Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ThePermafrost t1_itw2vbp wrote

Reply to comment by JJ4444_Jules in How can we incentivize real discussions around solutions to home affordability in CT? by otter_spud

It’s perfectly reasonable to gatekeep wealthy towns. Nobody is entitled to live anywhere they want. I’d be fully in support of putting in some more multifamily housing in Hartford, Bloomfield, Bristol, Rockville, New Britain, or other blighted areas for low income individuals. Clean up those areas and make them nice instead of trying to creep into already established towns.

0

afleetingmoment t1_itw80xs wrote

That would work for me if we had county- or state-level resource sharing here. It's unrealistic for wealthy towns/people to point at the cash-strapped cities and say "you deal with all the problems."

The irony of course is that the wealthy towns rely fully on people from the poorer cities - to staff their homes and restaurants, do construction, mow their lawns, etc.

Until we stop "othering" the problems and work on mutually beneficial plans, the cycle will continue.

12

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwh2qi wrote

I personally don’t see an issue with an area relying on lower demographics to do unskilled labor and blue collar work. That’s how it’s been for centuries. It also benefits both parties. I can speak on the trades because I work with and am friends with many tradies. They don’t want to live in Greenwich but they’re happy to upcharge the shit out of them to mow their lawns then go home to their lower income communities with a large paycheck. Never understood the argument that if you work in a city you should be able to afford it

4

afleetingmoment t1_itwhgup wrote

I 100% agree, all I'm pointing out is that unless and until the various towns group together and sort out the housing issue, it will never go anywhere. If the wealthy towns just sit back and wait for the cities with far less resources to figure it out, it will never happen. We need to work together since as you said, both parties benefit.

3

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwigsd wrote

So should the wealthy communities be taking their own tax revenue to build housing in poor cities? Fairfield county already funds the majority of the state with its taxes

4

afleetingmoment t1_itwjet0 wrote

In a way, yes.

I'll compare here to where my parents live in Indian River County, Florida. Like here, there are extremely wealthy areas on the barrier island, there are middle-class suburban areas, there are really poor areas, and there are rural areas. Yet the entire county is one school district. Everyone shares various municipal services and resources. All the houses pay in in proportion to their value to create a school system.

4

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwjtrt wrote

I personally disagree that my taxes should benefit communities other than my own but that’s completely ok to disagree on. It definitely could work but I don’t think that idea would make it past the folks that think like me.

Edit: for example, compare Greenwich’s public schools to Florida’s.

1

afleetingmoment t1_itwl5oz wrote

I totally get that view, yet therein lies the problem. Greenwich (and others) wouldn't survive in its current state if not surrounded by towns that can feed it workers. So in my estimation the economic system crosses many town's boundaries... yet due to the structure we have, Greenwich isolates the benefits of that system for itself and can have the best schools, resources, etc.

It's an interesting problem but one that seems solvable through some kind of resource sharing or perhaps the "council of governments" idea.

I don't expect the wealthy to just buoy everyone... nor do I think it's fair to look at a place like Bridgeport with zero available to it and say "you fix all your problems; they're not mine."

3

usernamedunbeentaken t1_itx56u6 wrote

But other communities wouldn't survive if not for the massive taxes that rich communities like Greenwich pay.

You (and others who argue for 'regionalization) are arguing that rich communities should support poorer communities. But the fact is they already do tremendously.

3

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwtsvc wrote

Yea everything you said is correct and I agree with it. I think the divide is those who think that system is a problem or not.

2

TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu0m8yx wrote

> I personally don’t see an issue with an area relying on lower demographics to do unskilled labor and blue collar work. That’s how it’s been for centuries.

Isn’t this kind of an argument in favor of slavery, though? Like, there should be an underclass that serves a community, but the community will reject them and give them nothing in return. I grew up in a wealthy CT suburb full of restaurants, cafes, schools, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and more. All of the people providing the labor to run the town have to live somewhere else because we as a society undervalue their labor while we simultaneously rely completely on it? Seems fucked.

> Never understood the argument that if you work in a city you should be able to afford it

How long should a low wage worker’s commute be?

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_iu170ln wrote

Slavery? That’s a bit of a stretch. I’d argue it’s more of an argument for trickle down economics. Are you suggesting everyone should make the exact same amount of money regardless and all houses should cost the exact same? If so that’s alright but I do disagree with that mentality

0

TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu3rawz wrote

I’m not talking about housing prices here. I’m checking up on this notion:

> I personally don’t see an issue with an area relying on lower demographics to do unskilled labor and blue collar work. That’s how it’s been for centuries.

It sounds like you are explicitly advocating for an underclass to exist from whom the wealthy may extract labor at low cost. These workers in turn are not seen as members of the community despite the fact that they do the community building work of child care, elder care, food service, retail service, delivery service and more. Why are they not allowed to live in the community that they build? Because they are members of a “lower demographic”. I don’t know what you mean but I wanted to point out exactly the kind of system that rests on that belief.

Sure, I used a hot word. But you also didn’t even attempt to answer my question: how long should the commute of these workers be? In another comment I believe you say they shouldn’t even live in Connecticut anymore. So how long should a worker drive or ride a bus to serve your coffee?

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_iu4tlwg wrote

However long it takes to get from a community that they can comfortably afford, like this isn’t some wild notion. And you’re very wrong the lower class does benefit from this system as well. They make good money that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

1

TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu4ywgo wrote

Okay, the coffee shop employee cannot afford to live anywhere in CT. Should they take a bus from RI? Is New Jersey too far?

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_iu5afxb wrote

I see that as an income issue not a travel issue, you’d be hard pressed to find the salary that unskilled labor gets in CT outside of CT. It may not be enough but it’s a whole hell of a lot better than elsewhere. Out of curiosity although I may disagree, how do you think this issue would be solved. I feel like we may disagree morally on this issue but I am always happy to learn how others feel these issues can be fixed. There is a middle ground somewhere and that’s how we fix these issues

1

TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu6es7r wrote

I also see that as an income issue, yes. I responded to initially because of your particular phrasing that it’s a good thing for a community to avail itself of low wage work by another class (or “lower demographic”) of people that aren’t community members. That is an alarming sentiment to me. This work has to be done for society to function. Care work, domestic work, service work, agricultural work, and many other types of work command sub-livable wages. Those workers do the work that supports the functioning and quality of life for wealthy residents. The people who benefit from that labor and the people who perform that labor should be neighbors, members of the same community. Fix it with wage increases, fix it with housing price adjustments, fix it with wealth redistribution and whatever else it takes. But start seeing the people who do the largely invisible, sometimes unpaid, many times underpaid labor in your community as FULL MEMBERS of your community. None of this “lower demographics” keep them in another town business.

1

ThePermafrost t1_itwdpv3 wrote

Interestingly enough, wealthier towns have the highest percentage of teen workers, so those towns are actually rather self sufficient for minimum wage labor. Apparently teens from wealthy families get accustomed to nice things, and then get after school jobs to pay for those nice things.

I’m sure the state offers grant money for projects such as these.

2

afleetingmoment t1_itweol5 wrote

Ha! That's a good joke. Teenagers are definitely cleaning, cooking, chauffeuring, plumbing, wiring, and teaching in all the wealthy towns.

11

ThePermafrost t1_itx3ecd wrote

Yes, teenagers are doing most of the food service, cleaning, and country club jobs in the area. Teaching and Trade work are among some of the highest paid professions in the state, so they can certainly afford to live wherever they work.

0

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxccxo wrote

This may be the most God damned stupid thing I've ever heard.

4

ThePermafrost t1_itxh68w wrote

The median teacher salary equalized for full time is $106,000 in CT. (Link) And tradespeople make $150/hr.

I’m not sure how you think that is somehow correlated to minimum wage work?

1

samskeyti_ t1_iucr4nk wrote

Some tradespeople earn $150/hr. For many it’s ~$50. It really depends on the trade.

1

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxi37w wrote

Damn two in a row... This is now the most God damned stupid thing I've read... Not the brightest are ya?

0

ThePermafrost t1_itxuhe4 wrote

Do you have any sources to back up your unfounded claims or is resorting to childish insults the best you can come up with?

1

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxzb8f wrote

I can do both, but I only have time and energy for the insults because what you said was so patently dumb and your backtracking is simply chefs kiss I don't have to antique spend energy going over it. You said something tone deaf and idiotic, we all do just take the L man

−1

CoarsePage t1_itx7gtp wrote

Buddy, I wouldn't call all these places blighted or undesirable. Sure there are run down areas, maybe the occasional abandoned property, or old factory, but calling these communities blighted is ridiculous.

Furthermore the whole state needs to carry the burden of providing housing for all workers in the state. We've seen what happens when poverty is concentrated in a few areas. State disinvestment followed by the greatest ills of poverty.

3

ThePermafrost t1_itx8jaq wrote

Those areas are definitely blighted. The median income in each of those towns is just about minimum wage. I’ve toured a great deal of properties in all of those towns and can definitely see the disparity between them and the Farmington Valley.

3

CoarsePage t1_itx9uhs wrote

Yeah, there's poverty out here, but that does not mean blighted. Blighted has a legal definition, there are municipal departments that deal with that. It does not mean that it needs to match your aesthetic ideals.

Out of all those towns only new Britain and Hartford have noticeably low median household incomes. The other towns and cities hover around the state median household income.

2

ThePermafrost t1_itxc71m wrote

As someone who has toured huge swaths of real estate in these towns, I can safely say they are blighted. There is an absurdly high number of vacant and derelict properties in these towns specifically. They are not towns people generally choose to live in when provided other alternatives.

Sure, there are small nice parts of these towns, but that doesn’t offset the general blight these towns suffer. The median income of Rockville is $25k. Bristol is higher and less blighted (it’s gotten much better the past decade). And Bloomfield is just the suburbs of Hartford, so it’s affected by Hartford’s Blight, though does ok on its own.

4

CoarsePage t1_itxgvyj wrote

I'm in Bloomfield every day it's not blighted. It's where the headquarters for Cygna are. It's just typical suburban Connecticut. By blighted, do you just mean that poorer people live there.
Where are you getting all these vacant properties from, just looking on Zillow I can count the number of foreclosures for all of these towns on just my two hands. Are you some kind of wannabe slumlord trolling real estate boards and complaining when all there is to buy is slums?

2

ThePermafrost t1_itxus89 wrote

I’ve invested in a number of these towns and have seen the housing inventory. When you have to literally crawl on your hands and knees to reach the toilet in your apartment.. and that’s the standard for housing in the area, I’d call that a blighted area.

Bloomfield I would consider retracting from the blighted list. It’s not blighted be like those other towns.

2

Johnny_Appleweed t1_itw8qbx wrote

If your town relies on low-income people to function then you should have housing for them. It’s bullshit to say, “yeah, I want to live in a town with garbage collection, nicely landscaped yards, and cute little coffee shops but fuck the people who do those jobs, they can’t live here.”

1

ThePermafrost t1_itwddz7 wrote

Exceedingly few people work in the towns they live in. That’s a highly unreasonable ask.

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwfxdz wrote

Say it louder for the people in the back. I have no idea where this idea started but for some reason people feel entitled to live wherever they want. That has never been and should never be the case. Some areas and states even will never be affordable. Just move elsewhere

1

Kolzig33189 t1_itx0mxr wrote

It’s not just a matter of affordability (not discounting that, it’s obviously a factor), but also if the area has the infrastructure necessary for lower income people.

Like how Glastonbury is building a huge section 8 apartment complex on the corner of Hebron Ave and Manchester Rd. There are no bus stops within miles of that area, the closest supermarket is probably 10 miles away in downtown (lower income/section 8 recipients in no way could afford highland park markets ridiculous prices, most middle class people can’t even), and besides the aforementioned HPM small plaza basically across the street that has a restaurant and maybe a package store, there are no businesses/employment opportunities within miles.

If each person living there has a vehicle, it’s less of a problem. But a lot of section 8 recipients don’t have vehicles and rely on public transportation which again doesn’t exist in the area. So I look at that location and wonder how exactly it’s supposed to logically work.

2

HealthyDirection659 t1_itxt0xr wrote

The apt complex in Glastonbury is not section 8. Its not even possible to get a section 8 voucher in CT since the program has been closed to new reciepients since 2014. The complex will accept a few applicants that make 30-50% of the towns median salary and call it "affordable." But even at those rates poor people won't be able to afford the apts.

0

Kolzig33189 t1_itxtlp7 wrote

I don’t live in Glastonbury so maybe things changed but that was a huge deal in the town when they were voting on it, and the specific vote I remember it being section 8 housing specific for at least 50% of the building…did that change post vote?

I find that really hard to believe there hasn’t been a single voucher given in CT in 8 years. Do you have a source for that?

1

HealthyDirection659 t1_ity9gpq wrote

Section 8 is a housing voucher program administered by the Fed Govt. Has nothing to do with state or local Govts. There is no purposefully built section 8 housing at least in CT that I know of. Whatever you heard about section 8 at this Glastonbury complex is incorrect. https://portal.ct.gov/DOH/DOH/Additional-program-pages/How-to-Apply-for-RAP-and-Section-8

0

Kolzig33189 t1_ityzq7q wrote

That doesn’t answer my question of asking for a link to show no section 8 vouchers have been given in CT for 8 years. I’m well aware it’s a federal org (HUD) and not affiliated with state government, but that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said.

1

HealthyDirection659 t1_itzlhoh wrote

Click the link i provided then scrol down. All the info you need is there. Program has been closed since july 1 2014.

0

Kolzig33189 t1_itzm0ij wrote

The link is for a state program (UniteCT) that hasn’t functioned since 2014 and if I’m reading it correctly stopped accepting new applicants sometime in 2007.

I know several families in CT who have been granted section 8 vouchers within the past 10 months or so. Yes they had longer waits than I’m comfortable with the system having but they didn’t apply pre-2014.

Saying none have been given in CT in 8 years remains a ridiculous statement.

0

HealthyDirection659 t1_itzmynm wrote

You can believe what you want. That web page cant be more clear.

0

Kolzig33189 t1_itzqpvs wrote

Again the website you provided has nothing to do with section 8; it’s a site for a state only program called UniteCT. If you search that program, it’s for emergency situations and provided about 12 months of rental assistance when it was active.

As you said earlier, section 8 under HUD is a federal program and does not have time limits for voucher recipients, only income limits. They are not the same programs in any way.

If I told you Big Y has apples in stock and you argue and say “no, they don’t have any oranges” how is that helpful or relevant?

0

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxcmz6 wrote

And wealthy towns have the right to use the parts of a state power it likes and illegally ignore the responsibilities of that exact law? Jesus fuck that's a grim mindset

2