[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

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.

You got any links to those studies? Because what Geoff stated is THE conventional wisdom on the matter. If the studies show it not to be true, that would be very interesting and reframes the debate about affordable housing and its larger effect on the community.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

You got any links to those studies? Because what Geoff stated is THE conventional wisdom on the matter. If the studies show it not to be true, that would be very interesting and reframes the debate about affordable housing and its larger effect on the community.

The claim about elderly housing is going to be a big issue as aging Boomers with no pensions run out of money but it doesn't align with today's HUD data. 20 years from now? There is going to be a huge shortage of low income elderly housing. The thing is, affluent towns have no issue with building senior housing. It places no burden on the public school system and is generally crime-free. They fight low income housing to the death because of what it does to the school system, property tax rates, and property values.



Citation: https://nchph.org/wp-content/uploads...eet-2016-1.pdf

Seniors

Nearly 327,000 or 16% of residents in public housing are seniors (age 62 and above), and approximately 500,000 or 10 % of residents of Section 8 housing are seniors.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Weston have highest median income in state followed by Darien, Capital City is poorest town in state

https://www.courant.com/news/connect...htmlstory.html

No surprises there. More interesting would be to see greatest % changes.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

You got any links to those studies? Because what Geoff stated is THE conventional wisdom on the matter. If the studies show it not to be true, that would be very interesting and reframes the debate about affordable housing and its larger effect on the community.

There's a few asterisks but yeah conventional wisdom is pretty much dead wrong on the issue.

A few key factors however are:

- Projects not being too large to handle
- Not being used to merely to warehouse the poor
- Conforms mostly to local style, design, and the same or similar access to transportation/amenities as surrounding area.

Well planned and maintained public/subsidised/mandated-private housing actually increases nearby housing values, reduces tax burden on grand lists and has shown little to no crime increase. It's literally a win-win if thought out decently enough. It's kind of a local municipality end-run around Baumol's Cost Paradox, but for reasons too complex for this conversation (increasing income with dwindling free land against COL increases, extremelyyyyy briefly).

And going against the counter-narrative of affordable housing in poorer neighbourhoods being bad... that seems to be not rooted in reality too, if the same type of care is afforded to the design, use, and scale of the project. In fact they can have the same benefits.

So long story short, it's not the presence of low income housing, it's the other factors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cd4090701926

http://www.mhponline.org/files/Affor...Households.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...4362281500212X

[BobNJ1960]

https://patch.com/connecticut/milfor...eloped-milford

The Ho Jo's eyesore will soon be gone!

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

https://patch.com/connecticut/milfor...eloped-milford

The Ho Jo's eyesore will soon be gone!

Pls don’t judge me, but I still have VERY fond memories of Howard Johnson’s stay overs and their breakfasts from our 1970s family roadtrips LOL! Lol!
I loved that place and my brother and I would get super excited if the one we were staying at for the particular night happened to have the bonus swimming pool !
For real though, was there a last surviving one in CT that just closed? If so that’s sad
I think “Moon Over My Hammy” was one of their signature breakfasts that I loved. Their chocolate ice cream scoops in a waffle cones too. Love.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Lalalally

Pls don’t judge me, but I still have VERY fond memories of Howard Johnson’s stay overs and their breakfasts from our 1970s family roadtrips LOL! Lol!
I loved that place and my brother and I would get super excited if the one we were staying at for the particular night happened to have the bonus swimming pool !
For real though, was there a last surviving one in CT that just closed? If so that’s sad
I think “Moon Over My Hammy” was one of their signature breakfasts that I loved. Their chocolate ice cream scoops in a waffle cones too. Love.

I stayed at one in Knoxville, Tn 40 years ago, loved it.

As for this one :It was time to go. It looked like a dump with tons of dirt in huge piles.

Not sure new hotel will make it, but can't do any worse.

108 rooms is not huge-so that helps keep costs to run low.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

There's a few asterisks but yeah conventional wisdom is pretty much dead wrong on the issue.

A few key factors however are:

- Projects not being too large to handle
- Not being used to merely to warehouse the poor
- Conforms mostly to local style, design, and the same or similar access to transportation/amenities as surrounding area.

Well planned and maintained public/subsidised/mandated-private housing actually increases nearby housing values, reduces tax burden on grand lists and has shown little to no crime increase. It's literally a win-win if thought out decently enough. It's kind of a local municipality end-run around Baumol's Cost Paradox, but for reasons too complex for this conversation (increasing income with dwindling free land against COL increases, extremelyyyyy briefly).

And going against the counter-narrative of affordable housing in poorer neighbourhoods being bad... that seems to be not rooted in reality too, if the same type of care is afforded to the design, use, and scale of the project. In fact they can have the same benefits.

So long story short, it's not the presence of low income housing, it's the other factors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cd4090701926

http://www.mhponline.org/files/Affor...Households.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...4362281500212X

Thanks, these are really interesting. It seems the studies are all over the place w/r/t effects on property values, although the Post article points to a study where affordable housing in poor areas has a positive effect on property values, while having a negative effect in wealthy ones. Which makes sense - new construction affordable housing is going to be nicer than the existing homes in a poor area and therefore more appealing. But much of the debate in CT has been about affordable housing in wealthy areas (and the lack thereof), when perhaps the focus should be on building more affordable housing in poorer ones.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Thanks, these are really interesting. It seems the studies are all over the place w/r/t effects on property values, although the Post article points to a study where affordable housing in poor areas has a positive effect on property values, while having a negative effect in wealthy ones. Which makes sense - new construction affordable housing is going to be nicer than the existing homes in a poor area and therefore more appealing. But much of the debate in CT has been about affordable housing in wealthy areas (and the lack thereof), when perhaps the focus should be on building more affordable housing in poorer ones.

Not a problem, but I think the state and municipalities should be doing both. I think a lot of the time when people hear about affordable housing they think of the brutalist monstrosities that were built in the 50s-80s on the cheap by the Federal Government that housed way too many poor people that put acute stress on areas.

These days affordable housing comes is much more design focused and diffused population of the extreme poor, as well as a wide array of ownership schemes (public, public-private mixed, Section 8 eligible, simply smaller homes/lots). The best part about allowing for small lot development is that each unit puts only a minor strain on existing infrastructure, which CT should utilize because most of our populated towns overbuilt the capacity through the centuries (whereas many areas such as TX and CO are always scrambling to keep up with their "build as needed" mega-projects). New Canaan and Westport are pretty good examples of having smaller lots getting closer to the centres, and it'd be a stretch to say that really hurts their property values elsewhere.

A good rule of thumb is if there's a affordable housing project that you couldn't peg as such from the outset with no context, it's probably going to help the area and municipality. And that really seems to be the key.

[JayCT]

Is this true? Jay

https://ctmirror.org/2019/01/04/ct-e...g-growth-2019/