Pendragon Pitches New Haven Green Deal

Interesting proposal with some good ideas. There are some big cities doing a lot around affordable housing, so the models are out there.

I'd also add green roofs as a concept to consider for more environmentally friendly housing.

Wish more of the housing stock was rehabbed. Maybe there needs to be more incentives or better ones to fix up neighborhoods and make use of fine older construction.

Noticed the picture of the streetcar but didn't see mention of transportation initiatives. As the city develops and leaders look to connect neighborhoods, would love to hear more about the role transit will play.

Actually, the full thesis & the short report, which the Independent choose not to publish in full, mentions both transportation & eturning green energy for the whole city. Click the first link for the short report, the second link for the full thesis.

Its my gift to New Haven. Spread the word!

Urn: Your thesis is virtually unreadable. In addition to being wordy, it is full of basic mistakes like subject/verb disagreement and incomplete sentences.

@1644

With all due respect, you need to look beyond your crticism & attempt to discredit me. Unless that's not your goal.

The overall theme is what's important, especially when it comes to stepping out of the city's comfort zone to commit to a plan that will grow out into the future. The purpose of the thesis is to explore the possibilities & push past barriers.

The wording of my thesis was chosen on purpose to not be technical, rather the language simple to read. Greening affordable housing & expanding renewable energy needs to happen.

On your criticism of grammar, this has been read by many academics & politicians, none of whom gave similar feedback. So, I can only conclude that you are trying desperately to discredit me. Which I have to ask; why are you against green energy?

While I typically am open to any feedback, I have to question your motives.

Urn Pendragon

Green New (Haven) Deal*

Before New Haven adopts an Inclusionary Zoning program, it may make sense to first reduce the existing Tax Deferral Program. If removing or reducing the tax phase in significantly deters development, then New Haven probably can't handle an Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. If, however, there is little or no impact on development after the Tax Deferral program is reduced, then that may indicate that New Haven's market is capable of handling Inclusionary Zoning. I do not, however, support programs that require that developers provide below market rate units in their development projects. Instead, I am in favor of programs that requires developers of large projects (including residential and non-residential) to pay into an affordable housing fund designated for certain purposes. Such a fund ought to be used only for down payment assistance for homeownership, home conversion and renovation projects by owner-occupants, and new owner-building projects.

@Johnathan Hopkin,

Your comment disturbs me greatly, especially with your taking a position when you said, "I do not, however, support programs that require that developers provide below market rate units in their development projects. Instead, I am in favor of programs that requires developers of large projects (including residential and non-residential) to pay into an affordable housing fund designated for certain purposes. Such a fund ought to be used only for down payment assistance for homeownership, home conversion and renovation projects by owner-occupants, and new owner-building projects."

Im going to take your comment in not desegregating housing as a financial position, not one of intolerance. If you knew anything on inclusionary zoning, your comment on "below market rate housing" is incorrect. By having mixed rate housing in the same building, actually stabilizes the housing market when all of the units are filled, versus having market rate units being unoccupied, which generates tax base, not undermining it.

On the housing concerns you have, home ownership IS part of the ordinance. Pathways to homebuyers is attainable, especially through the CHFA for first time buyers. I have a feeling you are objecting for other reasons too. I suggest you read up on inclusive zoning: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/inclusionary-housing

But, developers DO pay into the housing stock & into the local economy by paying all of the construction costs. They CAN pay into a fund in-lieu of construction that is used for an alternative site. Although using in-lieu fees for downpayment aasistance is an idea I have already floated. So, I do understand the topic more than you know.

Write me so we can talk.

Urn Pendragon
[email protected]

Urn,

My comment was not intended as an attack on your thesis. I was merely expressing my preferences for Inclusionary Zoning policies.

I am not convinced that New Haven's market can handle an Inclusionary Zoning policy. One way to test this would be to remove or reduce the existing Tax Deferral Program and see what the impact is.

If New Haven can handle an Inclusionary Zoning policy, then I am in favor of a version that requires developers to pay into a local fund. In addition to multifamily development projects, I also support requiring commercial real estate development projects to contribute towards an affordable housing fund.

There are several layers to the issue of affordable housing in New Haven. Housing segregation is one, housing production is another, and wealth inequality is a third. I agree with you that segregation is a problem and this can be combated by requiring developers to include affordable housing units in their market rate projects. Requiring developers to pay into a fund in lieu of providing affordable housing within their projects will not directly address segregation. A properly administered fund can, however, produce more affordable housing units for less cost. Also, the fund can be used by residents to invest in real estate and build their personal wealth. For me, the increased potential for housing production and local wealth creation outweigh the concern for segregation. Instead of requiring a developer to provide an affordable housing unit in their market rate project for a costs of $300,000, I would prefer that a city resident be empowered to create two affordable housing units with $300,000 from a fund. Not only would this create more housing, but the real estate wealth would go to a city resident rather than an out-of-town developer.

Thank you for your research efforts - I am curious to see if New Haven adopts an Inclusionary Zoning policy.

I will accept your points & the alternative options you mentioned. Try to understand, I'm both an analyst & a tactician. I apologize for the abrupt comments, but I need to impress upon the public, that I'm not weak.

While I might not like nor agree with everything someone says about or to me, I do alone your comments.

Thank you for speaking up & pointing out my weaknesses, because it makes me better.

Take care & be well,
Urn Pendragon