[Neil Watkins]

Originally Posted by JayCT

A developer testified before state lawmakers about the lengthy process it takes for major developments to go through the approval process. He noted that a vocal minority can slow the process and add years to the time it takes to build a project. I’m sure some ate this testimony up.

As I see it, this developer is talking about usurping a persons right to voice their opinion and protect the value of their property. As someone who has been involved in getting numerous projects built around the state, I view it that a developer buys a piece of land knowing what it is zoned for and that when they want to build something other than that, it’s on them to deal with it. If they don’t want to go through that process, then they shouldn’t be a developer. It’s part of the business whether they like it or not. JMHO, Jay

https://www.ctinsider.com/politics/a...s-18479868.php

He's an even smaller, more vocal minority.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JayCT

A developer testified before state lawmakers about the lengthy process it takes for major developments to go through the approval process. He noted that a vocal minority can slow the process and add years to the time it takes to build a project. I’m sure some ate this testimony up.

As I see it, this developer is talking about usurping a persons right to voice their opinion and protect the value of their property. As someone who has been involved in getting numerous projects built around the state, I view it that a developer buys a piece of land knowing what it is zoned for and that when they want to build something other than that, it’s on them to deal with it. If they don’t want to go through that process, then they shouldn’t be a developer. It’s part of the business whether they like it or not. JMHO, Jay

https://www.ctinsider.com/politics/a...s-18479868.php

Jay,

You know very well there are cases of slight variance requests that are even conforming to existing structures that are required to have public comment now needlessly... and a complete lack of zoning change potential to allow for any type of other structure than large house large lot to be built without public comment. As well, absolute abuse of well intentioned (and much needed) laws ties up modest projects to the point of absurdity even if existing zoning reqs or variances are met/granted.

It doesn't take a huge groundswell of support to derail these projects, and the intentions of those that want to derail those projects are usually less than scrupulous to begin with.

And again, the casual off-handed thinking that use of state power to "protect property values" via regulatory supply restriction is still something I will never get because that's not how land economics nor a free market works.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Jay,

You know very well there are cases of slight variance requests that are even conforming to existing structures that are required to have public comment now needlessly... and a complete lack of zoning change potential to allow for any type of other structure than large house large lot to be built without public comment. As well, absolute abuse of well intentioned (and much needed) laws ties up modest projects to the point of absurdity even if existing zoning reqs or variances are met/granted.

It doesn't take a huge groundswell of support to derail these projects, and the intentions of those that want to derail those projects are usually less than scrupulous to begin with.

And again, the casual off-handed thinking that use of state power to "protect property values" via regulatory supply restriction is still something I will never get because that's not how land economics nor a free market works.

But who determines what is a “slight variance” and how do you keep developers from abusing that variance? You know they will.

I have been involved with hundreds of developments across the state by dozens of developers. They almost always want something more and some wouldn’t think twice about abusing a system loophole. You can’t blame them, they want to make money. Most are reasonable but some are just plain greedy and want more than is reasonable. Shouldn’t homeowners have the right to stop them? I think so.

Connecticut is a small very maturely developed state. There is little open land left to develop so we need to be careful what is built. That’s why I keep harping on good planning. It’s the key to having new development while maintaining our state’s unique character. Jay

[CTartist]

Here is an updated list of all the cities and towns percentage of affordable housing. It looks good.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/rpt/pdf/...0219.pdf#CTleg

"Between 2011 and 2022, the percentage of qualifying affordable housing units increased in 125 Connecticut municipalities. Based on the most recently available Department of Housing (DOH) list, 29 municipalities currently meet or exceed the 10% affordable housing threshold for an exemption from the appeals procedure."

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Here is an updated list of all the cities and towns percentage of affordable housing. It looks good.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/rpt/pdf/...0219.pdf#CTleg

"Between 2011 and 2022, the percentage of qualifying affordable housing units increased in 125 Connecticut municipalities. Based on the most recently available Department of Housing (DOH) list, 29 municipalities currently meet or exceed the 10% affordable housing threshold for an exemption from the appeals procedure."

That is progress. I would hope 90% reach 10% by the end of this decade. It's a modest percentage.

The state needs to modify the law to use a economic carrot and stick approach. Reward the 25%, and after a period to rectify, punish the 75% not complying.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

That is progress. I would hope 90% reach 10% by the end of this decade. It's a modest percentage.

The state needs to modify the law to use a economic carrot and stick approach. Reward the 25%, and after a period to rectify, punish the 75% not complying.

It’s not “modest” when you consider how many new units must be built in a community to meet this ridiculous mandate.

As I’ve posted before, many communities like Milford would have to build their highest number of new units ever built there for the next 30 years to meet it. That’s absurd and unsustainable. It also will require massive new complexes to be built in areas that do not have the infrastructure to support them.

8-30g is a very bad law on so many levels, it will destroy the beauty and character of our state by cramming even more people in our already densely populated state. It’s bad planning at its worst. It’s sad and shortsighted that our politicians don’t see that. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

It’s not “modest” when you consider how many new units must be built in a community to meet this ridiculous mandate.

As I’ve posted before, many communities like Milford would have to build their highest number of new units ever built there for the next 30 years to meet it. That’s absurd and unsustainable. It also will require massive new complexes to be built in areas that do not have the infrastructure to support them.

Milford is adding an immense number of high cost units without an issue, Jay. Every year. We have the out of character high cost units by the train, far higher than all buildings around them, on a historical site the funeral home destroyed.

Its modest, and shameful how low a percentage of low income stock most towns have. How we got to such low levels is why 8-30 exists. I would bet a few decades back, due to low rental costs, we were much closer to 10% than we are now, and I also wonder what % of low cost units were torn down with costly options replacing them. This is a market we must address. For that reason, I am not anti 8-30, until I see naysayers come up and get legislators to pass a better bill, that gets Ct to 10%. The same "repeal and replace cry" the GOP heard regarding their thoughts on ACA, btw.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Milford is adding an immense number of high cost units without an issue, Jay. Every year. We have the out of character high cost units by the train, far higher than all buildings around them, on a historical site the funeral home destroyed.

Its modest, and shameful how low a percentage of low income stock most towns have. How we got to such low levels is why 8-30 exists. I would bet a few decades back, due to low rental costs, we were much closer to 10% than we are now, and I also wonder what % of low cost units were torn down with costly options replacing them. This is a market we must address. For that reason, I am not anti 8-30, until I see naysayers come up and get legislators to pass a better bill, that gets Ct to 10%. The same "repeal and replace cry" the GOP heard regarding their thoughts on ACA, btw.

No what is shameful is how such a bad law was passed by our legislature and approved by an ignorant governor to the delight of greedy developers anxious to make a quick buck at the expense of hard working middle class.

Our housing stock is the result of a free market. That system was fine for hundreds of years. It’s only when liberal socialists got their way in the legislature with the help of so called “non profit” planners and special interest lobbyists who are actually backed by those deep pocketed greedy developers.

And need I remind you that in 8-30g 10% is goal without a deadline or timeline meaning it is a number to aspire to at sometime in the future. But somehow that number has become a mandate with an immediate deadline that now seeks to punish communities that didn’t meet the so called “goal” in an unspecified timeframe. That is what is truly shameful. Bad law, bad planning, bad government all have clearly failed our state and we will be paying for that for decades to come. Shameful. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

And need I remind you that in 8-30g 10% is goal without a deadline or timeline meaning it is a number to aspire to at sometime in the future.

I agree it needs an absolute deadline, with forfeiture of state funds involved for those not complying.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Our housing stock is the result of a free market. That system was fine for hundreds of years.

It worked until rampant housing inflation. From the 60s until the 90s, housing costs in Ct rose little each year. That, in turn, kept rent costs changing little. Milford's typical units today are over double their cost of a decade ago. It's a national crisis, and many malls feature lots of folks sleeping in their cars.

In Milford, I was shown another homeless encampment site yesterday by a friend who knew of it. We have several. In Bridgeport, they slept under bridges, amongst other sites.

I do not want us becoming San Francisco, where retailers closed in big numbers largely due to that issue and drug addicts, plus rampant theft.

To avoid it, Ct MUST address the looming crisis, instead of waiting for it to bite us in the butt.