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.
I typed an entire comment and it didn’t post. I did read the first few pages.
This zoning issue will not be successful. The thing many won’t say in polite company is that rich and middle class folks don’t want to live near poor folks. Why? Because of the issues of crime and single parenthood that permeates low income communities. Those issues have a domino affect on property values and schools. That’s why charter schools exist in low income communities, because parents who care need an out. Charter schools can screen, where as communities can’t screen low income people that would live in affordable housing. The ACLU would sue. It’s easier to decline to any zoning changes.
It’s also ignorant to think that diversity means allowing low income housing in one’s community. I live in a Hartford suburb. My neighborhood has Hispanics, Eastern Europeans, Whites, Asian-Indians and Muslims. We are already diverse and get along great.
Yups, classism all over this post. And further proof that CT should not allow local boards to use their power and apparatuses of the state to discriminate against the poor.
Yups, classism all over this post. And further proof that CT should not allow local boards to use their power and apparatuses of the state to discriminate against the poor.
Any governor that tried to control local boards wouldn’t be governor. You don’t really have an argument. The rich shouldn’t be able to discriminate against the middle class, they should build 350-650k homes near 10 million dollar mansions. Do you hear yourself? Because that’s your argument.
The best way to combat poverty is combat cultural issues that cause it, like having children outside of marriage and young. That can be done in the neighborhoods it’s happening in. Moving the problem to another middle class neighborhood doesn’t change it. One of the single best indicators of success for poor children is having a mom and dad in the home.
Vastly different than some, of course. That's the human condition. And certainly much different than the constant complainers. But my urban planning positions are pretty well fit either with the majority or the majority is amenable once the pros and cons are laid out. I can admit that, if you can admit your version of "better" maybe far less popular than you imagine it to be.
That hasn’t been evidenced in this thread and, anecdotally, doesn’t shake out with how state residents feel about it. To say your “urban planning positions are well fit” with the majority with zero source as backing is drivel.
Exactly. No one serious is discussing radical action immediately. That's a canard. What D-CT and the rewrite of 8-30g on the table currently is that change is towns using their zoning to completely shut out other socio-economic-racial groups. In fact the rewrite makes it easier for towns to enforce local control without the threat of a 8-30g lawsuit. Let me explain:
Current system: Municipality is state mandated to keep 10% affordable housing styles at all times -> Municipality sets exclusionary zoning in all zones -> Possibly Predatory Developer buys land -> Submits variance -> PnZ fights back -> Developer threatens to sue -> either a) settlement on building or b) state comes in and subsumes local zoning. It's a "No" system first, with variances forcing the change.
Proposed system: Municipality is state mandated to allow for 10% affordable housing styles over a 10 year period -> Municipality over years decides where it wants development and allows for building of 10% low/moderate income housing municipality wide -> Developer comes in -> Variance submitted -> Variance denied because it's not in zone -> municipality can tell predatory developer to sod off because it's not in the zone cleared and clearly stated. As long as the municipality is allowing for 10% and not getting in the way there's no threat from state action. This is a "yes, but here and here" system that reduces the need for variances.
How is the second system not infinitely better?
The only thing that is "radical" about D-CT is their opposition to over-parking. But this is very uncontroversial in the urban planning community, this video explains why very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGxni1c-klM
If this is all settled, as you claim, why would Jews need a haven?
Wrong term used, just meant a higher % in town. I don't think anyone even cares anymore who's Jewish.
Suburbanites don't care if a Quaker moves in next door let alone a Jewish person. Nobody needs a safe "haven" anymore.
Lets get real, they're talking about the low income sect here.
Any governor that tried to control local boards wouldn’t be governor. You don’t really have an argument. The rich shouldn’t be able to discriminate against the middle class, they should build 350-650k homes near 10 million dollar mansions. Do you hear yourself? Because that’s your argument.
And what, exactly, is so horrible with allowing mid range houses near uber mansions?
First according to you I have no argument then you horribly mangle my actual argument to suit your strawman of what you wish my argument is. It's almost hilarious if it wasn't so transparent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtohartfordct
The best way to combat poverty is combat cultural issues that cause it, like having children outside of marriage and young. That can be done in the neighborhoods it’s happening in. Moving the problem to another middle class neighborhood doesn’t change it. One of the single best indicators of success for poor children is having a mom and dad in the home.
Just world fallacy utter drivel. The best and cheapest course of action to alleviate poverty is simple: no-strings cash to those that need it. The issues you are complaining about are symptoms of socio-economic issues, not the root cause of it. Classism, pure and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764
That hasn’t been evidenced in this thread and, anecdotally, doesn’t shake out with how state residents feel about it. To say your “urban planning positions are well fit” with the majority with zero source as backing is drivel.
Just because you're ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and just because some people are loud doesn't mean they are in the majority. Even the Woodbridge project had numerous people in attendence in favor of the project. And if the people opposed to these slight changes have to contort the arguments of the other side so badly to make it seem nefarious, there's pretty good reason to believe those opposed aren't on the up and up.
What's wrong with allowing a variety of housing stock in various neighbourhoods, more apartments over strip retail stores, dense and varied town centres, remediating brownfields,and removing some of the parking? Not a whole lot... Unless you don't even want to see the hoi polloi at all.
Oh hey look... from 2015 but doesn't seem to be any different in attitudes:
"Specifically, most
Connecticut adults (47%) report currently living in a suburb where
most people drive to most places. But only 8% want to someday live in
that suburban, car-dependent environment. Among Connecticut
adults ages 21 to 65 with two or more years of college education, the
decline is 39 percentage points, from 49% now to 10% in the future.
For the U.S. a whole, the decline is 33 percentage point decline, from
40% now to 7% in the future. Relatedly, 44% report wanting to
someday live in a walkable area with shops and restaurants nearby,
compared with 32% that report currently living in such an area. The
increase among Connecticut adults ages 18 to 65 with two or more
years of college education (18 percentage points, from 30% now to
48% in the future) is higher than for the U.S. as a whole (2 percentage
points, from 33% now to 35% in the future). "
Last edited by Beeker2211; 02-24-2021 at 12:38 PM..
And what, exactly, is so horrible with allowing mid range houses near uber mansions?
First according to you I have no argument then you horribly mangle my actual argument to suit your strawman of what you wish my argument is. It's almost hilarious if it wasn't so transparent.
Just world fallacy utter drivel. The best and cheapest course of action to alleviate poverty is simple: no-strings cash to those that need it. The issues you are complaining about are symptoms of socio-economic issues, not the root cause of it. Classism, pure and simple.
Just because you're ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and just because some people are loud doesn't mean they are in the majority. Even the Woodbridge project had numerous people in attendence in favor of the project. And if the people opposed to these slight changes have to contort the arguments of the other side so badly to make it seem nefarious, there's pretty good reason to believe those opposed aren't on the up and up.
What's wrong with allowing a variety of housing stock in various neighbourhoods, more apartments over strip retail stores, dense and varied town centres, remediating brownfields,and removing some of the parking? Not a whole lot... Unless you don't even want to see the hoi polloi at all.
That’s actually not true at all. If that was the case the access to food stamps, free school, Medicaid, section 8 and Tanf would have ended poverty. It didn’t. It’s a cultural issue. Schools in many of the poorest areas spend more per pupil than schools in the suburbs.
That’s actually not true at all. If that was the case the access to food stamps, free school, Medicaid, section 8 and Tanf would have ended poverty. It didn’t. It’s a cultural issue. Schools in many of the poorest areas spend more per pupil than schools in the suburbs.
So the things known to be half measures and designed to not break poverty didn't break poverty? No. Way.
No-strings cash assistance is far cheaper and more effective:
No it isn’t. You have provided no evidence that it would help and there’s plenty of evidence that it doesn’t. It only enables more fatherless homes, more dysfunction and more kids.
Insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different outcome. Now you want to change zoning laws to bring in the same issues that cause generational poverty to communities that are doing well.
I typed an entire comment and it didn’t post. I did read the first few pages.
This zoning issue will not be successful. The thing many won’t say in polite company is that rich and middle class folks don’t want to live near poor folks. Why? Because of the issues of crime and single parenthood that permeates low income communities. Those issues have a domino affect on property values and schools. That’s why charter schools exist in low income communities, because parents who care need an out. Charter schools can screen, where as communities can’t screen low income people that would live in affordable housing. The ACLU would sue. It’s easier to decline to any zoning changes.
It’s also ignorant to think that diversity means allowing low income housing in one’s community. I live in a Hartford suburb. My neighborhood has Hispanics, Eastern Europeans, Whites, Asian-Indians and Muslims. We are already diverse and get along great.
Uh...not exactly but you really opened up a few veins here.
First and foremost it can be hard sometimes to on the surface determine who is rich, middle class and poor just by looking at them. Ronald Read comes to mind and that man retired with millions just being a janitor in Vermont. Heck like him Warrant buffet gets the same breakfast each day. Anyway class and income are two different things. You can be white trash and be rich and you can be poor and be educated and refined. I'd suggest you read To Kill a Mockingbird again.
Crime? Well I would argue that in most urban areas crime is between criminals for the most part. If you do drugs, sell drugs, loanshark, are a prostitute or john etc you have little to worry about.
Single parenthood is a bit misleading because frankly many marriages end in divorce and to suggest that people should stay in bad marriages just doesn't work. In Mass years ago they got rid of the lifetime alimony provision and state governments administer a fair amount of child support programs.
I guess you can say medical, agricultural and religious...
When people talk about low income housing it's important to see the income levels and the family size. This differs all over the place. You can't take for example a section 8 voucher in NYC and live in Hartford.
In many respects income and education means less divorce. But yet... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/10/bein...f-divorce.html
divorces increase when the economy is good but then drop as it gets worse. Too broke to break up I guess.
Now if you mean single parenthood without marriage that's a bit different. Marriage isn't exactly an assumption these days. https://time.com/5434949/divorce-rat...iage-benefits/
I'm far from a religious conservative but there are legit reasons why there are marriages.
"Cohabiting is becoming a norm in most Westernized countries. In 2018, 15% of folks ages 25 to 34 lived with an unmarried partner, up from 12% a decade earlier. More Americans under 25 cohabit with a partner (9%) than are married to one (7%). Two decades ago, those figures weren’t even close: 5% were cohabiting and 14% were married."
Yes communities can screen for housing. In Mass public housing authorities can kick out anyone that commits violence within them. I heard a story of one where a pipe bomb was made and they kicked out him (the boy friend) and her. It doesn't matter who it belonged to. Homeless shelters also can filter as level three sex offenders and arsonists have to be separated off from the general housed population. What the laws say is fine but people generalize what laws really mean. Having the right to a public education is fine but it doesn't mean it has to be in a classroom etc. right to shelter does not mean it has to be in an actual house. Private owners of course can follow things to the letter of the lease and kick people out. I'm not saying it is easy but it is possible.
In Mass yes there are boards that the governor does appoint a member but it isn't the whole board. A board of seven might have one from the state because it receives state funding. The second you take state or federal funding you have to deal with the ramifications.
I'm not saying diversity and poverty are the same thing either but you have to read the study I referenced earlier. The issue I see with this frankly isn't so much the bottom but the middle. When you have people that have jobs and make too much for a homeless shelter and too much for public housing/section 8 then what... The housing market is pretty hot and it would be bad policy to suggest people should get poorer on purpose to get on a new government plan.
40B in Mass is affordable housing law and basically you have the 10%. If you can't reach 10% then a developer can override everything and put anything anywhere. So most communities comply.
If we want debates on the police the argument of a voucher vs direct funding has ALWAYS been there.
Section 8 vs public housing
Charter school vs public school
Paratransit vs public transit
EBT vs old fashioned government cheese
There are some cultural issues. The Geography of Time is a good example. Time is the greatest investment and frankly if people assume that things are already set, don't invest let alone participate it doesn't go well.
Again I'm not a social conservative but some of this is a bit harder to argue against. We have a faster pace of life in the northeast largely because the weather changes constantly. We maximize our time when it is good out. When you go down south it's a slower pace of life because there's just no incentives to do as much if it's 75 degrees and sunny 3/4ths of the year.
On a commercial side of course businesses want things similar close to them. A Nordstrom is not going to be next to a Dollar Tree, a Whole foods isn't going to be next to C Town etc in terms of people it depends. In many places it's cheaper to buy than rent (my case) but others are the opposite. If a community does not allow either one (not permitting new construction, ADU's, rental properties in general) it limits growth significantly.
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.
