JJ4444_Jules
JJ4444_Jules t1_itvh5uf wrote
Reply to How can we incentivize real discussions around solutions to home affordability in CT? by otter_spud
I think we need to level- set our expectations of which socio-economic and geographic areas would be interested and actually benefit from solutions. Asking very wealthy and suburban areas to install massive, unattractive affordable apartments always spirals at the mere mention and is just for show. There are plenty of communities in CT not as polarized where there would be a more symbiotic benefit, engaging those towns and reps is going to be more productive.
JJ4444_Jules t1_itw5h5b wrote
Reply to comment by iCUman in How can we incentivize real discussions around solutions to home affordability in CT? by otter_spud
I actually agree with you, not saying it’s right at all…. But if you look at the last publicized ( and polarized) forums such as Woodbridge or Greenwich, the proposals are not usually amendable to the local architecture OR services. Let’s be honest, affordable housing needs access to public transportation and a lot with a walk score of 2 is really punishment for the people who manage to get an affordable apartment. I think working with towns in the mid-range of public access of services , who honestly won’t hire an entire team of lawyers like the last 2 townships to fight it is a great way to actually get it done- and sooner. Hamden, Southington, West Haven, Naugatuck, etc have more access to public services and transportation and have expressed interest in the past of allowing well built facilities. I’m not saying it’s right to not allow affordable housing in certain places, but for the 17 years you will fight to get ONE duplex in Greenwich you could have built 25 in other towns and helped that many more. Time is the issue, inflation is killing families they need these built NOW