[CTartist]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Are you really trying to say that more dense housing won’t bring more traffic and more students for schools?

Are you really trying to say that more dense housing won’t strain utilities not designed for that?

Are you really trying to say that dense urban development doesn’t increase rainwater runoff, thus causing flooding?

And give it up already, no one believes your claim the these 8-30g monstrosities don’t affect property values. The proof is there. You just refuse to see it. “None is so blind as those who do not see”. Very prophetic and applicable to this. Jay

https://www.city-data.com/forum/real...ex-2015-a.html

I don't think Beeker is completely saying that the things above are not happening. But I do think that he is saying that "it takes a village" and we should help out our fellow Nutmeggers.

I agree with Beeker about "the village" but I am more balanced in the fact that we should not let pure profiters/developers ruin our towns.

Beeker after reading your posts I want to put an accessory apartment on my house even if I move in retirement. That will be one thing I can do to help. The apartment will be there even if I am not. I live near Main Street and the bus line. More people like me should be thinking like this in Fairfield County. I am going to look into grants to help me do this.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I don't think Beeker is completely saying that the things above are not happening. But I do think that he is saying that "it takes a village" and we should help out our fellow Nutmeggers.

I agree with Beeker about "the village" but I am more balanced in the fact that we should not let pure profiters/developers ruin our towns.

Beeker after reading your posts I want to put an accessory apartment on my house even if I move in retirement. That will be one thing I can do to help. The apartment will be there even if I am not. I live near Main Street and the bus line. More people like me should be thinking like this in Fairfield County. I am going to look into grants to help me do this.

You do realize that we agree more than you agree Beeker?

As I keep saying, I’m am all for building more affordable housing but like you I’m against it being built wherever developers see fit. I believe that each community should decide where and how to build it.

Trumbull is an excellent example of that and how they’ve been addressing the problem for years by building it in certain areas where it made sense. But other towns that haven’t addressed it shouldn’t be punished either. Remember 8-30g had no timeline for meeting the goal and a goal is something to aspire to, not something that must be met. 8-30g must be repealed and reasonable goals and timetables for addressing the problem need to be established. That is common sense and good planning practices. Jay

[JayCT]

For those of you interested in the Bulkeley Road 8-30g I thought I’d post a link to the meeting minutes which outline the discussions the Fairfield Town Plan and Zoning Commission had about the application.

I was pleased to see that many of the concerns I had about the project were concerns of the commission. This includes traffic and pedestrian safety, parking and rainwater runoff and flooding.

What did concern me was how close the vote was (4-3 to deny the application). I’m shocked that three commissioners did not see the safety issues with allowing such a dense development on a narrow residential street. That’s inexcusable IMHO. I hope that Fairfield voters take this into account in the next election. I certainly am here in Glastonbury with a similar 8-30g project that was approved. Jay

https://www.fairfieldct.org/filestor...13%2C_2023.pdf

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You do realize that we agree more than you agree Beeker?

As I keep saying, I’m am all for building more affordable housing but like you I’m against it being built wherever developers see fit. I believe that each community should decide where and how to build it.

Trumbull is an excellent example of that and how they’ve been addressing the problem for years by building it in certain areas where it made sense. But other towns that haven’t addressed it shouldn’t be punished either. Remember 8-30g had no timeline for meeting the goal and a goal is something to aspire to, not something that must be met. 8-30g must be repealed and reasonable goals and timetables for addressing the problem need to be established. That is common sense and good planning practices. Jay

To be honest, you and I agree on much more. I am absolutely not for developers building what they want where they want, but I also think some of the towns, especially that have had the massive benefits of being in the metro areas, have been unduly opposed to any sort of growth. It takes a laughably small number of people to derail even decent plans, which have needlessly driven up regulatory costs and the over preference of large lot large sfh has clear limits. This is an emotional preference, not an economic or environmental one: the reason why I keep asking for hard numbers on the supposed harm of affordable housing or densification is because if we are making an economic and not emotional argument of growth philosophies we really should take in the whole picture.

Even on a base economic understanding: if every house is a large lot large house that means there's more competition for that particular product and something different taking the same spot would lower that supply theoretically, right? My frustration with the whole "protecting housing value" is that we have to throw out basic economics and treat housing value in a completely different framework than literally every other product... which is silly.

Not that I'm a huge fan of 8-30g or the projects that arise thereof, but there's no feasible or workable requirement that isn't more of the status quo.

I believe that the Cities can and should grow, but they can't be the only ones to do so. WestCOG's head lazily suggestion of such, with no ideas on how to help that along pretty much sums up what I'm very much against. The throwing up the hands with supposed "affluent" communities crying poverty of ability and choice when asked to do something that is actually good for them but they for emotional reasons are loathe to do should absolutely be called out. EDIT: It's also very important to know that even in these contentious hearings there are and always have been a lot of pro-project supporters and going after hours and hours of in person and online hearings even seems to be a majority for the majority of densification proposals. So we have to figure out why such a minority has such an influence on their preferred growth type (which is as close to none as possible) than more reasonable people in the majority.

[JayCT]

Here’s yet another example of a greedy developer wanting more than they are entitled to. Vessel, which is a NewYork modular home builder is proposing to build 96 units with affordable housing under 8-30g on commercial/industrial property on Henkel Way in Rocky Hill’s Corporate Ridge.

When 8-30g was enacted, there was concern that developers would use tax generating commercial and industrial properties for housing so the law specifically excludes them from doing that.

Glastonbury denied Vessel’s 8-30g project there because it was proposed in their commercial/industrial zone. Vessel is suing to overturn that denial. And now they are proposing the same thing in Rocky Hill. I smell another denial and lawsuit, wasting taxpayers money all because the developer does not want to play by the already lax rules. Talk about greed. Jay

https://www.courant.com/2023/06/30/r...h-plan-for-96/

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I just got an e-mail that shows what I have been saying on here from the CT Post. Rents in the state are getting close to the national average EXPECT Fairfield County. And don't forget we have the $15 minimum wage. Before we go building affordable housing all over the state we should probably just focus on the one county first.
https://www.ctpost.com/projects/2023...-air-wildfires

Attachment 244083

We should do another thing I have been saying on here but not in this particular thread. Make the minimum wage higher in Fairfield County than the other counties.


This is Good News but the state still has a lot of work to do in Fairfield County. I will try to copy and paste this story later.

Ct Minimum Wage i now indexed to a BLS or similar table. i do think it should be frozen at $15 in all counties other than FFC, for 5 years, which would effectively create the gap you mentioned. That would require legislation undoing automatic, statewide indexing.

I suspect massive automation reducing MW headcount is close to fruition in high COL areas anyway. The ROI gets far better the higher the MW.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You do realize that we agree more than you agree Beeker?

As I keep saying, I’m am all for building more affordable housing but like you I’m against it being built wherever developers see fit. I believe that each community should decide where and how to build it.

Trumbull is an excellent example of that and how they’ve been addressing the problem for years by building it in certain areas where it made sense. But other towns that haven’t addressed it shouldn’t be punished either. Remember 8-30g had no timeline for meeting the goal and a goal is something to aspire to, not something that must be met. 8-30g must be repealed and reasonable goals and timetables for addressing the problem need to be established. That is common sense and good planning practices. Jay

I'd prefer balance, Jay. We have too many communities that will block them all, one at a time, strategically as their goals are underhanded. If your low income housing % is say 1/3rd Cts, yes you are devious.

I'd like to see multiple plans brought up (meaning no voting on them until you get say 5, in a town Fairfield's size) with forced ranking votes determining which get approved. Meaning, say 1 or 2 depending on metrics of town's low income housing % vs region, MUST be approved.

[JayCT]

So I’ve been following this house in Fairfield for about three weeks now. As you can see, it’s a nice updated house on a nice lot near Fairfield Metro Station; it’s been on the market 18 days; and was originally priced to comparable homes in town ($539,000). It hasn’t moved so the price has just been reduced to $499,000.

Wonder why? Look closely at the first photo. Notice the building to its left? It’s one of those 8-30g monstrosities that some claim don’t affect property values. Still think so? Jay

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4...57294628_zpid/

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JayCT

So I’ve been following this house in Fairfield for about three weeks now. As you can see, it’s a nice updated house on a nice lot near Fairfield Metro Station; it’s been on the market 18 days; and was originally priced to comparable homes in town ($539,000). It hasn’t moved so the price has just been reduced to $499,000.

Wonder why? Look closely at the first photo. Notice the building to its left? It’s one of those 8-30g monstrosities that some claim don’t affect property values. Still think so? Jay

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4...57294628_zpid/

The house that was sold for $400k about a year ago that was turned around asking for a minimum 4x town based multiple when the comps down the road were going for 300k just two years ago had to cut an insane ask of a 25% premium? Directly across from a 3 storey commercial building, gas station, and busy interstate interchange? I highly doubt it's the 8-30g project at fault here... there's a few properties in the area no where near any 8-30g development that are clearly flips by people completely unaware of the target market.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by JayCT

So I’ve been following this house in Fairfield for about three weeks now. As you can see, it’s a nice updated house on a nice lot near Fairfield Metro Station; it’s been on the market 18 days; and was originally priced to comparable homes in town ($539,000). It hasn’t moved so the price has just been reduced to $499,000.

Wonder why? Look closely at the first photo. Notice the building to its left? It’s one of those 8-30g monstrosities that some claim don’t affect property values. Still think so? Jay

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4...57294628_zpid/

OMG!!!!

Here is a better picture of it. This is what we are afraid of in Trumbull and why we are trying to stay ahead of the developers by putting in the affordable housing ASAP.