[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by CTartist

You are wrong about that. My relatives had a lot to do with the growth in Stamford. I'm older so I know. One of my cousins was very involved in the government and he created the "Stamford Economic Development Commission". What you see was all planed from the 1970's when they started giving corporations a 7 year tax abatement to attract business.

Do you notice there is no haphazard growth in Stamford? The southern portion near transpiration is city and dense, the middle portion is suburban and the northern portion is rural......all planned.

I was talking about when the state did it's last big infrastructure push and did build outs based on those projections, which IIRC which at that point Stamford City and Town were not unified completely (can't find the actual date incidentally so I may be remembering wrong). I personally think that Stamford is a model city and I personally love it, but the city elders did know about the issue I'm referring to for a while and the state couldn't really help that's now coming to a head: the water supply. I've actually had pretty in depth conversations about this with a now-former mayor almost a decade ago about this issue.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Stylo

You could add 100,000+ people each to cities like New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford with dense housing and high rises without losing much character if the infrastructure can support it, but I agree—towns like Westport are pretty full. That’s why tear downs continue to be popular. There’s no lots left. Changing zoning would be detrimental to those towns. Same with the more rural ones.

There's some room for a slight addition of units even in Westport, and it wouldn't affect the overall character one bit depending on how they plan it.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by ayoskillz

I dont understand how rich people moving in is a good thing when it is pricing out people that always lived there that can't afford to live in ct now. Every state needs a healthy balance.

And cheap people are not moving south. Cheap people can't afford to leave at all. You don't see inner city residents moving south. These are people from ffc or ect that has money to do so

Cheap people can and often do leave. This isn't a zero sum game. the fact of the matter is people can be displaced but there's usually a cheaper place down the line. some from boston left to brockton and then some from brockton left to fall river and new bedford.

We can call it gentrification all we want but more money can draw in more development. If you want to talk about preservation that's fine and I get that. That's where there's a local historical commission and districts and they work with the state and feds on preservation. If you mean preserving poverty that doesn't work. Inflation is a real thing. Prices go up. We don't really roll things back for the heck of it for the most part.

[JGBigGreen]

Wait, isn't this from a treatise by Plato? Or maybe it was Socrates? A brilliant rebuttal in any debate.

Originally Posted by CTartist

I'm older so I know.

[jdhall1]

Danbury grew ag least 5,000 people since the last census, that's about 5%. Not sure how much more developable raw land is available and hw much redevelopment will happen near city center. Not sure if the infrastructure in terms of schools and roads can support much more growth without major reinvestment.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

There's some room for a slight addition of units even in Westport, and it wouldn't affect the overall character one bit depending on how they plan it.

Hmm, where? I guess 500 units. But not doubling the population.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Jay,

I think that you're being a bit overboard. There are areas that are already suited in CT for much more growth and population. Also the character that we have here is a largely organic one, far away not tract development like in New Jersey, Long Island, or really any new growth area in the country. But it's just not feasible to lock in CT to how it exists today. I mean CT is a far different place than when my dad was growing up. It'll be different for my kids if I have any.

A 3% increase is just over 10k/year, which would not be noticeable addition if more spread out state wide.

Also good to remember that Bridgeport's infrastructure was built with a population of 250k in mind, Fairfield over 100k, Stratford over 100k, Hartford 200k, Waterbury 200k, New Haven about 225k... Really the only city that wasn't really planned to have massive growth was Stamford ironically. We have plenty of space in this state that could house new homes and businesses with minimal infrastructure investment when it comes to sewers and fresh water.

No one is saying that we let developers run roughshod on our sensitive communities, but even they have to take on at least some growth if the market is there.

CT def needs more housing variety, and buying opportunities. More younger people and reasons for college students to stay with jobs here. It's not about bragging rights of having a booming state: it's basic acknowledgement that character and growth are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed on all counts.

[Stylo]

Everyone is talking about growth %'s, but all I can find is 2019 estimates. Where's the official 2020 numbers by city?

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Hmm, where? I guess 500 units. But not doubling the population.

500 units would go a long way in of itself. But the new growth doesn't have to be concentrated, just allow a few duplexes around town and no one would notice the growth while pretty significantly increasing supply.

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Everyone is talking about growth %'s, but all I can find is 2019 estimates. Where's the official 2020 numbers by city?

2020 official numbers don’t release till late May and race, sex, income levels in June