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 mean, some people believe suburbs spring wealth out of nowhere and that housing somehow ascends basic market economics so how can I argue against such an insane mindset?
I mean literally every one? There's zero evidence that those projects have ever effected actual property values. Like with real numbers and not NIMBYs responding to a poll online... there's no hard facts it happens.
Hey I agree, the legislators couldn't see ahead in 36 years that many suburban enclaves didn't think ahead and either zone for easy affordable housing zones or even naturally occurring affordable housing in many different forms on their own that they now, after many decades, have to deal with projects they can't stop via arcane zoning restrictions not providing the level of diversity of housing stock they are required to at least to avoid such a fate.
This isn't the "oh woe are the towns" new conmers think it is.
Man the whole history of Connecticut is a new group coming in and destroying what came before them. The generation that came in as the same time as my parents though... they are the worst. Arrogant, ignorant of our history, disdainful of current residents Busy buddies that think they know better than land value economics. My family has been here for millennia and that part of history... the heart of CT... gets ignored to keep up the "suburban single family large lot dream" that hasn't been here for 50 years alive when that's not how CT has ever been. Some people claim to care about history and environment but they don't. They just have a weird sense of ownership of what isn't theirs and will try to legislate what they don't want away. And really that's sick. It's immoral to the core.
I know there is a concerted effort by the media to craft a narrative around embracing these projects and claiming they don’t adversely effect real estate values, the reality is much more stark. Let’s look at all the cities that overbuilt projects (Baltimore, Chicago, Hartford). It’s pretty easy to measure their decline in status over the decades (and population loss). It’s the same drivel from the media around WFH / return to office. They have a bit of a paradox on their hand to require in office work - you can’t be ESG when employees are commuting 40 miles to the office.
I mean literally every one? There's zero evidence that those projects have ever effected actual property values. Like with real numbers and not NIMBYs responding to a poll online... there's no hard facts it happens.
Hey I agree, the legislators couldn't see ahead in 36 years that many suburban enclaves didn't think ahead and either zone for easy affordable housing zones or even naturally occurring affordable housing in many different forms on their own that they now, after many decades, have to deal with projects they can't stop via arcane zoning restrictions not providing the level of diversity of housing stock they are required to at least to avoid such a fate.
Beeker they do affect property values, it is what it is but read on.................
Beeker I think you know I am for affordable housing, but I think the towns should have control UNLESS they have such a low amount we can all tell what is going on. There are some towns I think we can all see they will fight every affordable housing project.
Here is the irony. "affordable housing" in southwest Fairfield County is actually middleclass to upper middleclass housing. My husband and I lived in Stamford when we began our house search. I looked at houses, townhouses and condos in Darien, New Canaan, Westport, and Fairfield and the first town I could afford was Fairfield. If there were affordable townhouses or even houses for the middleclass I would probably be living in Darien or Westport now.
What does this mean for the Bridgeport area.....me moving to Trumbull/Bridgeport because the towns in between were way way out of my price range. I displaced the middle class of Trumbull. I have friends and cousins that displaced the middleclass in town like Fairfield, Trumbull, Monroe, Stratford and Milford. When I bought my house there was no affordable TOWNS for the middle class from Greenwich to Westport. Now there are no affordable towns from Greenwich to Fairfield and I have to tell you I could not afford my house in Trumbull on the average income in the area. In my mind a middleclass person can't afford Trumbull either.
I am progressive like you in the fact I am thinking this is an economic calamity for Fairfield County. Where are all the YOUNG teachers, policeman, fireman and middleclass etc. people supposed to live when the present baby boomers retire and leave?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211
Man the whole history of Connecticut is a new group coming in and destroying what came before them.
Beeker you are right on the money. I have to take a lot of back roads to get to SW Fairfied County. It would make your head spin to see how many older historic houses are being torn down to make way for modern mini mansions. These are the same towns that say "we want to preserve our character". They are the WORSE offenders of NIMBY to affordable housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211
The generation that came in as the same time as my parents though... they are the worst. Arrogant, ignorant of our history, disdainful of current residents Busy buddies that think they know better than land value economics. My family has been here for millennia and that part of history... the heart of CT... gets ignored to keep up the "suburban single family large lot dream" that hasn't been here for 50 years alive when that's not how CT has ever been. Some people claim to care about history and environment but they don't. They just have a weird sense of ownership of what isn't theirs and will try to legislate what they don't want away. And really that's sick. It's immoral to the core.
I am just curious. I see this in my own generation. I am the last of the baby boomers and very few of my contemporaries are worried (like me) about where the younger generation is going to live in Fairfield and New Haven counties.
I mean literally every one? There's zero evidence that those projects have ever effected actual property values. Like with real numbers and not NIMBYs responding to a poll online... there's no hard facts it happens.
You still didn’t answer the question. Which ones? Please give us an example and not where they’ve built one in a neighborhood that already has dense multi family development or a nuisance like I-95 or Black Rock Turnpike or Post Road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211
Hey I agree, the legislators couldn't see ahead in 36 years that many suburban enclaves didn't think ahead and either zone for easy affordable housing zones or even naturally occurring affordable housing in many different forms on their own that they now, after many decades, have to deal with projects they can't stop via arcane zoning restrictions not providing the level of diversity of housing stock they are required to at least to avoid such a fate.
This isn't the "oh woe are the towns" new conmers think it is.
It is a legislator’s job to analyze and understand a new laws full implications and impacts BEFORE they enact them. To do anything less means they aren’t doing their job properly.
You can call our zoning practices all the names you want but they get the job done. They protect from overdevelopment where it’s not appropriate and allow planners to reasonably plan infrastructure for the future. With 8-30g and other progressive zoning proposals, you can’t do that. It wastes taxpayers money because they have to assume the worse and plan larger, more expensive facilities than may be necessary.
And what “newcomers” are saying “oh woe are the towns”? It’s just about everyone paying attention to the crap being pulled by our state that is getting mad at these ridiculous and unsustainable mandates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211
Man the whole history of Connecticut is a new group coming in and destroying what came before them. The generation that came in as the same time as my parents though... they are the worst. Arrogant, ignorant of our history, disdainful of current residents Busy buddies that think they know better than land value economics. My family has been here for millennia and that part of history... the heart of CT... gets ignored to keep up the "suburban single family large lot dream" that hasn't been here for 50 years alive when that's not how CT has ever been. Some people claim to care about history and environment but they don't. They just have a weird sense of ownership of what isn't theirs and will try to legislate what they don't want away. And really that's sick. It's immoral to the core.
Once again you are deliberately ignoring the real issue here. It’s not the development of property that is upsetting. It is the fact that the State is overriding local control and input into local matters. That is wrong.
The dream of home ownership has been here a LOT longer than 50 years. It dates back at least 120 years. My grandparents had it in 1916 when they left the grime of Bridgeport’s South End for their own small house in the country that was Fairfield then. They were proud to have worked hard and to have achieved the American Dream of homeownership. That gave them a stake in the community which led them and their many friends of similar means to build the community that so many people desire to live in today.
And no, it isn’t “sick” or “immoral” to expect and require people to live by the laws of the community they bought into. You want to build whatever you want, where you want? There are many places in our country that they can do that.
What is “sick” and “immoral” are those like you who think that we should just let people do what they want. If I want to shoot your dog, should I be allowed to do that? Of course not, but by your logic and reasoning there is nothing to stop me from believing that I can do it. Is that right? No, it’s not.
Also, why do you think allowing developers to build what they want, where they want protects our environment and our history? I have continually proved to you the opposite is true. Less dense, large lot zoning preserves woodlands for our wildlife, recharges groundwater and adds less to climate change. Dense urban development stops groundwater recharge by providing less permeable surfaces. It has caused wildlife to come into populated areas and it adds to climate change. These are proven facts. I’m not sure how you can dare argue otherwise. Jay
I know there is a concerted effort by the media to craft a narrative around embracing these projects and claiming they don’t adversely effect real estate values, the reality is much more stark. Let’s look at all the cities that overbuilt projects (Baltimore, Chicago, Hartford). It’s pretty easy to measure their decline in status over the decades (and population loss). It’s the same drivel from the media around WFH / return to office. They have a bit of a paradox on their hand to require in office work - you can’t be ESG when employees are commuting 40 miles to the office.
Exactly. Developers fund these “studies” of affordable housing that are very carefully crafted to promote the agenda they want. A simple direct survey like the one I did over on the Real Estate forum shows exactly how stark it is. It’s truly ridiculous that anyone tries to argue otherwise. Talk about brainwashed. Jay
Beeker they do affect property values, it is what it is but read on.................
Beeker I think you know I am for affordable housing, but I think the towns should have control UNLESS they have such a low amount we can all tell what is going on. There are some towns I think we can all see they will fight every affordable housing project.
Here is the irony. "affordable housing" in southwest Fairfield County is actually middleclass to upper middleclass housing. My husband and I lived in Stamford when we began our house search. I looked at houses, townhouses and condos in Darien, New Canaan, Westport, and Fairfield and the first town I could afford was Fairfield. If there were affordable townhouses or even houses for the middleclass I would probably be living in Darien or Westport now.
What does this mean for the Bridgeport area.....me moving to Trumbull/Bridgeport because the towns in between were way way out of my price range. I displaced the middle class of Trumbull. I have friends and cousins that displaced the middleclass in town like Fairfield, Trumbull, Monroe, Stratford and Milford. When I bought my house there was no affordable TOWNS for the middle class from Greenwich to Westport. Now there are no affordable towns from Greenwich to Fairfield and I have to tell you I could not afford my house in Trumbull on the average income in the area. In my mind a middleclass person can't afford Trumbull either.
I am progressive like you in the fact I am thinking this is an economic calamity for Fairfield County. Where are all the YOUNG teachers, policeman, fireman and middleclass etc. people supposed to live when the present baby boomers retire and leave?
Beeker you are right on the money. I have to take a lot of back roads to get to SW Fairfied County. It would make your head spin to see how many older historic houses are being torn down to make way for modern mini mansions. These are the same towns that say "we want to preserve our character". They are the WORSE offenders of NIMBY to affordable housing.
I am just curious. I see this in my own generation. I am the last of the baby boomers and very few of my contemporaries are worried (like me) about where the younger generation is going to live in Fairfield and New Haven counties.
Do you mean the baby boomer generation?
Of course she means the Baby Boomers. Her generation blames them for all the ills of the world like we weren’t handed problems worse than they’ve been handed. Talk about entitlement. Jay
I am just curious. I see this in my own generation. I am the last of the baby boomers and very few of my contemporaries are worried (like me) about where the younger generation is going to live in Fairfield and New Haven counties.
Do you mean the baby boomer generation?
I do, but in a way I sort of get it. That generation, roughly the ones born '46-60, experienced a more rapid change of the world economic and political order than we really appreciate. Many of the unsaid social contracts were torn asunder during their working lives and they collectively looked for stability they felt like they could control. Pensions, social security payments, and lifelong employment that were implicitly guaranteed were chipped away via automation, corporate reflexing of power in the political realm, and to a much lesser extent offshoring not to mention a well oiled machine to break the various solidarity movements starting in the 1890's and embracing of the neo-liberal framework of every-man-as-an-island as if it's the only American story in history. Not everyone in the cohort bought into it, but many did as what seems like a survival tactic. At the same time, the explosion of information made making sense of the environment a fool's errand.
That's why housing became so central to financial planning for induvials. I can provide proof later if requested, but the inflation of the 70s and other factors brought the idea that housing as an investment that is expected to return a healthy profit started to take form. Housing, for the first time in the modern era, outpaced both wage growth and the stock market. Land before 1920 had absolutely wild boom and busts, but that was at least income producing utility attached to value. Modern housing, however, has no general economic growth viability.
But the problem with that risk-averseness is just using infrastructure that has been put in generations ago, but not paying forward in any meaningful way that isn't attached directly and immediately with "property values."
You still didn’t answer the question. Which ones? Please give us an example and not where they’ve built one in a neighborhood that already has dense multi family development or a nuisance like I-95 or Black Rock Turnpike or Post Road.
It is a legislator’s job to analyze and understand a new laws full implications and impacts BEFORE they enact them. To do anything less means they aren’t doing their job properly.
I only know of the ones that were built in already built places.
And it was the fault of the GA in 1990 to think that certain and specific towns would play nice, think ahead, and try to follow the parts of the Zoning Enabling Act they want to ignore exists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
You can call our zoning practices all the names you want but they get the job done. They protect from overdevelopment where it’s not appropriate and allow planners to reasonably plan infrastructure for the future. With 8-30g and other progressive zoning proposals, you can’t do that. It wastes taxpayers money because they have to assume the worse and plan larger, more expensive facilities than may be necessary.
And what “newcomers” are saying “oh woe are the towns”? It’s just about everyone paying attention to the crap being pulled by our state that is getting mad at these ridiculous and unsustainable mandates.
If the planners are so good at building infrastructure for future growth... where is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
Once again you are deliberately ignoring the real issue here. It’s not the development of property that is upsetting. It is the fact that the State is overriding local control and input into local matters. That is wrong.
If "local control" meant following the law I'd agree... but they weren't. You keep ignoring the other parts of the Zoning Enabling Act that call for housing variety. It's existence is not really compatible with the rage against 8-30g projects but it exists and certain town's ignoring of it is why they those projects can be proposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
The dream of home ownership has been here a LOT longer than 50 years. It dates back at least 120 years. My grandparents had it in 1916 when they left the grime of Bridgeport’s South End for their own small house in the country that was Fairfield then. They were proud to have worked hard and to have achieved the American Dream of homeownership. That gave them a stake in the community which led them and their many friends of similar means to build the community that so many people desire to live in today.
Again, the idea that housing is a commodity and major investment vehicle IS from the 70s. It just wasn't seen as that before that between the industrialisation era and the petrol crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
And no, it isn’t “sick” or “immoral” to expect and require people to live by the laws of the community they bought into. You want to build whatever you want, where you want? There are many places in our country that they can do that.
What is “sick” and “immoral” are those like you who think that we should just let people do what they want. If I want to shoot your dog, should I be allowed to do that? Of course not, but by your logic and reasoning there is nothing to stop me from believing that I can do it. Is that right? No, it’s not.
It is absolutely sick and immoral to use zoning to remove or raise the regulatory barrier so high to essentially disallow a variety of housing options. There's not much clearer of a example of immoral law making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
Also, why do you think allowing developers to build what they want, where they want protects our environment and our history? I have continually proved to you the opposite is true. Less dense, large lot zoning preserves woodlands for our wildlife, recharges groundwater and adds less to climate change. Dense urban development stops groundwater recharge by providing less permeable surfaces. It has caused wildlife to come into populated areas and it adds to climate change. These are proven facts. I’m not sure how you can dare argue otherwise. Jay
Eh, not really any of this is true. Urban sprawl like you are describing does the exact opposite of what you claim. You've made this claim before and it's honestly so heterodox and held by a minority of industry-sponsored studies. It's just incorrect and hard to begin to untangle this.
I do, but in a way I sort of get it. That generation, roughly the ones born '46-60, experienced a more rapid change of the world economic and political order than we really appreciate. Many of the unsaid social contracts were torn asunder during their working lives and they collectively looked for stability they felt like they could control. Pensions, social security payments, and lifelong employment that were implicitly guaranteed were chipped away via automation, corporate reflexing of power in the political realm, and to a much lesser extent offshoring not to mention a well oiled machine to break the various solidarity movements starting in the 1890's and embracing of the neo-liberal framework of every-man-as-an-island as if it's the only American story in history. Not everyone in the cohort bought into it, but many did as what seems like a survival tactic. At the same time, the explosion of information made making sense of the environment a fool's errand.
That's why housing became so central to financial planning for induvials. I can provide proof later if requested, but the inflation of the 70s and other factors brought the idea that housing as an investment that is expected to return a healthy profit started to take form. Housing, for the first time in the modern era, outpaced both wage growth and the stock market. Land before 1920 had absolutely wild boom and busts, but that was at least income producing utility attached to value. Modern housing, however, has no general economic growth viability.
But the problem with that risk-averseness is just using infrastructure that has been put in generations ago, but not paying forward in any meaningful way that isn't attached directly and immediately with "property values."
Great post, and it is amazing housing came to be thought of as an investment. As a kid, it was simply thought of as a home.
Great post, and it is amazing housing came to be thought of as an investment. As a kid, it was simply thought of as a home.
It's actually kind of wild. It's why I have a deep concern over the "conventional wisdom" that home-ownership, especially in this society, is as sound of a financial choice that it gets portrayed as. There are tons of talking heads that have worked hard, mainly in the Real Estate Agent arena (particularly two people in particular in the public space one with initials DR...), to make it seem like it's the apex of sound decisions when in reality there's massive inherent risk. There's a lot of good reasons to buy property: stability, using a mortgage as a "rent lock" in volatile rental markets, arranging the house in more creative ways (even though HOAs are strangling that haha). Again, I'm pro home ownership just realistic about the risks and rewards and know that the benefits of home ownership vis-a-vis renting is more of a coin flip than we tend to say in public.
Just to get a handle of how insane this whole system we've set up, and I'll see if I can find the polling again, but number two or three top factor for new home buyers is "resale potential" which generally leads to overbuying house and lot despite not being needed for family expansion plans or even current needs. Which has led to record low house purchase satisfaction. On essentially a depreciating asset. In an asset class that has been having wilder and wilder price swings over the cycles. Another insane factoid I saw was that the average family spends 8 years in a residence they have financed... so only about three years after the front-loaded interest and closing costs! It's renting by other means and we should just simply acknowledge it.
Which is why I fully believe the current zoning practices of many towns to be... less than smart. They might find that if they allowed smaller lots and other types of housing not only are the negative effects in their minds won't materialize but it'll allow many more to make good financial choices (more reasonable housing and transportation costs). Even social housing has shown to be not bad at all if care taken to the design and structures. The fear of change is actually causing financial strain on their own residents.
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.
Jay
