Dixwell Rezoning Debate: 7 Stories Or 4?

by Allan Appel | Oct 15, 2019 8:02 am

(31) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Business/ Economic Development, Neighborhoods, Dixwell, True Vote

The latest passionate neighborhood wrangling over the city’s planned rezoning of its three major commercial corridors — Whalley, Grand, and Dixwell avenues — focused on whether to limit new buildings to four stories rather than the proposed seven-story 75-foot height limit. Thirty Dixwell homeowners, small business owners, and nonprofit officials gathered in the community room of the Florence Virtue Houses Thursday night for the session. Their mission: to dig deeper into some of the controversial aspects of the city’s Commercial Gateways District project that were aired at last month’s City Plan Commission (CPC) meeting. It was the latest of numerous such meetings around town to discuss the proposal, aimed at helping local and small-scale investors building businesses and denser, lower-rent housing in struggling commercial districts with outdated single-use, car-oriented zoning. City Plan Director Aicha Woods and Deputy Director for Zoning Jenna Montesano were on hand taking notes and passing out cards for participants to formally put their two cents, and more, into the record. (Click here to view a 21-page presentation Woods and Montesano made at the meeting.) This Wednesday night, the City Plan Commissioners are slated to receive the plan from Woods and her staff, including changes that might result from public input, and then to take a vote. That proposed new zoning district classification seeks to use parking maximums, building height increases, and affordability and sustainability incentives to encourage denser commercial and residential development along the avenues connecting downtown with the city’s neighborhoods. Thursday night’s gathering featured three hours of spirited debate. As was the case at last month’s CPC gathering, some speakers, while acknowledging a profound need for improvements in Dixwell, criticized the the rezoning initiative. Some suggested that allowing seven-story developments would lure out-of-town builders not committed to affordable housing, projects that could theoretically displace residents. The plan, so the critique continued, could distort neighborhood character in a way that might compromise or lose Dixwell’s culture and history, and continue a century-long trend of projects imposed without adequate community engagement. “From what I understand,” said New Haven Legal Assistance Association (NHLAA) community organizer Kerry Ellington, taller buildings promote more market-rate housing. “Nobody in my neighborhood can afford market rates,” Ellington added. Others at the gathering, such as local landlord Jayuan Carter, objected. “Higher is okay if it’s [also] affordable,” he said. Policymakers have generally seen denser projects are more likely to promote affordable housing, because the builders can more easily afford to keep rents lower if they have more units. Also, Woods and Montesano were at pains to point out, the commerical corridors don’t even have height limits right now, meaning developers can build higher as of right. They noted that the proposal’s language has built-in incentives for affordable housing.. There was more agreement at the meeting that a 75-foot limit would be fine for one portion of the Dixwell corridor where new owners have plans to build: Dixwell Plaza. The plaza’s properties have been purchased by ConnCORP, a for-profit community development sussidiary of the nonprofit Connecticut Center for Arts and Technology (ConnCAT). (Read more about that here.) CEO Erik Clemons, who was on hand with his development lieutenant, banker Paul McCraven, revealed that his group plans to put job-training, business-incubating, arts, day care, and other enterprises profoundly needed by the community. To support those largely nonprofit activities below at the street level, a rental apartment building must rise above, and, to make the finances work, it must rise above four stories, he said. That also is the case with development planned for the northern end of the proposed corridor, at a proposed 100 percent affordable-housing project planned on a vacant lot by the nonprofit Beulah Land Development Corporation. “We’ve heard tonight for the first time about Beulah Heights and ConnCAT,” said Ellington. “Can’t we specifically rezone for those two, and then allow the rest of the community to participate in rezoning the rest of the corridor?” “We can’t rezone just for them,” Montesano replied. “It’s called ‘spot zoning’ and it’s illegal.” Some participants in the discussion suggested that officials peel Dixwell away from the three-neighborhood rezoning plan. That didn’t sit well with Livable City Initiative (LCI) Executive Director Serena Neal-Sanjuro. “The challenge is when does Dixwell move if we take it off? Whalley and Grand will move forward. I’m afraid [there’s a risk] Dixwell will stagnate,” she cautioned. Woods said that it is indeed possible to propose to the commissioners on Wednesday to vote [only on] Whalley and Grand. However, Montesano added: “It can’t just be tabled.” The process, which has already consumed years, would begin all over again for Dixwell.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Put the blame where it belongs on October 15, 2019 8:17am If the zoning has no height restrictions, the developers can just do it anyway

posted by: alex on October 15, 2019 9:01am I’m so glad Mayor Harp’s administration has kicked off this important discussion. Equitable growth—that’s Mayor Harp!

posted by: Noteworthy on October 15, 2019 9:03am It is ironic that those who advocate for “affordable housing” don’t understand the economics of providing it. There are zero state dollars available to pay for affordable housing so you’re telling a developer to just take money out of their cash flow to pay for it. Period. That’s a joke. As for the height restriction, there should be none - a developer will build what it can pay for and what the market demands are and what the absorption rate is. It is ridiculous to postulate that a taller building means less affordable housing - predicated on what?

posted by: Politics 101 on October 15, 2019 9:05am I don’t understand the assumption that increased density is a boon to market rate developers but not to affordable and social housing developers? Developing affordable housing includes a lot of transactional and regulatory (ahem, zoning approvals) costs that are fixed and don’t vary with the number of units. As a result, in order to make most affordable projects work, you need lots of units. The primary subsidy for affordable housing today is low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and the rule of thumb is that you don’t even try to do a LIHTC project with fewer than 50 units. While low-income people don’t typically occupy unsubsidized new rental housing, the housing market does filter and new construction benefits most people eventually (it doesn’t currently benefit those who simply cannot afford code-compliant housing and require a subsidy but it would if housing choice vouchers were as-of-right and I agree with Matthew Desmond and others that the subsidies ought to be as-of-right, like food stamps). “Most people eventually” seems like weak sauce, indeed, until you remember that if there’s no new construction the only people who benefit are existing homeowners, who are disproportionately wealthy and white.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on October 15, 2019 9:06am Snake-Oil and Three Card Monte being sold.All this plan will do is help with the Accelerating of the Gentrification Vampires.It is a fact that Zoning ordinances are among the most powerful tools that municipalities use to control land use.In the book How to Kill a City,By Peter Moskowitz he talks about how proposes a fifth stage as a precursor to gentrification: Stage 0, which is often led by local government. In Stage 0, a municipality creates the conditions that make it possible for gentrification to occur, using tools such as zoning, tax breaks, and branding.[4] This stage, although less visible initially, wields incredible power to produce the ultimate consequence of gentrification and about corporations sectioning off large chunks of those neighborhoods and then planning out their long-term development.I will say it again.Keep on sleeping.A lot of you will be gone.

posted by: newhavenparent1 on October 15, 2019 9:13am I hope this zoning changes comes through. The people against this DONT GET IT and represent the NUMBER 1 reason why nothing ever gets done in New Haven. Right now nobody wants to build anything on Dixwell or Whalley because the zoning is impossible, the neighborhood groups say NO to everything and the economics aren’t there anyway. All of the zoning around the city is outdated. So the city wants to make a common-sense change to give a fighting chance to get some more development (= JOBS) and people come out against this??? People afraid of Dixwell getting gentrified? Thats not gonna happen—it would take a few decades of development just to deal with empty lots and vacant houses. You worried about rent being too damn high? Then BUILD MORE UNITS. You worried too many will be market rate? So what do you want - nothing to get built? Because that’s the alternative. I just spent more time with my family down south. Charlotte, Atlanta, South Carolina. There building everywhere and you can can get great houses cheap AND a lot of people moving there. It’s ok to build things people. New Haven will die if it keeps on being NO NO NO NO to everything.

posted by: BetweenTwoRocks One thing I wonder is… is there even a way to responsibly grow a city that doesn’t end in gentrification? Like is there some scenario where poor neighborhoods can slowly be improved, public services provided, that won’t also attract higher-income people and price out people who get left behind? It just seems to me that gentrification is basically a bad word for economic improvements. Are there any examples of neighborhoods improving that won’t also hurt the most vulnerable? Indeed, some people, whether through mental illness or addiction or who knows what, are going to have a hard time improving their lives. How do we engage them in society? How do they participate? And how do we provide better jobs, education, housing for people in lower income levels without also changing the character of neighborhood? Won’t economic success inherently change the character of neighborhoods? Is it inherently bad? Can anybody recommend a good book on this that isn’t necessarily anti- or pro-gentrification?

posted by: Jayuan Carter on October 15, 2019 11:41am The article does no justice and does not reflect what actually happened in the meeting. My perspective on rezoning included: Which boats will rise? Where is the economic impact study? Data haven (great information btw) is not the study. Where is the raw data so we can interpret the findings collectively. This dialogue should have continued periodacally since 2014 so things would not be how it is currently. That’s 5 plus years we could have worked on this collectively to create a viable sustainable plan. In order to make housing affordable which requires time is the creation of interests through small popup stations, food carts, trucks, planned pop up markets to stimulate the local economy and attract/welcome neighboring residents and visitors. Studies have shown housing before uplifting the economy will need incentives and public benefits to stabilize however if you work on the latter more locals can actually benefit from the process without too much tax or public incentives. Updated building codes that are not grandfathered will require fire suppression, fire sprinklers, elevators, annual inspections once you build 4 stories or more. This alone will keep the cost high. Across the country changes like this especially with ambiguous terms creates an example on how the next city or locale will adopt or develop its land. I suggested the Dixwell corridor need to be separated from the Grand ave. and Whalley ave. since we are organized and we know the buyers of The Plaza and The Elks. Let’s work with them over the next seven months because the Q House will be the new home for many of the entities in the Plaza. However the other properties will be for the taking. I chose seven months because the Qhouse should be completed in 17 months. A year with the connections these exceptional three men (Highsmith, Clemons, and McCraven) have can get the funding needed to build their project. #cooperativeeconomics

posted by: Jayuan Carter on October 15, 2019 11:45am Everyone points out the obvious social and economic issues however we are here to discuss the power of obtaining equity and increased ownership to actual participate in capitalism besides being the consumer as usual. I want to work on creating a land trust or a real estate syndicate or maybe a combination of other “economic vehicles” to include more access to capital and wealth among the residents. In addition, community equity sharing can be another option so when buildings are flipped money is placed in a “coffer”

to only benefit affordable housing efforts or some sort. New Haven and The Dixwell Corridor can be on the right side of history if city planning can adopt what we are communicating as we meet. The black community does not retain and exchange its dollars long enough to have growth for the multitude. Let’s show this nation what true coopaeration looks like. Small to large local businesses banking with local institutions to enhance the quality of life among its residents rather than what we see nationally especially in the black community. When you look at the map The Plaza and the site for Brooks’s project is not the entire corridors. We can own and control the other parcels of land because incremental developments adds value as well.



This is not about pitting us against each other. Its necessary dialogue to create compromise so more boats can lift when the rising tide instead of the exceptional handful while other boats will be recruited or travel here to fill in the voids. Also y’all intentionally left the part where the owners and city employees apologized because they thought two public data collecting meetings such as the main street project held in 2014 and the business vision held in 2015 along with private behind the scenes meetings was inclusive enough. Let’s use Dixwell’s glory days as motivation to bridge intergenerational gaps and increase the opportunities for resid

posted by: NewHaven73 on October 15, 2019 12:20pm I feel concerned about the gentleman who keeps mumbling on about gentrification vampires. Is everything ok? My vote is for no building restrictions. We need to think long term with a growing population in mind. Everyone benefits from more total units of housing available. Yes, everyone, including the people who won’t be displaced from lower cost housing.

posted by: brownetowne on October 15, 2019 12:23pm I don’t know why “out-of-town builders” are assumed to be so heartless and profiteering. It sounds like folks like to use the “out of town” phrase to stir up fear. I think we need more out of town people to add to the cultural and monetary economy and to grow the city. It’s not like New Haven is some kind of modern utopia and out of towners are going to ruin the great things going on here. Let’s bring people to the city. If there are any “local” builders who are committed to affordable housing, nothing is currently stopping anyone from commencing a project and nothing about the proposed zoning will prevent any local builder from commencing an affordable housing project.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on October 15, 2019 2:34pm In the twenty-first century, the visions of J.C. Nichols and Walt Disney have come full circle and joined. “Neighborhoods” are increasingly “developments,” corporate theme parks. But corporations aren’t interested in the messy ebb and flow of humanity. They want stability and predictable rates of return. And although racial discrimination is no longer a stated policy for real estate brokers and developers, racial and social homogeneity are still firmly embedded in America’s collective idea of stability; that’s what our new landlords are thinking even if they are not saying it. (138)”

― Tanner Colby,

posted by: New Haven Urbanism Jayuan Carter, Please feel free to email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) if you’d like to talk more about how we might work on making some of the things mentioned in your comment happen in New Haven. Noteworthy, I agree that ignorance of real estate finance is an issue, but its one that city officials and residents both share. Anyone that thinks speculative developers and government alone can meet the demand for housing in the city are mistaken. We need a different approach; one that has been very difficult for city officials, activists, and neighbors to articulate. brownetowne, Fair point. I have been guilty of out-of-town-phobia on occasion, but the point is not to say that every out-of-town developer is “bad” and every local developer is “good” - it’s more complicated than that. I’d say that a “good” local developer is better than a “good” out-of-town developer is better than a “good” out-of-state developer while a “good” out of state developer is better than a “bad” local developer because this is based upon what I think the goal is. If the goal of planning is to provide decent housing for people, then any developers who build decent housing should be encouraged, whether they are local or not. If, however, the goal is to build local wealth, I’m not sure that a speculative real estate asset financed by an out-of-state lender, built by out of town builders, designed by an out of town architect, managed by an out-of-state company, and owned by an out-of-town investor will achieve that goal. Is there a viable alternative to this development paradigm? I believe so.

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on October 15, 2019 2:59pm Alex, Mayor Harp has not impeded this important conversation, even though doing so might have been in her political interest. But neither has she, to my knowledge, instigated it or participated in it. Mayor Harp deserves kudos for many things, but this conversation is not one of them. Three-fifths, your continued discussions of the stages of gentrification implies that (1) all cities undergo gentrification and (2) they all experience gentrification in the same way over time. Neither statement is even approximately true. There are plenty of cities that have experienced substantial population loss, with few if any neighborhoods experiencing redevelopment. Where do you see gentrification (well off people moving into historically working class or poor neighborhoods) going on in Waterbury? And there is a qualitative difference in gentrification between cities like Chicago (my hometown) and New York. In Chicago, the vast majority of African-American neighborhoods have not experienced gentrification, in New York gentrification is very widespread.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on October 15, 2019 3:55pm @ Kevin McCarthy as I told you.it starts in Phases.I would say New have is at almost Phases 4.As far as Waterbury my friends that live there told me it is starting to move in. The 5 Phases of Gentrification—When can it be stopped?

and when is it too late? Phase 1 – Pioneering

New residents move in to abandoned or under-maintained buildings.

Banks will not lend so renovation is limited to the resources of the Pioneers.

No displacement of original residents, yet. Phase 2 – Potential is Seen

Real estate agents promote the area’s “potential.” Vacancy rates drop.

Rents begin to rise. Banks begin to lend. Speculators buy distressed buildings. Phase 3 – Safety and Media Hype

Gentrifiers create historic preservation, business and neighborhood associations.

Rents increase dramatically and displacement of the original residents fuels tensions.

Police adopt “broken windows” tactics and selectively enforce loitering and similar laws.

Media attention promotes the new safety and changes in the neighborhood. Phase 4 – Peak

The first wave of Pioneers gets priced out.

Banks and investors create more high priced apartments and condos.

Buildings bought for speculation in Phase 2 get put back on the market. Phase 5 – Post Peak

Vacancy rates increase as rents push above the limit.

Speculators take the money they made in Phase 4 and look for new opportunities in neighboring communities.

Landlords are absentee, including large banks and institutional investors.

Property values stagnate or fall from their peaks. Also Gentrification has also started in some parts of West Haven.In fact look at that Mall call the Haven in West haven where they push people out of there Houses.It has been Five years and No mall.

posted by: Politics 101 on October 15, 2019 7:08pm @B2R I often recommend Alan Mallach’s “The Divided City” to people. You can find an insightful, thorough review from Akron City Planner Jason Segedy here: https://www.planetizen.com/news/2018/06/99177-book-review-divided-city-alan-mallach

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on October 15, 2019 8:51pm Three-fifths, repeating your argument is not the same thing as presenting evidence for it. Nor is providing anecdotes from unnamed parties. According to a 2019 study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, “gentrification and displacement of long-time residents was most intense in the nation’s biggest cities, and rare in most other places.” Nationally, nearly half of the gentrification took place in just seven cities, including New York. “Most low- to moderate-income neighborhoods did not gentrify or revitalize during the period of our study.[2000-2013].” Some undoubtedly have since then, but it is nowhere near a national trend. https://ncrc.org/gentrification/ Gentrification causes real pain in neighborhoods where it occurs and housing unaffordability is a widespread problem. But most neighborhoods have not experienced gentrification. The residents of Dixwell, Fair Haven, the Hill, Newhallville, and West Rock were predominantly low- and moderate-income when I moved here 30 years ago. They still are.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on October 15, 2019 11:34pm posted by: Kevin McCarthy on October 15, 2019 8:51pm Three-fifths, repeating your argument is not the same thing as presenting evidence for it. Nor is providing anecdotes from unnamed parties.

As I said before.The evidence happens in Phases. It took about 15 years to get Harlem and Bedford–Stuyvesant.New Haven has just started four years ago. And there is a qualitative difference in gentrification between cities like Chicago (my hometown) and New York. In Chicago, the vast majority of African-American neighborhoods have not experienced gentrification, in New York gentrification is very widespread. Who told you that> I have friends who live in Chicago.They send this to me. Chicago Gentrification Trends Flag Best Real Estate Returns http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2019/01/chicago-gentrification-trends-flag-best-real-estate-returns/ Chicago Families Take on Gentrification and Housing https://www.caseygrants.org/evn/chicago-families-take-on-gentrification-and-housing/

posted by: NewHaven73 on October 15, 2019 12:20pm I feel concerned about the gentleman who keeps mumbling on about gentrification vampires. Is everything ok? Not for the poor and working poor. My vote is for no building restrictions. We need to think long term with a growing population in mind. Everyone benefits from more total units of housing available. Yes, everyone, including the people who won’t be displaced from lower cost housing. So you would support Inclusionary zoning like they did in Newark N J The “Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing” Ordinance, which is an amendment to Title 41 of the Newark Zoning and Land Use Regulations, will require developers who are creating or rehabilitating housing projects of more than 30 units to set aside 20 percent of them as affordable housing.

https://www.newarknj.gov/news/mayor-baraka-hails-passage-of-inclusionary-zoning-ordinance-groundbreaking-measuring-will-promote-development-of-affordable-housing

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on October 15, 2019 11:39pm @B2R Here is a book.How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality and the Fight for the Neighborhood.By Peter Moskowitz. https://moskowitz.xyz/book

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on October 16, 2019 7:03am Three Fifths, thank you for the link to the Chicago article, which is useful. But as its first line shows, it is aimed at homebuyers. The DePaul University study it is based on analyzes price trends in one- to four-unit buildings. It does not cover larger buildings, which have been the focus of the conversations on the NHI. And the DePaul study reiterates my point. Unlike New York, gentrification in Chicago has been geographically concentrated, notably in working class LatinX neighborhoods such as Pilsen and Logan Square. In contrast, most of the predominantly African American South Side has seen stable or declining property values.

posted by: Patricia Kane on October 16, 2019 10:03am The underlying issue here is the top down planning that excludes the participation and meaningful input of the residents. A process that is not inclusive inevitably generates controversy and opposition.

As I recall, the staff at City Plan presented their undertaking this Development Corridor as only preliminary and open to residents’ responses.

Allowing comments is not the same as actually responding to them. Legitimate concerns have been raised, but neighborhood opposition is growing because the Corridor proponents seem unwilling to pause the process and do the grassroots work to find compromises acceptable to both Dixwell and Fair Haven.

Exactly what is the rush to push this proposal through?

The people who live in a neighborhood are generally the most knowledgeable about what makes it tick.

Robert Moses wanted to put a highway thru Greenwich Village. Jane Jacobs and Village residents stopped him. Today it remains one of the most desirable neighborhoods in NYC and still has a human scale - although there have been losses, like a significant hospital.

A top down approach seems a bit old-fashioned when it comes to large visions.

How many of the staffers actually live in any of the neighborhoods in the Corridor?

New Haven does need a massive zoning update, but one that is thoughtful and responsive to neighborhood concerns.

Maybe legislation is needed to protect rents. California just passed rent control for the entire state. That is not to say I am proposing it; just that a conversation be had to seek solutions. If some of them require new laws, then say so.

Apathy is not a problem in New Haven, which makes it so exciting to watch. Jayjuan and ThreeFifths are both knowledgeable and raise issues worth spending time on.

Listen to the Neighborhoods!

posted by: New Haven Urbanism Pat, I think your comment gets at the core of the issue. One of the problems with modern planning historically has been a tendency to ignore the opinions of the people most affected by planning efforts. I believe that City officials are making good faith efforts to include commentary, input, and active participation from residents and business owners. This is, in many ways, a refreshing change from decades past. You are correct that many activists and neighbors think that merely allowing for commentary on official’s decisions is not sufficient. I agree. At the same time, I worry that activists and residents envision a better process as one in which they describe a set of demands and needs (for housing, jobs, skills training, etc.) that the City then must provide or require developers to provide. Unfortunately, this just isn’t how city planning works and isn’t what city planning is capable of achieving. We need a new approach. One that integrates all of these concerns and addresses them outside of the box of modern planning. The mistake City officials are making is to seek new tactics within the box of modern planning. But the problem IS modern planning. I’ve tried to work with City officials for years on this issue, but it’s been extremely difficult for me to make any headway.

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on October 16, 2019 12:33pm Patricia, there are actually several underlying issues. There definitely are process issues, as you describe. But resources are also a constraint. City Plan has been short staffed and unable to simultaneously engage in participatory planning (which we both favor) and respond to applications, some of which have statutory deadlines for action. Nor has it had the resources to bring the zoning ordinance into the 21st century. There are also legal issues. For example, there is no statutory authority to impose impact fees on developers, except with regard to parking. Rent control would also require enabling legislation, which I believe would be highly unlikely.

posted by: Patricia Kane on October 16, 2019 1:37pm @Kevin McCarthy: Thank you for pointing out the reality of the staffing situation and the many demands the staff has to meet. My hope is that the next Mayor will reduce some entities and provide adequate resources for those that need it - as City Plan does.

I have heard that Hartford’s new zoning ordinance is a recommended model for whenever City officials are able to focus on a massive update.

@New Haven Urbanism: “We need a new approach. One that integrates all of these concerns and addresses them outside of the box of modern planning. The mistake City officials are making is to seek new tactics within the box of modern planning. “

My proposal for Mandatory Notice to Neighborhoods, currently making the rounds of the management teams and Alders, would require proponents of a project (build, demolition, major rehab or zoning) to provide advance community notice of the proposal (City website, Alders, Management Team, Next Door.com) prior to any public hearing proceeding before any City agency. The idea is to engage the community in the planning earlier so as to minimize controversy, delay and expense.

No one can mandate meaningful dialogue, but smart developers are already doing it, although not with full disclosure in every case.

I believe people are in favor of projects that will improve their neighborhoods, but if they don’t, they should be heard and their criticism taken into consideration.

The dis-connect people feel from government is real, but developing a new process that acknowledges the real life investment of neighborhood stakeholders, can produce better outcomes and restore some sense of community.

posted by: Patricia Kane on October 16, 2019 1:46pm @Kevin McCarthy:

So-called free market economics (so-called because so many corporations benefit from government subsidies in reality) has failed to provide the housing needed for less affluent people.

There was a time when the federal government funded huge public housing projects, but war turned out to be more profitable.

Granted CT is not the progressive state California is (although Medicare for All was killed there), but if the people ever wake up and organize, all things are possible.

Having been both a tenant and an owner, I think it’s possible to have rent control that is fair to both sides of the transaction. The government is already subsidizing rents, so taxpayers are already paying the tab.

posted by: Politics 101 on October 17, 2019 9:53am @PK I am hardly a libertarian but the free market in housing hasn’t failed so much as it doesn’t exist. Thanks to highly restrictive zoning (which includes arcane “public participation” processes used for evil much more frequently than they are used for good) and massive federal subsidies for homeowners (who skew wealthy and white), there is no such thing as a free market in housing.

posted by: Patricia Kane on October 17, 2019 11:00am @Politics 101: One year of the cost of war in the Middle East would build housing and end homelessness.

posted by: Politics 101 on October 17, 2019 12:22pm @PK If only. Even social housing has to get through zoning, a process you are hoping to make even more unnecessarily arcane and complicated.

posted by: Patricia Kane on October 17, 2019 12:54pm @Politics 101: People in the know are citing Hartford’s new zoning regs as a model of organization and utility. Might be worth checking out.

The folks at City Plan seem aware that changes are needed, but there may be a need for more staff to deal with the demands of current development issues.

posted by: Stephen Harris on October 17, 2019 9:20pm Hartford now has Form Based zoning regulations city wide. We should study that and adapt it to New Haven. In the mean time the proposed regulatory changes are, in the main, well thought out and should be adopted. One could argue about the details but let’s move forward with the understanding that city wide zoning reform should be fast tracked.