The Movement to Economically Desegregate Connecticut (New Haven, Fairfield: 2015, rental market, lawyer)
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.
Warehousing the poorest of the poor en masse in poorly cared for complexes like Trumbull Gardens was always known to be a bad idea. This isn't new, and absolutely comes from the exact exclusionary zoning that you're defending (pretty undeniable, because we have the FHA policies from the 1940's that are explicitly and unashamedly classist and racist).
Has it been determined what the crusaders with a fancy website that call themselves "Desegrate CT" really want? (I don't have time to surf the site, free time is reserved for City Data only)
Do they want to put these Trumbull Gardens type of facilities back en vogue? Stamford and Norwalk sent them packing off to parts unknown to put up Unaffordable housing. Will those personnel eventually land in Darien and Wilton?
Whenever they use "Gardens" in a housing facility name you know your in trouble.
Or do they advocate for fair housing for the hard working blue collar sect?
Has it been determined what the crusaders with a fancy website that call themselves "Desegrate CT" really want? (I don't have time to surf the site, free time is reserved for City Data only)
Do they want to put these Trumbull Gardens type of facilities back en vogue? Stamford and Norwalk sent them packing off to parts unknown to put up Unaffordable housing. Will those personnel eventually land in Darien and Wilton?
Whenever they use "Gardens" in a housing facility name you know your in trouble.
Or do they advocate for fair housing for the hard working blue collar sect?
From their platform page:
"The truth is, much of Connecticut’s architecture follows a set pattern. Our charming traditional main streets, streetcar suburbs, and coastline developments all share common elements. It seems reasonable that we could establish guidelines that would allow for new development, compatible with the old, while streamlining costs."
"Towns could adopt the code as their option, or there could be a phase-in period to require certain types of zoning, where the state is making infrastructure investments. In such a small state, having a statewide zoning code, developed with many stakeholders, could unlock economic development and pathways to opportunity. "
Really sounds like they are gunning to make Glastonbury like LA in Blade Runner, complete with Politboro-designed mass housing tracts filled to the brim with carefully selected murderers and petty theives that have to meet their stealing quota or they get the boot...
Honestly though what they seem to be advocating for is just to think about future growth instead of the current default of knee-jerk heel digging. It's funny too because the most charming parts of CT are mostly the parts that had zero to little zoning. I'd rather have the towns and cities fight building the awful McMansions than fight in-law apartments.
Maybe I'm using too much jargon. But exclusionary zoning is where the zoning board says "you cannot build xyz in abc area." If you are a developer and want to build xyz in abc you have to get a variance. The idea for other styles of zoning management far reduce the use of variances because the zoning rules look forward and allow for disperse growth instead of trying and failing to lock in place the current state.
As I've said, CT gives it's municipal Zoning boards far more power than most states. Most boards lack anyone with any certification in growth policies, so inertia is strong even if it isn't beneficial for both the state and the towns they serve. It's a reasonable request that the boards, with their immense power, think ahead.
Anyways it doesn't look like the current law actually does an end run around local zoning, it just fast tracks the court process should the zoning boards remain obstinate to ANY growth. If reasonable the courts have ruled often in favour if the boards have a wide list of concerns, and moratoria are granted often if the state deems the zoning board is acting in good faith (hell, even Darien got what seems like an 8 year). Again, with the new law being proposed the zoning boards wouldn't have to go to court as often to fight the variances if they plan ahead... isn't that better solution?
Oh come now, so people in the complex in Noroton are running roughshod over the village? I hear their gangs are super cut throat of their Cribbage-game racket. Dear lord.
Warehousing the poorest of the poor en masse in poorly cared for complexes like Trumbull Gardens was always known to be a bad idea. This isn't new, and absolutely comes from the exact exclusionary zoning that you're defending (pretty undeniable, because we have the FHA policies from the 1940's that are explicitly and unashamedly classist and racist).
Boy do i disagree with you on this. As history has shown you can’t trust developers to do what’s best for the community. Just look at the hideous affordable housing structures proposed in Fairfield recently like Beach Road, Unquowa Place or Beaconview Drive. Do you really think these fit the character of the neighborhood? They don’t. They are four or five story buildings that pretty much fill their small lots. That’s not anything like what exists in those areas.
By law, every town in the state has a Plan for Development and that plan must be updated every five years. These plans outline the way growth will be handled in that town. It is developed by professional planners working closely with town staff and input from residents. That plan addresses all aspects of the town’s growth and development. It directs the type of development that should occur where including affordable housing. That is the best way to handle growth without destroying a town’s character. You can’t trust developers to care what they leave.
Your example of Darien is not necessarily the best example to consider. It is one small development in a large neighborhood. It worked fine but what about Trumbull Gardens? It was rebuilt a number of years ago in an attempt to improve on the original high rise complex that was built there back in the 50’s. It failed. The complex has seen a lot of crime and problem people fled when they moved to the suburbs. How does a town prevent that from happening in their community? They can’t.
What’s even more angering is that this type of development impacts the hard working middle class. These developments won’t be built in pricey upper class neighborhoods because of the high cost of land. They won’t be built in poor areas because that’s not where developers want them. That leaves the middle class to pay the price yet again. I’m sorry, that is wrong. Jay
I absolutely DO agree with you. Those projects in Fairfield are not to scale of their surrounding areas in the least. I think Fairfield isn't a great point of talk on this subject because the re-interest in town kind of threw the entire town elders way off, don't forget about 6 years ago the prevailing theme of development was that the demand of housing in Fairfield would soften deeply due to GE itching to leave coupled that a lot of the affordable rental units of private owners in town suddenly became "non-affordable" in under a few years.
The problem of modern zoning is that the status quo is the default, and the inertia of that default it heightens the whole process. Like in Fairfield there are only a couple of "open zoning" areas that are mostly brownfields being converted to luxury apartments.
But the process usually works like this in Fairfield for example: developer acquires property, wants to add units, zoning board will fight the addition of units, so developer attempts to propose absolute monstrosity, zoning "negotiates" developer down, yadda yadda, big ugly thing gets built. I follow the zoning processes very closely and many in the region are more against more units than they are about bigger buildings... that's the problem.
Good growth options:
- In-Law Apartments
- More two/three family Victorian or Townhouse style
- Apartment complexes in former brownfields/near transit hubs
- More Apartments Above Stripmall complexes.
- Pre-made plans at certain locations
Bad Growth:
- Ad-hoc variance granting after lengthy battle trying to prevent more units throughout the municipality.
Most municipalities in CT rest only on the second group, all it does it make zoning more powerful than it should be, and they do it to limit unit growth... not to preserve character.
I absolutely DO agree with you. Those projects in Fairfield are not to scale of their surrounding areas in the least. I think Fairfield isn't a great point of talk on this subject because the re-interest in town kind of threw the entire town elders way off, don't forget about 6 years ago the prevailing theme of development was that the demand of housing in Fairfield would soften deeply due to GE itching to leave coupled that a lot of the affordable rental units of private owners in town suddenly became "non-affordable" in under a few years.
The problem of modern zoning is that the status quo is the default, and the inertia of that default it heightens the whole process. Like in Fairfield there are only a couple of "open zoning" areas that are mostly brownfields being converted to luxury apartments.
But the process usually works like this in Fairfield for example: developer acquires property, wants to add units, zoning board will fight the addition of units, so developer attempts to propose absolute monstrosity, zoning "negotiates" developer down, yadda yadda, big ugly thing gets built. I follow the zoning processes very closely and many in the region are more against more units than they are about bigger buildings... that's the problem.
Good growth options:
- In-Law Apartments
- More two/three family Victorian or Townhouse style
- Apartment complexes in former brownfields/near transit hubs
- More Apartments Above Stripmall complexes.
- Pre-made plans at certain locations
Bad Growth:
- Ad-hoc variance granting after lengthy battle trying to prevent more units throughout the municipality.
Most municipalities in CT rest only on the second group, all it does it make zoning more powerful than it should be, and they do it to limit unit growth... not to preserve character.
2K/month for one bedroom studios?
Desegregate CT's crusaders don't care about these types of developments in Fairfield. They don't desegregate anything. They want more Trumbull Gardens everywhere. Like he says, property is too expensive. Won't ever happen. That alone should quell fears.
2K/month for one bedroom studios?
Desegregate CT's crusaders don't care about these types of developments in Fairfield. They don't desegregate anything. They want more Trumbull Gardens everywhere. Like he says, property is too expensive. Won't ever happen. That alone should quell fears.
No. They literally don't. Much of the reason for the 2k/mo luxury apartments is because of onerous zoning approval cuts out mid-low market rate apartments. The stated fear of towns is school aged children entering the system, but this does not seem to bear out.
So, a group with a fairly begin message is being maligned for simply stating we should maybe think differently about growth, even so far as putting words in their mouths. It really is extremely hard to believe that this is really about protecting local control of zoning, even if it's a knee jerk subconscious reaction.
I absolutely DO agree with you. Those projects in Fairfield are not to scale of their surrounding areas in the least. I think Fairfield isn't a great point of talk on this subject because the re-interest in town kind of threw the entire town elders way off, don't forget about 6 years ago the prevailing theme of development was that the demand of housing in Fairfield would soften deeply due to GE itching to leave coupled that a lot of the affordable rental units of private owners in town suddenly became "non-affordable" in under a few years.
The problem of modern zoning is that the status quo is the default, and the inertia of that default it heightens the whole process. Like in Fairfield there are only a couple of "open zoning" areas that are mostly brownfields being converted to luxury apartments.
But the process usually works like this in Fairfield for example: developer acquires property, wants to add units, zoning board will fight the addition of units, so developer attempts to propose absolute monstrosity, zoning "negotiates" developer down, yadda yadda, big ugly thing gets built. I follow the zoning processes very closely and many in the region are more against more units than they are about bigger buildings... that's the problem.
Good growth options:
- In-Law Apartments
- More two/three family Victorian or Townhouse style
- Apartment complexes in former brownfields/near transit hubs
- More Apartments Above Stripmall complexes.
- Pre-made plans at certain locations
Bad Growth:
- Ad-hoc variance granting after lengthy battle trying to prevent more units throughout the municipality.
Most municipalities in CT rest only on the second group, all it does it make zoning more powerful than it should be, and they do it to limit unit growth... not to preserve character.
Excellent way to put it.
For Fairfield... I'd much rather have the Commerce Drive/Fairfield Metro area turn into an urban center with mixed-use apartment complexes if that means not having new development in the more established neighborhoods. If that demands relaxation of the zoning laws in the area so be it.
No. They literally don't. Much of the reason for the 2k/mo luxury apartments is because of onerous zoning approval cuts out mid-low market rate apartments. The stated fear of towns is school aged children entering the system, but this does not seem to bear out.
So, a group with a fairly begin message is being maligned for simply stating we should maybe think differently about growth, even so far as putting words in their mouths. It really is extremely hard to believe that this is really about protecting local control of zoning, even if it's a knee jerk subconscious reaction.
Thank you for this response. I’m with you on this take.
For Fairfield... I'd much rather have the Commerce Drive/Fairfield Metro area turn into an urban center with mixed-use apartment complexes if that means not having new development in the more established neighborhoods. If that demands relaxation of the zoning laws in the area so be it.
They could also allow a certain percentages of multi-families (mostly 2/3) per residential zone and you'd have the same number of units online as a big apartment building with basically no change in overall density of those areas. It really doesn't take even much.
Is now really the time to be mandating more density? Completely ill timed.
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.
