We hear the term "affordable housing" from the State of Connecticut quite a bit lately but just what IS "affordable housing"? The term is applied to a variety of different development and funding opportunities for investors and inhabitants. What state mandates refer to is a cost of living ratio that currently is defined as 30% of one's personal income covering housing expenses. We have seen a great many residents slipping below that ratio at an increasing rate in Connecticut in the past few years. As this trend has been increasing we have also seen a great increase in the advocacy of a ratio that instead defines affordability as 50% of income for housing and transportation costs combined. These policies have become increasingly predominant in communities across Connecticut as municipalities become eager to compete for what some regard as a limited amount of state resources designated for both housing and economic development. Grant monies are awarded on basis of merits of compliance of anti-sprawl land use strategy designed to manage growth in a state losing it's population.
Surely communities with healthier financial statuses than the state's need be wary of more usurpation of power. This is especially so at a time when unfunded mandates have become a major issue for municipalities across Connecticut trying to balance their budgets. Nonetheless, we see cities eager to receive grant monies taking incentives for affordable housing creation tied to the strings of the state's increasingly stricter land-use policies.
Looking into some of the state's new legislation introduced this year, we can see the concerns of the opposing sides of these controversial issues that already affect local control of land use and zoning in this manner of a carrot on a stick. State of Connecticut Senate Deputy Minority Leader Toni Boucher provided testimony in support of her bills, SB 171 "An Act Concerning Incentives for Affordable Housing", to create a state program offering grant funding to incentivize municipalities to undertake affordable housing programs
SB 172, AN ACT CONCERNING THE HEIGHT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS , "To prevent high rise affordable housing in small towns." with populations under 50,000.
So why would the Deputy Minority Leader in the state legislature be concerned about such a thing? Let's have a look at her testimony which states:
"It would place a height restriction on affordable housing units............to promote sensible changes to our affordable housing statutes that promote smartgrowth, and take the needs of each individual community into consideration. "
Some have taken opposition to this.
Let's look at some of the testimony against the bills. From these testimonies, perhaps we can gather some insight regarding the goals of the advocates and their ideologies.
ANIKA SINGH LEMAR
Clinical Associate Professor of Law:
"But those suburban towns, using restrictive zoning codes, prohibit
the development of low-cost housing. The Brookings Institute has found that our zoning codes
are more restrictive here in Connecticut than anywhere else in the nation. The result is incomebased
segregation and, in areas of concentrated poverty, overburdened school systems that
cannot possibly address the needs of all students when the majority of those students are lowincome.
State law authorizes localities to regulate land use. Unfortunately, sometimes localities use that
power to undermine state needs. Affordable housing is a prime example. The State of
Connecticut needs housing that accommodates all of our workers....
...Towns need low-income workers, particularly given the growth of
low-wage jobs in the suburbs. But they don’t want low-income residents. And, when it comes
to education, local officials in towns with the highest-performing school districts will happily
admit to you that they have no interest in educating additional children, even if that would be
best for our statewide economy. ...
...For example, giving a full
moratorium point for elderly housing may sound reasonable but, in fact, it will simply result in
towns restricting all of their affordable housing to elderly people and never providing the workforce housing our economy needs. ...
...Ultimately, either we believe that all children should have access to high-performing schools or
we don’t. Either we believe that towns shouldn’t be able to exclude, wall off working class and
low-income people or we don’t. The war against segregation and the achievement gap
continues, 8-30g is the one of the very few weapons we have in that fight and weakening it with
any of these proposals would set the State back in advancing our goals of equal opportunity and
a thriving economy."
Elizabeth Chao, Community & Economic Development Clinic, Yale Law School
Evonne Klein, Commissioner
Department of Housing
"All municipalities in Connecticut are required under section 8-2 of the general statutes to “encourage the
development of housing opportunities, including opportunities for multifamily dwellings” and to “promote housing
choice and economic diversity in housing, including housing for both low and moderate income households.”
However, there is no vehicle for enforcement under section 8-2. Twenty-five municipalities do not permit new
construction of multifamily housing, the most common and financially feasible type of affordable housing.
Restrictive zoning in the form of low density, large lot size and high floor area requirements is a major barrier to
fair housing as well as the production of affordable housing in the state."...
"...Unfortunately, local zoning barriers and a “not in my backyard” mentality would effectively halt the development
of affordable housing in many communities if the appeals procedure were not available. The appeals procedure
helps to create affordable housing opportunities for low- to moderate-income individuals and families to live in
communities where such opportunities do not exist, where these individuals and families can have access to quality
schools, safe streets, public transit, and employment opportunities."
"..DOH also funds
the Incentive Housing Zone (IHZ) program, which provides technical assistance funding and financial incentives to
municipalities to adopt zoning regulations that enable the production of mixed-income housing. But again,
incentives alone do little to increase community affordability.
Since the IHZ program’s inception in 2008, the state has provided technical assistance to 69 municipalities. Only 8
of these municipalities have adopted approved zones and just 2 of these have completed housing projects in their
approved IHZs. DOH is proposing legislation this session that would lower the density requirements and increase
the financial incentives for municipalities under this program. We believe these changes will increase the
effectiveness of the program and result in more affordable housing construction but these added incentives alone
will not produce enough new housing to meet the needs of Connecticut’s residents.
DOH strives to ensure that all Connecticut’s citizens have access to safe, affordable housing. We know this
housing forges vibrant, diverse communities, enabling low- to moderate-income young professionals to move back
to their hometowns, seniors to remain in their communities, and Connecticut’s workforce to live near their
employment. We know we are better able as a state to attract and retain businesses and promote stronger families
when housing costs are reasonable. DOH continues to meet with local elected officials, housing authorities,
planning and zoning personnel and commissioners, developers, and others to collaborate on local solutions on how
to overcome impediments to the creation and preservation of affordable housing."
Jude Carroll, Community Development Specialist, Connecticut Housing Coalition
Lynsey Gaudioso, Community & Economic Development Clinic, Yale Law
School
So why would the Deputy Minority Leader in the state legislature be concerned about such a thing? Let's have a look at her testimony which states:
"It would place a height restriction on affordable housing units............to promote sensible changes to our affordable housing statutes that promote smartgrowth, and take the needs of each individual community into consideration. "
Some have taken opposition to this.
Let's look at some of the testimony against the bills. From these testimonies, perhaps we can gather some insight regarding the goals of the advocates and their ideologies. ANIKA SINGH LEMAR Clinical Associate Professor of Law:
"But those suburban towns, using restrictive zoning codes, prohibit the development of low-cost housing. The Brookings Institute has found that our zoning codes are more restrictive here in Connecticut than anywhere else in the nation. The result is incomebased segregation and, in areas of concentrated poverty, overburdened school systems that cannot possibly address the needs of all students when the majority of those students are lowincome. State law authorizes localities to regulate land use. Unfortunately, sometimes localities use that power to undermine state needs. Affordable housing is a prime example. The State of Connecticut needs housing that accommodates all of our workers....
...Towns need low-income workers, particularly given the growth of low-wage jobs in the suburbs. But they don’t want low-income residents. And, when it comes to education, local officials in towns with the highest-performing school districts will happily admit to you that they have no interest in educating additional children, even if that would be best for our statewide economy. ...
...For example, giving a full moratorium point for elderly housing may sound reasonable but, in fact, it will simply result in towns restricting all of their affordable housing to elderly people and never providing the workforce housing our economy needs. ...
...Ultimately, either we believe that all children should have access to high-performing schools or we don’t. Either we believe that towns shouldn’t be able to exclude, wall off working class and low-income people or we don’t. The war against segregation and the achievement gap continues, 8-30g is the one of the very few weapons we have in that fight and weakening it with any of these proposals would set the State back in advancing our goals of equal opportunity and a thriving economy."
Elizabeth Chao, Community & Economic Development Clinic, Yale Law School
Evonne Klein, Commissioner Department of Housing
"All municipalities in Connecticut are required under section 8-2 of the general statutes to “encourage the development of housing opportunities, including opportunities for multifamily dwellings” and to “promote housing choice and economic diversity in housing, including housing for both low and moderate income households.” However, there is no vehicle for enforcement under section 8-2. Twenty-five municipalities do not permit new construction of multifamily housing, the most common and financially feasible type of affordable housing. Restrictive zoning in the form of low density, large lot size and high floor area requirements is a major barrier to fair housing as well as the production of affordable housing in the state."...
"...Unfortunately, local zoning barriers and a “not in my backyard” mentality would effectively halt the development of affordable housing in many communities if the appeals procedure were not available. The appeals procedure helps to create affordable housing opportunities for low- to moderate-income individuals and families to live in communities where such opportunities do not exist, where these individuals and families can have access to quality schools, safe streets, public transit, and employment opportunities."
"..DOH also funds the Incentive Housing Zone (IHZ) program, which provides technical assistance funding and financial incentives to municipalities to adopt zoning regulations that enable the production of mixed-income housing. But again, incentives alone do little to increase community affordability. Since the IHZ program’s inception in 2008, the state has provided technical assistance to 69 municipalities. Only 8 of these municipalities have adopted approved zones and just 2 of these have completed housing projects in their approved IHZs. DOH is proposing legislation this session that would lower the density requirements and increase the financial incentives for municipalities under this program. We believe these changes will increase the effectiveness of the program and result in more affordable housing construction but these added incentives alone will not produce enough new housing to meet the needs of Connecticut’s residents. DOH strives to ensure that all Connecticut’s citizens have access to safe, affordable housing. We know this housing forges vibrant, diverse communities, enabling low- to moderate-income young professionals to move back to their hometowns, seniors to remain in their communities, and Connecticut’s workforce to live near their employment. We know we are better able as a state to attract and retain businesses and promote stronger families when housing costs are reasonable. DOH continues to meet with local elected officials, housing authorities, planning and zoning personnel and commissioners, developers, and others to collaborate on local solutions on how to overcome impediments to the creation and preservation of affordable housing."
Jude Carroll, Community Development Specialist, Connecticut Housing Coalition
 |
| click for link |
Noah Kazis, Community & Economic Development Clinic, Yale Law School
 |
| click for link Robert Appicelli, North Haven Opportunity for Affordable Housing |
"Summerdale remains attractive and well-maintained and the opposition which forced us to use the appeal process, citing traffic, parking and other density concerns, has totally faded away. Now we have another proposed development of eight rental units which has been turned down by the Planning and Zoning Commission for essentially the same reasons offered in opposition to Summerdale. Our appeal of that decision has been filed. It is clear to all of us that the political climate in North Haven is hostile to affordable housing for low income families and that Section 8- 30g is the only way that such housing will be allowed in our town. Weakening the statute, while addressing the concerns of the vocal minority, is not in the best interests of those many families who would like to enjoy the benefits of living in North Haven...."
As one can see, those in opposition to this legislation are more concerned with the collective good of one demographic of the state's residents than the basic protections of our representative form of municipal government controls. Zoning and land use control policies are in the middle of a tug-of-war as environmental justice advocates ride the transit-oriented train into Connecticut's new 30-year transportation agenda legislation while standing in opposition to the legislation introduced to maintain the character of our towns. The outcome of the battle will likely be determined soon.
 |
| University View towering over the Northgate Development District College Park, Maryland Pop. 31,274 |
No comments:
Post a Comment