[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I grew up in Stamford* and then moved to Trumbull. I had never really been to Bridgeport before that. I was flabbergasted to see the condition of Bridgeport which is a city in affluent Fairfield County. I could not wrap my mind around the fact that the people in the immediate suburbs of Bridgeport had the "I got mine....the hell with you" attitude when it came to their immediate city. Then I realized most of the bigger cities in CT where like Bridgeport too. I don't get it.

*which I consider a nice balanced city economically and demographically

That’s human nature - that’s not just Fairfielders looking at Bridgeport. That’s anyone to anyone, these days. I agree with Beeker that it’s a disgusting attitude - but let’s not have misguided anger, here.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

That’s human nature - that’s not just Fairfielders looking at Bridgeport. That’s anyone to anyone, these days. I agree with Beeker that it’s a disgusting attitude - but let’s not have misguided anger, here.

Fair

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by CTartist

That's Redding's problem.

Trumbull figured it out and so should they. All of these towns better figure out affordable housing fast because the developers will figure it out for them and if they don't have moratoriums they are basically screwed. That lawsuit in Woodbridge will light a fire under everyone fannies if Woodbridge loses.

Saying they built affordable housing in Trumbull is like saying they built mansions in Greenwich. That's easy.

If you tell developers they have the ok to build market rate fancy Stamford/Fairfield/Norwalk/Westport style apartments in Redding or Woodbridge they'll cut ribbons and start breaking ground within minutes. They won't build below market rate with no ROI or profits and there's nothing the state or the crusaders can do about it. They can hire developers to build them but I don't know where that money would come from. They can't even figure out tolls and highway improvements.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by 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.

I haven't looked over the 8-30Gs or town charters but let's be real here, Fairfield has tons of economic, housing, and ethnic diversity. More than plenty. Tons. I wouldn't worry about it.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Edit let's not forget the corporate tax that the firms in the CBDs produce for the state...

Oh please PILOT has been underfunded since the inception. The cities have gotten short changed for the services the institutions that provide their areas with an excellent level of quality of life. The "affluent suburbs" hardly pay the difference of what they enjoy.

And yet, it's these "affluent suburbs", particularly those in Fairfield County, who are the state's largest taxpayers. They contribute more than anyone. However, our state lawmakers appear to begrudge these people as riding the gravy train, fanned by clueless suburban white liberals (particularly those in Hartford suburbs like mine). The "woke" folk who are asleep at the wheel look at the well-to-do of the Gold Coast and automatically assume that their wealth and everything they enjoy comes automatically, ignoring the fact that these people probably put in more work hours and manpower than imaginable. Hedge fund companies might provide generous returns to their employees, but it's a mercenary, stressful industry of biblical proportions. This is not a 9 to 5 gig. Many of these high-level professions require far more time and effort than most others in the private sector. When they go on vacation, they take their work laptops with them. Weekends are never guaranteed to be free, if they ever are. This is the case with many people in FFC, not just the ones who work for Bridgewater Associates or Ellington.


The geographic size of a city has nothing to do with its success for failure, it's how the land is used. The residential neighborhoods of Hartford outside of downtown are filled with nothing but storefront churches and non-profits, none of which pay a dime in taxes. THAT is the issue here. If for every non-denominational church that went up a business were erected that provided jobs and a tax base, the city would be in far better shape, and might not feel so eager to siphon money from neighboring municipalities. So, have the cities been "short changed" here? If so, it's only by their elected officials who have proven they aren't passionately committed to improving quality of life for people there. The government can and should provide a certain degree of help, but not unconditionally. And without jobs for geared solely for the people within those neighborhoods, nothing will change.

[Newtohartfordct]

Desegregate implies CT is segregated based on race or religion. We aren’t there are many Asian, Indian, muslim and Hispanic families that live in my middle class neighborhood.


Also I doubt low income project type housing will ever be a thing in middle class and wealthy parts of CT. I had to pay $70 to replace my door, a permit cost. Literally buying a new front door and the city had me pay a fee to update a door on my home that I own lol.

I don’t support any bill like this one though.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Saying they built affordable housing in Trumbull is like saying they built mansions in Greenwich. That's easy.

If you tell developers they have the ok to build market rate fancy Stamford/Fairfield/Norwalk/Westport style apartments in Redding or Woodbridge they'll cut ribbons and start breaking ground within minutes. They won't build below market rate with no ROI or profits and there's nothing the state or the crusaders can do about it. They can hire developers to build them but I don't know where that money would come from. They can't even figure out tolls and highway improvements.

100%. These laws are a boon for developers. Why build one $800k house on 3 acres, when you can have 80 $1500 rentals?

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by Newtohartfordct

Desegregate implies CT is segregated based on race or religion. We aren’t there are many Asian, Indian, muslim and Hispanic families that live in my middle class neighborhood.


Also I doubt low income project type housing will ever be a thing in middle class and wealthy parts of CT. I had to pay $70 to replace my door, a permit cost. Literally buying a new front door and the city had me pay a fee to update a door on my home that I own lol.

I don’t support any bill like this one though.

Since when do you need a permit to replace a door?

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by Stylo

100%. These laws are a boon for developers. Why build one $800k house on 3 acres, when you can have 80 $1500 rentals?

Leasing Now! One bedrooms starting at $1500

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Saying they built affordable housing in Trumbull is like saying they built mansions in Greenwich*. That's easy.

Why is that? Please explain your reasoning why it is easy. It was very hard because we did it BEFORE the developers could target us so we could retain the character of our town instead of the developers dictating where they wanted to put the affordable housing. The developers wanted to put hundreds of condos in Nichols (Trumbull's 1+ acre zoning) and I help fight that. Trust me blocking the developers from going into any neighborhood they wanted was very hard on numerous occasions. I have been going to zoning meetings and fighting improper zoning since I moved in the 1990's.

FOI: Greenwich has 5.35% of affordable and Trumbull has 4.68%. Greenwich technically has more according to this list from the state.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOH/20...for-online.pdf

BTW it would be a lot easier for a bunch of wealthy people to come up with the cash for all the changes than middle class people. Trumbull (a middle class town) put sewers in the ENTIRE town including the 1 & 2 acre zoning in the 2000's. Trumbull is middle class by Fairfield County standards and by the standards of the very wealthy towns in Fairfield County who site the numerous reasons they can't have affordable housing.

*Affordable housing works on percentages of the cost of housing in each town so the developers will make more money in the wealthy towns. Affordable housing is a % of market rate. Why do you think they are targeting Woodbridge the wealthiest town in the New Haven area.

Woodbridge Median Income $157,000.......................1.24% affordable housing
Madison Median Income $114,000............................1.69
Guilford Median Income $112,000.............................2.41
(they are all pretty low)
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...icut/AGE295219