As well it has a opt-out for boards altogether. The historic areas of Fairfield are safe.
no?
I don’t know how true this is. In New Canaan 3(? Ish?) years ago a massive apartment complex was built but you know who lives in it? People are doing short term rentals while they renovate their single family homes or are trying to buy. The apartments for sale are just staying there unsold for years, but because of this housing nonsense, they are talking of adding another massive apartment complex near town. Why? To hit some random target that Hartford made? Most people looking for smaller properties don’t want to live in quiet little New Canaan. The people who want apartments or condos overwhelmingly would rather live in areas that have more shopping and restaurants and activity. But because of this state BS we are now obligated to let some out of town developer build a massive apartment complex where 30 of the 126 units will be low income (which actually will drive DOWN the percentage of low income units per town we have but because it’s a solid number and not a percentage we just get screwed in that aspect). It’s insane.
I don’t know how true this is. In New Canaan 3(? Ish?) years ago a massive apartment complex was built but you know who lives in it? People are doing short term rentals while they renovate their single family homes or are trying to buy. The apartments for sale are just staying there unsold for years, but because of this housing nonsense, they are talking of adding another massive apartment complex near town. Why? To hit some random target that Hartford made? Most people looking for smaller properties don’t want to live in quiet little New Canaan. The people who want apartments or condos overwhelmingly would rather live in areas that have more shopping and restaurants and activity. But because of this state BS we are now obligated to let some out of town developer build a massive apartment complex where 30 of the 126 units will be low income (which actually will drive DOWN the percentage of low income units per town we have but because it’s a solid number and not a percentage we just get screwed in that aspect). It’s insane.
So New Canaan didn't foresee population growth and didn't appropriately zone for a more diffuse manner for it? And that's somehow a problem with the State's mandates? Give me an absolute break. Exactly the reason WHY the State is going to have to come in, the PNZ board clearly is incompetent under your own scenario...
So New Canaan didn't foresee population growth and didn't appropriately zone for a more diffuse manner for it? And that's somehow a problem with the State's mandates? Give me an absolute break. Exactly the reason WHY the State is going to have to come in, the PNZ board clearly is incompetent under your own scenario...
No we don’t need them. That’s why I’m saying after 3 years the apartments are still unsold, just sitting there vacant. We have lots of smaller inventory (apartments that aren’t selling). What is selling fast is single family homes. We don’t need more apartments because they aren’t being used but because of the state we are being forced to build more. That’s the stupid part. And we do have zones delegated for condos and such. But this mandate from Hartford makes it so they literally done have to listen to our zones.
Maybe it's just me but if you want more housing simply go to the other side of 91. Eastern CT has plenty of land and we'd certainly welcome the development. 3M is literally begging for more employees to come to apply. By all means if you want cheaper housing you can find it for under 300K here https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3...58103791_zpid/
I'm not against expanding housing but it's a hard argument to make that people are trying to make housing more affordable and increase density in areas that already have higher prices and density and yet there's plenty of space out east. There's houses, land etc. As long as lines are there (water, sewer, electric, telecommunication) and basic services like trash and recycling I really don't see the problem. If we want to urbanize that's fine but urbanize places that are suburban first, otherwise it's just building on top of what's already built.
Jay, you're misreading what I'm advocating for and what is proposed (will get to that in a second). I am NOT for high count apartment buildings where they do not mesh with the environs. I AM for slightly higher density in areas that can both handle slight increases in a healthy manner (duplexes, small townhouses, micro-houses, in-law apartments, mixed use on commercial corridors, detached secondary units etc. Heck even make it a medallion system tied to areas to coral that growth too) and apartment complexes being built where it makes sense (near transit, underused surface level parking, garage apartments).
Meaning small scaled, slow, individually driven, market/situation based growth in zoned areas that are SFH's exclusively. That zoning method is incredibly new to CT in general (again for obvious and horrendous rationales) and stymied growth where it was occurring organically for over three centuries. We've known about the issues in Southern CT for decades, essentially since the advent of the adoption of SFH-only zoned areas. That's exactly what D-CT is advocating as well, not apartment complexes everywhere.
It's not like this approach is novel or out of the ordinary, Minnesota (although might've just been Hennepin County only but point remains) adopted similar legislation and rents went down almost 20% while property values rose without much additional strain on local school systems. Same in MA and NJ. Not everyone wants a huge house on a huge yard, myself included as many of my cohorts are now starting to look for starter properties or reasonable rentals to build wealth in other manners.
Southern CT has done an absolute ****te job at housing diversity (not to mention commercial uses), with many planning boards thinking the best way to increase home value is to only allow SFH new construction. That's insane and why the State is going to have to come in. Those planning boards did it to themselves with incompetence and lack of vision and/or ignoring the research. The issue is their ideal new comer is a very narrow subset, well-incomed family that commutes to NYC that wants only a good school system. That's less than 10% of Fairfield County's working population and we're designing our towns around that?? That's criminally negligent at best (literally, many Federal and State cases have proved that). The massive apartments are a clear signal the demand is there, but supply is severely restricted.
The truth is people in the urban counties of CT work and live in CT, do not want to spend as much of their lives commuting, want strong and vibrant town centres. Let's just give it to them, give it to us. We're willing to open up shop here and don't much care if it's with a massive yard (a small one I'd love but that's just me).
Again, this is a canard. The proposed legislation specifically allows towns to transfer that responsibility to other hubs where it makes more sense, leave out historically significant areas, and take into account topological concerns. As well it has a opt-out for boards altogether. The historic areas of Fairfield are safe.
I mean at one point CT had more train cars than the entirety of Amtrak does today. Things change and maybe our grandfathers weren't silly afterall. But the answer can't be what the heel draggers have gotten us into: them doing nothing, not changing with the times, and figuring that the urban cores should bear the entirety of the burden. At one point the neighbourhoods you're trying to preserve changed drastically to get them to what they are today, no?
What density are you advocating for? Are you for 26 three story units on 2/3 of an acre? Are you for 100 units on 4 acres in a 2 acre zone? If you look at all of these affordable housing proposals, they are 25 to 30 units per acre or more in neighborhoods that have no where near that density. To me, 10 units per acre was acceptable but that’s being overridden. Why is that?
Also I realize the proposed legislation offers ways for towns to preserve some areas BUT once they get this mandate in, what’s to prevent them from changing that. Allowing this sets a precedent for the future and that precedent is for the state to override local rule. It can easily lead to regionalization and that’s the absolute last thing I and many want to see. Jay
Southern CT has done an absolute ****te job at housing diversity (not to mention commercial uses), with many planning boards thinking the best way to increase home value is to only allow SFH new construction.
Southern CT has done nothing but increase housing diversity, in buckets, and rents have skyrocketed.
Poor and low income weren't the ones moving in so everyones been ok with the increased housing diversity. Some native lifelong seniors may have been upset and annoyed but most others were it ok with as long as the newcomers brought the income and didn't cross the tracks.
[/quote]
The truth is people in the urban counties of CT work and live in CT, do not want to spend as much of their lives commuting, want strong and vibrant town centres. Let's just give it to them, give it to us. We're willing to open up shop here and don't much care if it's with a massive yard (a small one I'd love but that's just me).
[/quote]
What density are you advocating for? Are you for 26 three story units on 2/3 of an acre? Are you for 100 units on 4 acres in a 2 acre zone? If you look at all of these affordable housing proposals, they are 25 to 30 units per acre or more in neighborhoods that have no where near that density. To me, 10 units per acre was acceptable but that’s being overridden. Why is that?
15 units/acre are fairly sizeable rowhouses, retail/apartment blocks, duplexes/triplexes, and or microhouse clusters. This absolutely makes sense near transit as those areas already have infrastructure built out for it (though I'd personally lower it to 12ish/acre). The rest of the town can absolutely take a new tri-plex and/or ADU property per area which would make a HUGE difference. Won't take much to move that needle with almost no difference to community character.
Bigger projects where it's feasible is turning out OK too as none of the issues naysayers said about the complexes near Fairfield Metro came to pass... predictably. Sure the marquee retail location is still empty but there was a lease in place for almost five years that the lease holder never made a move on and the other retail stores are in process or are already leased.
As well the towns should've been planning for expanding their downtowns outward for decades. But they didn't for absolutely absurd reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
Also I realize the proposed legislation offers ways for towns to preserve some areas BUT once they get this mandate in, what’s to prevent them from changing that. Allowing this sets a precedent for the future and that precedent is for the state to override local rule. It can easily lead to regionalization and that’s the absolute last thing I and many want to see. Jay
There's already laws about how Zoning boards should use their power and a few of them aren't following it. Home rule comes from the state and the rewrite of the State's zoning law from the 70's was ignored almost wholesale by those towns. Blame them if they are ruining it for everyone. Some municipalities did a great job (like Fairfield) but the inaction by a few others is putting the whole pressure on the ones that have been looking ahead and not being jerks.
I know I'm harping on Fairfield and Bridgeport but those towns I know best zoning reg and political wise.
I remember the howl about the Fairfield Metro, the howl about the new Brickwalk where Molto and Mecha is now, the howl about the condos near Summit, etc etc etc. None of the howlers are in Fairfield anymore, and none of their dire predictions ever came to pass. Slightly higher density in the areas that can handle it isn't just ok, it's needed badly.
15 units/acre are fairly sizeable rowhouses, retail/apartment blocks, duplexes/triplexes, and or microhouse clusters. This absolutely makes sense near transit as those areas already have infrastructure built out for it (though I'd personally lower it to 12ish/acre). The rest of the town can absolutely take a new tri-plex and/or ADU property per area which would make a HUGE difference. Won't take much to move that needle with almost no difference to community character.
Bigger projects where it's feasible is turning out OK too as none of the issues naysayers said about the complexes near Fairfield Metro came to pass... predictably. Sure the marquee retail location is still empty but there was a lease in place for almost five years that the lease holder never made a move on and the other retail stores are in process or are already leased.
As well the towns should've been planning for expanding their downtowns outward for decades. But they didn't for absolutely absurd reasons.
There's already laws about how Zoning boards should use their power and a few of them aren't following it. Home rule comes from the state and the rewrite of the State's zoning law from the 70's was ignored almost wholesale by those towns. Blame them if they are ruining it for everyone. Some municipalities did a great job (like Fairfield) but the inaction by a few others is putting the whole pressure on the ones that have been looking ahead and not being jerks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211
Jay,
I know I'm harping on Fairfield and Bridgeport but those towns I know best zoning reg and political wise.
I remember the howl about the Fairfield Metro, the howl about the new Brickwalk where Molto and Mecha is now, the howl about the condos near Summit, etc etc etc. None of the howlers are in Fairfield anymore, and none of their dire predictions ever came to pass. Slightly higher density in the areas that can handle it isn't just ok, it's needed badly.
Fairfield is a town we both know well but also it seems to be a battle ground for affordable housing these days. What’s ironic is that Fairfield has hundreds if not thousands of affordable apartments, yet NONE of them are counted because they are privately owned and predate the 8-30g Statute. That’s not fair.
I do think 15 units per acre is reasonable for the more urban parts of town like Fairfield Center or Fairfield Metro but as I noted these proposals across town are 30 units per acre. That’s why the State Mandate does not work and needs to be changed. It’s destroying the town and as the saying goes “killing the Golden Goose”. Who wants to live in a town when there is a constant threat of a monstrosity popping up right next door?
I remember well the howl over Fairfield Metro Center because I was right in the middle of it as an expert for the developer. Though there were concerns, it wasn’t from who you would think would oppose it. You didn’t have neighbors or even average Joe Fairfield opposing it. I went head-to-head with Cindy Bigelow (of Bigelow Tea) over the station and complex. Her words “We have to be careful. Very careful” still ring in my ears. Still don’t understand her reasoning. They wanted to build a train station literally right outside her back door. Doesn’t that add value to her property? Jay
I agree if the statute doesn't count old stock apartments and old growth SFHs, townhouses, and apartments then that's not fair. I'm trying to get a solid answer on that but it's a bit elusive. A good compromise, I think, is give the municipalities leeway to zone for the housing stock and allow for splitting bigger lots... and if homeowners and developers want to go for it they can as long as the town doesn't impede with insane redtape and litigation to essentially keep things the way they are. It would also help the municipalities by calculating based not on existing stock as is but potential units. This would let market forces work better instead of PNZ acting as cartels and essentially HOA membership boards with the force of law for existing property owners (which is not their job, btw). But unfortunately some boards really dropped the ball.
Even mandating smart-growth zones around already denser than usual areas where the business districts can expand much more organically over the decades with no shock to property owners coming into those areas. But forcing the PNZ boards to actually think ahead instead of trying to lock their municipalities as currently built is just good policy. If those boards think that they simply can't they should have some sort of appeals process where they have to state their case on why... not for the rest of the state to just "take their word."
I'm aware of Cindy's campaign against the development, but there were others that I'm sure you're well aware of that simply didn't want any growth whatsoever in town and especially had a ax to grind with "that part of town." Almost all of the locals loved the idea, but a few from very different parts funded their own legal war against the Wetlands committee for approving the project (and started a nasty whisper campaign against then First Selectman). The stalling was half successful as the developer ran out of funding for the second and third parcels which would've added about 250 units both rental and condo, at the time dearly needed office suites, perhaps a hotel if they got a major franchisee on board, a parking garage, walking trails, additional footbridges over Ash Creek, and additional small scale retail to service the complex. All in a massive brownfield that would've been cleaned up mostly on the developers expense, and would've boosted Fairfield's grand list as other areas were sharply dropping in assessment value (Greenfield primarily). These were of a similar group that tried to stymie the New Brickwalk among others.
Last edited by Beeker2211; 03-17-2022 at 11:03 AM..
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.
Jay
