Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-21-2022, 12:26 PM
 
7,920 posts, read 7,808,396 times
Reputation: 4152

Advertisements

The proposal is interesting but I think it's time to really put housing in a basic focus. Let me explain.

At the very bottom we have to house people at some point. Homeless shelters exist for a reason. We don't need people being outside exposed to elements. Anyone living outside should be inside so needs can be assessed and basics can be provided (food, water, clothing etc). Mental health is one issue in homelessness and drug addiction. This is not to say that everyone homeless falls into those but most that have those issues are apt to be homeless.

Ok needs are assessed and there's some assistance and they can work a bit. That's where there's public housing. Some places further assess needs and they have some sense of community. Akin to this is section 8 which at least tries to put them further away from poverty provided the property and lease are OK'd but the public housing section 8 administrator.

After that is most likely a market rate apartment or renting a house and after that out right buying a house.

The trouble with CT is those bottom two are rarely seen. Now it might be easy in FFC to argue they don't need those things, and to be honest they are right they really don't need them. If someone is making six figures with a 750K valued house chances are they have investments to fall back on, there's nothing wrong with that. But for those that aren't there the problem remains.

The answer to much of this is in the middle. You have to have some form of mixed use, that is say 85% market rate and 15% affordable etc. No one is advocating selling a 750K mansion in FFC for 200K. At the same point putting a massive housing complex in bridgeport and hartford isn't exactly going to do anyone any favors if it's income restricted. That's another thing in many cases there are poverty traps. It's not like it's just one program there's plenty of them on food access, education, transit, elderly assistance, disability, childhood assistance, rent etc. If you make too much you can get kicked out which nullifies the purpose of making more. I have heard from some that deny themselves promotions and raises solely because of this.

Sometimes what people like to see does not really pay that much (I might not use a term of living wage but whatever). Pretty much everyone I know likes bookstores. Well the thing is the idea isn't so much wanting a bookstore but wanting the people that go to the bookstore. They picture young bright people with disposable incomes etc. Ok fine. But what jobs are there at a bookstore that can realistically support someone to live let alone raise a family? Probably none. Waiter/waitress again probably none (unless you are the owner of the restaurant). Richard Florida wrote about much of this 10-15 years ago but he didn't really see the long term viability of some of these jobs.

Some people like to hype up students

The largest college campus in CT is UConn in Mansfield.
Mansfield has seen one of the biggest drops in median household income dropping 35% from 2010 to 2020From 2015 to 2020 it's been 25%
https://acs2020.ctdata.org/

If you look at other states in Mass Amherst Center as a census tract is one of the poorest there with nearly 33% in poverty.
Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site
The idea of using students as a way to attract wealth just doesn't work. Boston which is awash in students by itself is not a rich city. So sometimes I do have to ask when there is more development in a city like Hartford what exactly are your demographics you are looking to get or is this fighting over crumbs?

The WestCog ideas are interesting but it might depend as to how they explain it. It reminds me a tad of the housing reform in mass in 2014. If there's a housing mandate it made no sense for there to be a local list for public housing. It literally forced future generations to live in the same areas and left empty units in other parts of the state. It created a centralized state list for public housing. There's a difference between wanting a place to live and wanting to have a place in a certain area. Yes there was some pushback but CT like Mass isn't a huge state. If someone wants housing in New Haven and they end up in East Hartford is it really that bad of a thing?

Last edited by Yac; 04-26-2022 at 10:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2022, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,918 posts, read 56,903,161 times
Reputation: 11220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211 View Post
"Lowering property values," "hurting neighbourhood character," "increase of crime" are all not very well veiled reasons not to increase housing stock nationwide, and are very much unmoored from any sort of observable study if modest. It's certainly rooted in implicit and explicit classism and racism, as the idea that the "wrong types" of people moving in will be bedlam: up becoming down, cats laying with dogs, affluent areas suddenly turning into vast swaths of broken glass/abandoned gas stations/stay dogs roaming free. The through-line of this from the residential only code form to today. The vitriol that gets thrown about when even the most modest project that doesn't exclusively cater to the high income professionals is telling.

And right now affordable housing (in it's many stripes) is only profitable nationwide due to those same zoning restrictions skyrocketing the value of buildable land. Again, if the monstrosities aren't desired (I sure don't like them for various reasons when not placed in already built areas like transit stations) then there are a loads of things municipalities can do to allow slow yet steady housing unit growth al the while having most of the benefits remain local and the designs varied enough to show charm. Upzoning areas near already slightly denser is a big one. Again, a few duplexes/triplexes or SFHs of more modest size and lots isn't revolutionary... it's part of a healthy overall housing stock that increases the property value of surrounding areas while chipping away at Grand List per-unit liabilities. This is just basic land-use economics.

But Jay as you know, the cost of building say a massive SFH and a more modest one is fairly marginal, but the "luxury" upsell is far higher right now. Slightly more for materials and labour in essentially the same turnaround. There are tons of the little guy developers I know that would love to build more modest spec housing. Why? While the profit margins are much smaller there's less risk of properties sitting, less overhead, less man hours, less reliance on credit from subcontractors. However, because the availability of buildable land has been so restricted they can only make a profit on McMansions - which hurts the supply. It also burdens the total market with a plethora of one type of house which has been shown to not hold up in any sort of slight downturn (remember the sales in the Fairfield County woods prices softened for a decade and a half until basically being bailed out by COVID related panic buying) or even slight interest rate hikes/extreme gas price hike.

I think the issue between the language of "affordable housing" is that there are multiple ideas of what that actually entails. Many believe that it means subsidised or gov't owned, however I'm coming more from total unit stock that the majority of the residents can afford with under 30% of monthly income. That can be done without major national developers or (in my opinion) ugly five over ones without straining existing infrastructure to the limit or with modest upgrades.

Don't forget, until the mid-80s home ownership in a metropolitan area wasn't seen as the big cornerstone of individual wealth and retirement (a little bit, but not the bulk of planning), until the slow elimination of pensions.
Really? I bring up some very good points about the impact of our states current affordable housing laws that you can’t dispute so you pull out the “racism” and “classism” card. Get this through your head, this has NOTHING to do with racism or classism. I’m not stupid. I know these units will more likely be occupied by teachers, police, firemen and a host of other people who have modest incomes. Heck, most of my family and friends would fit that description. That still doesn’t mean I want to see 26 units of housing jammed on 2/3 acre or five story buildings lining the Merritt Parkway. Those are hideous, out of place projects that will leave a permanent scar on our landscape. Once they are there, they will be there for generations and once the little open space and greenery we have left is gone, it’s pretty much certain that it ain’t coming back.

Also why can’t you see the impact these monstrosities have on their neighbors? The adjacent homes are likely owned by hard working people who sacrificed to save enough money to by their house. In one fell swoop the value of their home is impacted with no way to fight it. Do you really think that is fair? I don’t.

As I outlined previously, the Beaconview Square project gives the developer a LOT. I don’t care what you say, but double the amount of full priced units is going to give them a pretty good profit, never mind the reduced costs they get from less parking, less landscaping and other savings. I’m not against a developer making a profit but more than double is a bit much, don’t you think?

Also I’ve worked with many developers, big and small. Few really care about the look of their building as long as it sells. They certainly don’t go out of their way to spend anymore than they have to on a project. It’s amazing how beautiful they can make projects look 8n renderings, yet when they actually get built some can be pretty ugly.

Finally you are completely wrong about owning a home being the cornerstone of a persons wealth only beginning in the mid 80’s. My paternal grandfather died in 1971. His home was by far his major asset that he left to his children. My maternal grandmother died in 1976 and it was the same thing. It’s the same with just about every person I know. These monstrosities are hurting people. No way anyone can deny it. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2022, 09:55 PM
 
2,358 posts, read 2,182,082 times
Reputation: 1374
Jay,

I think we're talking across one another. Again, and I'm not too sure how to get this point across more but I'm firmly against monstrosities in otherwise low to medium density when not near transit. But I'm also against not allowing duplexes, smaller lot sfhs, no incrimental zoning changes, and not having multi use retail. But knowing economics I understand why those monstrosities are popping up. It's a direct result of overly strict zoning measures that were initially set up to keep people like me (white/***** trash) and my SO (of Jamaican decent) out. It's pretty explicit in meetings.

You keep talking about the awful 14 units bit don't talk about having a few multi units here or there which is a better way to handle it yet in PNZ boards that's what we face.

You seriously do not understand when anyone merely suggests that maybe zoning should be loosened that the worst will come in and ruin everything even if we've been here far longer than those that complain to high heaven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2022, 10:02 PM
 
2,358 posts, read 2,182,082 times
Reputation: 1374
Look, I'm yard to getting very insultingb and frankly threatening implications from non natives that I don't belong in Fairfield. My family has been here for centuries and for real we will be and yeah we don't want the bougie development pattern outsiders seem to want
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2022, 11:08 PM
 
2,358 posts, read 2,182,082 times
Reputation: 1374
So please let me know why I should stand down, to their nastiness and impertinence when I'm and my little are so insulated easily without a thought about me and my clan from them... How's does that make sense? Should we pay down providial arms just so they says comfy with their speculative purchase in our lands? Please let me know because it seems they want to fight a war against me and mine and their only weapon is not saying what they think. That's how I see it as so many of my contemporaries. Sorry.... The sfh on a big lot is a minority position in Fairfield county
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2022, 11:18 PM
 
2,358 posts, read 2,182,082 times
Reputation: 1374
I mean brother you're defending a system that was designed to keep people like me out. How exactly am I supposed to respond to that?

I wish you could see how absolute jerks want us out of our homeland via zoning but clearly I can't... I meant even the modest proposal of not using so much transit adjecent land that's currently used for sturface level parking for housing and it offices offenderd so much kinda cuts right to the point. Sorry

Last edited by Beeker2211; 04-21-2022 at 11:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,918 posts, read 56,903,161 times
Reputation: 11220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211 View Post
Jay,

I think we're talking across one another. Again, and I'm not too sure how to get this point across more but I'm firmly against monstrosities in otherwise low to medium density when not near transit. But I'm also against not allowing duplexes, smaller lot sfhs, no incrimental zoning changes, and not having multi use retail. But knowing economics I understand why those monstrosities are popping up. It's a direct result of overly strict zoning measures that were initially set up to keep people like me (white/***** trash) and my SO (of Jamaican decent) out. It's pretty explicit in meetings.

You keep talking about the awful 14 units bit don't talk about having a few multi units here or there which is a better way to handle it yet in PNZ boards that's what we face.

You seriously do not understand when anyone merely suggests that maybe zoning should be loosened that the worst will come in and ruin everything even if we've been here far longer than those that complain to high heaven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211 View Post
Look, I'm yard to getting very insultingb and frankly threatening implications from non natives that I don't belong in Fairfield. My family has been here for centuries and for real we will be and yeah we don't want the bougie development pattern outsiders seem to want
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211 View Post
So please let me know why I should stand down, to their nastiness and impertinence when I'm and my little are so insulated easily without a thought about me and my clan from them... How's does that make sense? Should we pay down providial arms just so they says comfy with their speculative purchase in our lands? Please let me know because it seems they want to fight a war against me and mine and their only weapon is not saying what they think. That's how I see it as so many of my contemporaries. Sorry.... The sfh on a big lot is a minority position in Fairfield county
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211 View Post
I mean brother you're defending a system that was designed to kep people like me out. How exactly am I supposed to respond to that?

I wish you could see how absolute jerks want us out of our homeland via zoning but clearly I can't... I meant even the modest proposal of not using so much transit adjecent land that's currently used for sturface level parking for housing and it offices offenderd so much kinda cuts right to the point. Sorry
Beeker - You are the one who chose to defend the state mandate for affordable housing. You keep talking about an idealized vision for affordable housing with “duplexes” on modest lots “here and there”. We are talking about what is actually being built. It certainly are not duplexes and it’s certainly not at 14 units per acre. Try doubling that or more. You talk about “loosening” zoning. We are talking about the reality of completely overriding local zoning. That’s a BIG difference.

For many people their home is their largest asset and reflects what they’ve accomplished in their lives. These monstrosities and the state mandate that allows them is a direct attack on them. Of course people are angry. Who wouldn’t be?

I don’t think anyone wants to fight a war against you. I certainly do not. However you accused people of “racism” and “classism”. What do you expect anyone to say to that? Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
5,104 posts, read 4,830,727 times
Reputation: 3636
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveM85 View Post
This Forum's GOP faction are too easily triggered. Diversity council members should be brushed off like lint on the shoulder. They don't have any clout in CT like they do in neighboring and West coast states.

Yea I don't get it. It's like the posters here moved to CT yesterday.


The segregation here will never be stopped. Its a feature not a bug. And it has been blessed by the CT Supremes. CTJEF vs Rell was the last chance for the poors in this state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
5,104 posts, read 4,830,727 times
Reputation: 3636
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
Okay I have to call you out on this. What “incredibly ignorant things unmoored from truth and decency” are you talking about? I don’t see it.

I also don’t see any “veiled classism and racism” in anyones post here but please enlighten us.

This whole thread is full of veiled and overt racism and classism.


I'm surprised by what people are writing here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 10:33 AM
 
3,349 posts, read 4,166,132 times
Reputation: 1946
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers View Post
This whole thread is full of veiled and overt racism and classism.


I'm surprised by what people are writing here.
Would you stop playing this card - you haven’t been able to establish why more density is needed in a state that isn’t growing. SFH isn’t racist and anyone who grinds can live in any town they so choose. Again I can’t live in back country Greenwich - should they bend the knee to accommodate everyone who wants to live there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top