[Route7toRoute202]

To be honest, I think DesegregateCT is very counterproductive. Why aren't they focusing on investing into revitalizing our cities? It's honestly doable if this state could learn some fiscal responsibility. Interjecting large housing projects into suburbs and rural areas is counterproductive. Keep in mind I'm not opposed to affordable or multifamily housing. I'm against DS's agenda of having the state force towns to adopt it with the false assumption that it is virtually nonexistant. Another example of clueless urbanites thinking they know what's best for the rest of us.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Route7toRoute202

Another example of clueless urbanites thinking they know what's best for the rest of us.

Yep.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by Route7toRoute202

To be honest, I think DesegregateCT is very counterproductive. Why aren't they focusing on investing into revitalizing our cities? It's honestly doable if this state could learn some fiscal responsibility.

Having affordable housing in the suburbs and revitalizing the cities can be done at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Route7toRoute202

Interjecting large housing projects into suburbs and rural areas is counterproductive. Keep in mind I'm not opposed to affordable or multifamily housing. I'm against DS's agenda of having the state force towns to adopt it with the false assumption that it is virtually nonexistant. Another example of clueless urbanites thinking they know what's best for the rest of us.

Trumbull does not have large scale housing projects and we are increasing our affordable housing with the following:
1) We have "design districts" where we can have affordable apartments over businesses or mixed-use.
2) If an apartment building goes up a certain % needs to be affordable housing. I think 5%.
3) Single family houses can have accessory apartments which go toward affordable housing.

Originally Posted by Route7toRoute202

I'm against DS's agenda of having the state force towns to adopt it with the false assumption that it is virtually nonexistant. Another example of clueless urbanites thinking they know what's best for the rest of us.

They are not clueless........the law of having 10% affordable housing in the towns IS ALREADY PASSED and is a REAL LAW right now. What they are doing is trying to get it enforced. That is what the new bill is about. That is why Trumbull took matters in our own hands so we can do it our way. Since we hit the threshold of 5% we can now have a moratorium for a while and the developers can not touch us right now. Not the other towns. That is why there is a lawsuit against Woodbridge. I also think that is why Fairfield passed a law that you can have a totally separate second structure on a property to be used like an accessory affordable housing. I am thinking those second little houses will go towards their affordable housing stock. They would have to be deed restricted like the accessory apartments in Trumbull.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by CTartist

What they are doing is trying to get it enforced. .

The Bill says it has to be below market rate, I think 30% below the town median or something, you can check it. Did Trumbull do that?
How do they enforce it? at gunpoint? Who's going to pay a developer to build below market rate apartments? They'll build them if someone pays them to, but who?
How do you convince or force a private homeowner to build an accessory apt on their own land and rent it out at below market rate? What if there aren't enough homeowners in Redding to do that to get to 10%? What do they do then?

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by CTartist

What you are referring to in bold is not affordable housing.

Affordable housing is working in Trumbull.

Trumbull had very little diversity when I move in 20+ years ago. It is probably a mixture of 1) putting in affordable housing*, 2) minorities moving up the income scale and the fact that 3) the minority population is growing.

* 1) We have "design districts" where we can have apartments over businesses.
2) If an apartment building goes up a certain % needs to be affordable housing. I think 5%.
3) Single family houses can have accessory apartments which go toward affordable housing.

Basically the big takeaways

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Route7toRoute202

To be honest, I think DesegregateCT is very counterproductive. Why aren't they focusing on investing into revitalizing our cities? It's honestly doable if this state could learn some fiscal responsibility. Interjecting large housing projects into suburbs and rural areas is counterproductive. Keep in mind I'm not opposed to affordable or multifamily housing. I'm against DS's agenda of having the state force towns to adopt it with the false assumption that it is virtually nonexistant. Another example of clueless urbanites thinking they know what's best for the rest of us.

The issue is that restrictive zoning only has basically been used as a tool of the state to discriminate. That's not right and against the constitution of ct. It's not even hidden.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Yep.

Not really. More like the urban areas using their demographic democratic resources to not shoulder the entire needs of the state in every conceivable way.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Not really. More like the urban areas using their demographic democratic resources to not shoulder the entire needs of the state in every conceivable way.

Re “every conceivable way”, which is a patently false observation, let’s not forget the affluent suburbs give far more to the state than they receive. Let’s not forget that.

But I guess that’s not enough for the “democratic resources”.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

The Bill says it has to be below market rate, I think 30% below the town median or something, you can check it. Did Trumbull do that?
How do they enforce it? at gunpoint? Who's going to pay a developer to build below market rate apartments? They'll build them if someone pays them to, but who?
How do you convince or force a private homeowner to build an accessory apt on their own land and rent it out at below market rate? What if there aren't enough homeowners in Redding to do that to get to 10%? What do they do then?

It is enforced. That is what deed restricted means.

Here is an example of affordable deed restricted condos in Trumbull. I forgot about the condos we have too. It is all legal.

Spacious (1,265 sq ft) 3 bedroom, 3 bath townhouse condo in desirable Trumbull Connecticut. Open floor plan with spacious living room with sliders to rear deck, dinning room and kitchen. First floor has 1/2 bath and stairway to upper 3 bed rooms and baths. Large master bedroom has full bath and spacious walk in closet. Depending on terms of sale buyer may have to be approved per HUD guidelines by Mutual Housing Association of Southwest Connecticut. Affordable housing in Trumbull, Connecticut. Easy access to New York, Norwalk and Stamford. Affordable HOA fees. Community room available for family get together. Take advantage of all that Trumbull has to offer. Plenty of parking plus private garage and patio.
https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/.../pid_39047427/

"Who's going to pay a developer to build below market rate apartments?"
It is written in our zoning laws that a certain % of all apartments built need to be affordable housing. I think it is 5% but it might be as high as 10%. They are making tons of money on the remaining 90% to 95% of the apartments. It's a win-win for everyone.

Here is an example of an accessory apartments for $1500. These apartments are always about 1/2 (or less) of the average house rent and thus affordable housing. The Trumbull zoning law is that the accessory apartments can only be 1/3 of an entire house making all accessory apartments affordable.
https://www.apartments.com/21-rollin...ull-ct/kxqj819
This is about what an average house rent is in Trumbull for $3000.
https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/...d/pid_39758378

Trumbull has many affordable housing types in our quiver.

[ProudFairfielder]

I used to be more sympathetic to this but after finding out more I see some serious flaws.


First let me say that I believe those pushing legislation on the grounds of desegregation do have good intentions. I really that they're trying to do what they believe is right, and on a broad/abstract level, what I think is right.

But this is not the right way to go about it... at all.

Let's start with the data. As of right now 2.47% of Fairfield's housing is considered affordable and the total number of households is 20,641. In order to reach the 10% goal 4 times the amount of our housing stock would need to be considered affordable. Thing is though, the more housing you build, the higher the total number of houses (and therefore the more affordable housing needed). Taking this into account Fairfield would then need not 4 times as much but rather 4.3 times as much. That's 1,216 new affordable housing units...

And, if we're lucky, they're 30% of the new housing stock. At most (no developer is going to have more than they need... why do it and make less profit?)

So, assuming the 30% rate, that means 4054 new housing units will have to be built in Fairfield. Or, in other words, so many housing units would have to be built that the Fairfield would have 19.6% more housing in general.

Just to give some more perspective... Let's use the 1675 Post Road apartment complex as an example (it's the one by St. Thomas and has 30%) affordable housing... and has 13 apartments TOTAL.

In order to be 8-30G compliant 312 structures of this size need to built in Fairfield!!

And where in the world will these even go???

I'm really sorry but it's just not happening. Ever. For some towns, like Easton (where Aquarion owns a lot of land) it is actually impossible for them to EVER be 8-30G compliant.


PS:
- While writing this I was about to mention them inaccurately claiming Fairfield's minimum single family home lot size as 1 acre. While looking at their website to write my response I see they've updated their map and it's far more accurate so I'll give credit where it's due.



[EDIT]
And one thing I forgot to add is 8-30G says that 30% needs to only be affordable for the next 40 years. What, are poor people going to disappear after that?? I'd actually support it if it went further and was something like 40% affordable forever, but as it it's a tool for greedy developers to destroy town character. It also would only increase urban flight, which is what got the cities of CT into their dire situation.