Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Phantastic_Elastic t1_j5z0ljb wrote

LOL "GOP bill"

Feisty CT Republicans trying to say something, hold on now

3

curbthemeplays t1_j69ulgd wrote

We need more development in dense and TOD areas, but I’ve seen this law be more of a boon for greedy developers encroaching on single family neighborhoods. There’s gotta be a better way.

1

Whaddaulookinat OP t1_j69ysoz wrote

>We need more development in dense and TOD areas, but I’ve seen this law be more of a boon for greedy developers encroaching on single family neighborhoods. There’s gotta be a better way.

The better way was for town pnz boards not to stifle growth and smaller units for 3 decades, and have been warned through that whole time. They went the greedy way themselves and now want to change the rules so they can fuck up our economy further.

2

curbthemeplays t1_j6a55o3 wrote

I don’t disagree but how could a new form of this law be more specific about thoughtful areas of development like dense downtown and TOD zones, or commercial/industrial conversion?

1

Whaddaulookinat OP t1_j6a8jwe wrote

The problem is too big at this point, to be completely honest. The reverence of large lot sfh development has put enormous pressure on the housing stock to the point where CT's economy is in pretty significant danger of stalling. If towns sprinkled in house-scaled multi family units or even split lots to make room for more "starter houses" like we used to build and rezoned solely SFH areas to have local retail and apartments (you know, the pre-1970s style development in CT) then there wouldn't be as much pressure of 8-30g. The number one go to move of PNZ boards was to do nothing, and the supporters of the large lot sfh lifestyle is "do more of nothing and with less government oversight." It boggles the mind to give more power to the people that couldn't manage a little responsibility... all because they have erroneous assumptions on how land value economics work? No thanks.

The "oh well we can concentrate everything we need to do in a small area" isn't going to work, and that's the pill large lot sfh fans are going to have to swallow.

1

curbthemeplays t1_j6ahxd1 wrote

I’m not sure SFH conversion is necessary at all.

There’s several trends that ignores: 1. De-industrialization, which has been decades in the making 2. Reduction in brick and mortar retail and shopping plaza popularity, 3. Reduction in office space needs due to increase in flex work.

Go to any developed town in the state and you’ll see lots of land that could be repurposed with zoning changes. The state can force the hand of towns with those zoning changes.

You don’t see haphazard zoning in better planned areas. Why force multi family and apartments in SFH neighborhoods when there’s so many other options?

So the state could be aggressive about forcing smart zone changes on these NIMBY towns that have no vision.

I’m in Milford and I see it here. They’re against 8-30g, but have made it difficult for developers to build in industrial and commercial districts which are ripe for redevelopment. A perfect example is their denial to the mall to build apartments. Very shortsighted. I’ll say, they probably do a better job than most “nice” towns, but there’s room for improvement.

There’s so much underutilized land in this state, it’s ridiculous. And with certain trends, those properties will be more prevalent. No need to encroach on quiet neighborhoods without the infrastructure to accommodate it. We can build density with intention and smart design, near public transportation, with traffic bandwidth, and commercial centers.

2

Whaddaulookinat OP t1_j6ars70 wrote

Oh there's certainly underused industrial land that can be used, however the number of parcels that would be a good fit for a change to residential is far less than what you may think. From groundwater, soil, and asbestos pollution all the way to just being islands far from transit and commerce.

> Why force multi family and apartments in SFH neighborhoods when there’s so many other options?

Because the issue is simply that big. That's the truth. There's really no way around it. It's also an odd framing of the issue, because exclusionary zoning was designed to force that type of housing stock out. It was immoral then, it's immoral now. It was known to be bad for the economy when those regulations were written, and it is the single biggest issue now.

And the infrastructure issue is pretty much garbage. How is allowing a few more units per area going to put any real pressures on the system? It just won't.

1

curbthemeplays t1_j6bjilk wrote

It’s not immoral to zone areas for freestanding homes where people want freestanding homes. Especially low density areas that are more rural. Where in the world is that seen as an outrage? Gimme a break.

0

Whaddaulookinat OP t1_j6bsh9e wrote

>It’s not immoral to zone areas for freestanding homes where people want freestanding homes. Especially low density areas that are more rural. Where in the world is that seen as an outrage? Gimme a break.

Ehh it is, and rural areas are among the most in need of affordable housing and apartments. Besides woke communities of only free standing homes is such a new concept.

Besides, there's a whole host of awful history on how free standing large homes became the norm and it wasn't great reasons tbh. It was an active attempt to social engineer communities to make a very small subsect of people feel "safe" as opposed to dealing with those of lesser means and frankly black people. That's the history and it's clear and it's very very immoral.

1

Whaddaulookinat OP t1_j5yx188 wrote

Posting this with a few thoughts:

A) CTGOP already made this pitch state-wide and did abysmally.

B) Just a continuation of trying to patch up poor decisions over the decades of PNZ boards.

C) The entire premise is just silly because already existing old stock "naturally affordable" is already calculated in the schedule, just not at a 1:1 ratio to minimum threshold.

0