Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

curbthemeplays t1_j6ahxd1 wrote

Reply to comment by Whaddaulookinat in CT affordable housing law 8-30g would change under GOP bill by Whaddaulookinat

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