[mmpqqq]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Once again, did you read the law? Obviously not, the 8-30g had no deadlines and no punishments for not complying and no rewards for complying.

Most of the towns in our state have no mechanism for providing affordable housing. Local planning and zoning commissions are only charged with reviewing developments for compliance with zoning laws. Nothing else. They couldn’t force developers to build affordable housing even if they wanted to. This is the big flaw with 8-30g. It’s very poorly conceived. Jay

Kudos, this completely debunks Beeker's argument that towns only need to 'plan ahead', they have no control. I would only add that one would not consider it a flaw if this wasn't the intended outcome.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by mmpqqq

Kudos, this completely debunks Beeker's argument that towns only need to 'plan ahead', they have no control. I would only add that one would not consider it a flaw if this wasn't the intended outcome.

Well that is true. There are a lot of questions about who is funding Desegregate CT, it’s connection to RPA, a non-profit planning group and RPA’s close connections to private developers. It’s all very suspicious. Jay

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by norcal2k19

>>CT is building condos and 5 story apts on main thoros.

At this point, this is all I'm asking for in CT. It would make a positive difference for sure.

“At this point” being the key words.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

California needs sleeping pods because the state is overrun with pop up tents enabled by pols and a populace of tens and tens of millions that have fully embraced wokeism. CT doesn't need sleeping pods. There's no demand for them.
You guys are mastering the art of gaslighting. Concocting extreme hypotheticals to scare an audience.
CT is building condos and 5 story apts on main thoros. That's it. Once the demand dries up, they'll stop, even if zoning laws still permit it.
When are the far left and far right going to stop trying to out-gaslight each other?

Except that Beaconview Square, Unquowa Place and Fairchild Avenue are not “main thorns”. They are quiet low traffic side streets. Beach Road and Judd Street are busier streets but are low scale neighborhoods so three to five story buildings will stick out like a sore thumb. Then there’s the two massive buildings hovering over the Merritt Parkway, one at Black Rock Turnpike and the other at Park Avenue. How scenic will the parkway be when it’s lined with five story or higher buildings.

You keep saying it is “gaslighting” to say that 30 story buildings could be built but you haven’t said how that kind of building could be stopped. Just because no one has proposed it yet doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Ten years ago no one would have thought that these monstrosities could be built in Fairfield. Or Ridgefield. Or Glastonbury. Or any other town in our state that are seeing 8-30g housing projects that are out of scale with their neighborhoods.

Maybe a 30 story building would be pushing it, but what about 20 stories or even 10? They’d stick out like a sore thumb. I used 30 stories because that’s what was built in New Rochelle. It’s not inconceivable that the same thing could be built here in Connecticut. Mark my words, it’s coming. Jay

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Except that Beaconview Square, Unquowa Place and Fairchild Avenue are not “main thorns”. They are quiet low traffic side streets. Beach Road and Judd Street are busier streets but are low scale neighborhoods so three to five story buildings will stick out like a sore thumb. Then there’s the two massive buildings hovering over the Merritt Parkway, one at Black Rock Turnpike and the other at Park Avenue. How scenic will the parkway be when it’s lined with five story or higher buildings.

You keep saying it is “gaslighting” to say that 30 story buildings could be built but you haven’t said how that kind of building could be stopped. Just because no one has proposed it yet doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Ten years ago no one would have thought that these monstrosities could be built in Fairfield. Or Ridgefield. Or Glastonbury. Or any other town in our state that are seeing 8-30g housing projects that are out of scale with their neighborhoods.

Maybe a 30 story building would be pushing it, but what about 20 stories or even 10? They’d stick out like a sore thumb. I used 30 stories because that’s what was built in New Rochelle. It’s not inconceivable that the same thing could be built here in Connecticut. Mark my words, it’s coming. Jay

I very much agree. It’s not the proper usage of the term “gaslighting” either, since we’re saying it’s possible, not happening at the current time.

[CTREInvestor]

Originally Posted by EmiSky

Right, once zoning laws are taken away from local residents there’s no stopping developers as what they’re going to do. This is unbelievable what happened in this town in FL, but it’s just the beginning of things to come.

You are living in a state that has a lower apartment vacancy rate than Hawaii and the average rent is $1,600, requiring a minimum $80,000 salary, well above the household median.

It's unbelievable that people like you tolerate these kinds of oppressive laws that deprive not simply the poor and lower income people of a decent home without relying upon government assistance, but your own children.

You are literally eating your young, because why exactly? You don't like apartment buildings? You want to pay more taxes than would otherwise be necessary? You want your children to leave the state or live in crowded homes or with you?

This country did just fine before zoning laws, i.e. the deprivation of property rights of land owners for the supposed public good, were legalized by the Supreme Court. Since then, most places have hardly changed.

This state's land use pattern is exactly the same as it was in 1900, except farmland has been redeveloped with acre plus single-family homes. And this is a good thing, why?

Your state representative knows more about the impact of zoning laws than any bozo on a local zoning board. You may not like state control of zoning, but you obviously can stop it by voting for representatives who reflect your views. The problem is the districting is such you will be in a minority, and you know it.

[CTREInvestor]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I missed this comment but Fairfield has pretty much always been a lot wealthier than Stratford. It has been the premiere suburb of Bridgeport for more than 125 years.

The affluence in Southport, Greenfield Hill and Brooklawn all predate World War I by decades when wealthy city residents sought quiet country homes in Fairfield. Brooklawn Country Club and the affluent community neighborhood around it was built in 1895. The Country Club of Fairfield on Sasco Hill was started in 1914. The estates around it date back to the late 1800’s. Fairfield University was built on what were the OG Jennings and Lasher estates. The Sunnieholm neighborhood off Beach Road was the Anne B Jennings estate which dates back to the 19th Century. Stratford did not have as much, if any of these types of homes.

Then there are the pricey private schools that Fairfield has: Fairfield Country Day School, Unquowa School and Fairfield Prep. Stratford does not have them.

I have family that moved to Stratford from Bridgeport’s West End (which borders Fairfield) back in the 1960’s because it was cheaper than Fairfield. Also Stratford did not have an upscale department store like the Fairfield Store. Remember too that Fairfield was the County Seat up until the 1860’s when it was moved to Bridgeport. That added wealth and prominence to the town that Stratford did not have. Jay.

I think I said I'm a Fairfield Prep graduate, so I'm not exactly unfamiliar with the school or the town.

I did not say Fairfield was never wealthier than Stratford, but it is orders of magnitude so in a way that did not exist when I graduated from high school in 1996. But, facts are not something you really seem to care about. So, I'm not sure why I should bother writing much here.

What the hell does anything in the 1860s have to do with today?

[CTREInvestor]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Maybe not elsewhere but in CT they do, absolutely, without reservations, they won't think twice about it. Every day, and in broad daylight, no apologies. This thread is just the tip of the iceberg. Not only are they not tarred and feathered, but glorified and praised. In CT, if you can't afford it then you get the hell out, and stay out.

Well, as I love this state, am a successful real estate developer, and well-educated in real property economics, you will be seeing me and I will not hide behind this vail of anonymity and I will eviscerate the very people you describe for advocating what can only be described as evil.

[mdovell]

I would point out that golf has been dying off a bit. If a golf course is doing poorly it will probably become housing at some point.

[CTREInvestor]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Just want to add, as you claim you're in Commercial RE and might be able to attest to what I've heard myself, is that almost all new moderately priced structures have been stunted. Glaringly local-scaled retail being the most underbuilt in CT in almost fifty years which has driven up rents and basically made it super difficult for entrepreneurs to get a foothold in this very under-satiated market. What has been built has benefitted large chains because the cost is so high the developers want a big name to get the financing needed to go through the needless hoops that the PNZ boards throw at them (and I do mean needless... not safety or wetland related. Just plain old red-tape).

And like I said, small retail is a huge portion of wealth generation and keeping the money flowing through local economies.

With respect to retail, it really does vary from town to town. Retail in Connecticut is actually doing rather well compared to much of the country, though regional malls are suffering. In Milford, opposition to multifamily development on the Connecticut Post Mall site almost certainly means the mall will close in time.

This is very location specific, but in general you are correct - it is nearly impossible to get a construction loan for anything oriented towards middle-income people, whether it is retail or multifamily. The rent versus the costs, especially today, make it entirely infeasible. For retail, you definitely need most of the property preleased from a credit tenant or similar. See where the new Starbucks is on Commerce Drive in Shelton. That was originally planned to be a strip center, but the long-time owner - who blasted rock to make that site usable - could not get financing. So now it's a Griffon Hospital outpost when it could have been something special.

The K-Mart site here on Bridgeport Avenue in Milford is a battle on plan on participating in.