$90M In Hand To Start Building ​“Winchester Green”

@ethanjrt: One oxymoron of affordable housing: it costs much more to build, due to bureaucratic red tape.

Voucher for market rate apartments is the way.

https://cityobservatory.org/why_affordable_so_expensive/

New Haven should require that affordable housing income levels be based on New Haven citys AMI, not New Haven countys AMI, which is higher due to wealthy suburbs like Woodbridge, Madison, etc.
Most front line and essential workers with lower incomes, or retired or disabled on fixed incomes will not be able to afford so called affordable units.

I am sure there will be some negative comments about the good old days. But I think this is 100% good for us.

Which us is it good for.The major of people in that ward can not afford the rents for these apartments and I have not hear anybody say where are the people who are going to be push out going to live at.

Adding new housing where there was no housing before is a good thing. But it will raise property values which raises taxes, which makes it impossible for older stock housing landlords to lower rents.
The affordability of so called affordable units is based on New Haven countys AMI, which includes higher earning suburbs like Woodbridge and Madison, therefore putting those affordable units out of reach of most lower income workers and retirees and disabled. The affordable rate units will only be affordable to lower middle class and middle-middle class income levels.
The new builds and major rehabs also increase desirability of living in the city, which increases demand for more units, which puts upward pressure on rents.
Unless we build/require more deeply affordable units based on the citys AMI, or based on the AMI of incomes for those considered lower income through lower middle income, we will not be able to fulfill the needs of our renters most in need in the housing market.

The old song about the folks from around the corner is getting really tired. No one is in business to break even.

I like your capitalist qutoe.Also, Everyone can not qualify for a section 8 voucher..Did you know that there are over 650 million homeless people in this country.And a lot of them have section 8 vouchers

The number of homeless people in America grew in 2023 as high cost of living took a toll

Tens of thousands more people in the U.S. were homeless in 2023 compared with 2022 as high costs of living pushed some of the most vulnerable Americans into shelters and the streets.

Homelessness shot up by more than 12% this year, reaching 653,104 people. The numbers represent the sharpest increase and largest unhoused population since the federal government began tallying totals in 2007, the U.S. Department of Urban Planning and Development said Friday. Last year, federal data showed 582,462 people experienced homelessness.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/12/15/homelessness-in-america-grew-2023/71926354007/

As the Zillow-funded study noted:

This research demonstrates that the homeless population climbs faster when rent affordability the share of income people spend on rent crosses certain thresholds. In many areas beyond those thresholds, even modest rent increases can push thousands more Americans into homelessness.
This is why Housing costs must track incomes in a way that makes housing both available and affordable to all.

I never put the blame developers.I blame those who areat the table with these developers.The best model I have seen is the Newark N J Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance The question you should ask is why this program is not being used here.

MAYOR BARAKA PROPOSES CHANGES TO INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO CREATE ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Part One.

Part Two.
Notice
The Newark IZO, originally adopted on October 4, 2017, is one of the strongest in the nation, requiring developers of City projects of 30 units or more to set aside 20% of their units to be affordable for low-and-moderate-income families over a range of incomes, from below $40,000 annually to $80,000 for families of four. The amendments strengthen the original ordinance by expanding the number of developments required to participate. The amendments emphasize the need for mixed income and inclusive residential development and create a funding mechanism to address the administrative costs associated with review, compliance, and enforcement. The changes also incentivize developers to build or rehabilitate on-site affordable housing by adding a density bonus and by making zoning more flexible for participating developments.

https://www.newarknj.gov/news/mayor-baraka-proposes-changes-to-inclusionary-zoning-ordinance-in-order-to-create-additional-affordable-housing

So tell me what is New Haven wait on?

Youre right, its not the developers fault that they want to make money on their development.
Its the politicians fault that they are not legislating that there be a reasonable percentage of deeply affordable units in addition to affordable units required in every new build or major rehab that meets the needs of the lower classes.
Its the politicians fault that they base affordable units income levels on the county AMI instead of the city AMI, or the AMI of the low income or low middle income earners instead of including all income levels including the wealthier earners.
Our income disparities between each municipality varies wildly, as does the income levels in between our neighborhoods.
Prospect Hill has mansions, filled with some of the citys most privileged residents, while one or two blocks down the hill, has residents that are some of the least privileged in our city.
Should we be considering the incomes of those who need help the least, when figuring out the AMI to calculate the income limits for affordable housing for those who need help the most?
I would say we have a moral imperative to provide affordable (rents costing 1/3 of income) housing to those who need it the most, not just those who fall within the affordable AMI income levels of the county, because otherwise we have left the bottom incomes renters without the ability to afford to rent anything.
And the Section 8 system is utterly broken, with vouchers expiring due to renters not being able to find landlords with units they can afford to rent under that system. We need to overhaul the system with an website with listings to match up available units and tenants who are looking for units.
Also, many people are on10-20 year waiting lists for subsidized housing.
We need systemic changes, and only the advocates, the voters and the politicians can work together to make these changes.

Condo apartments, townhouses, carriage homes, coops all are good ways to build generational wealth and equity while reducing the responsibilities and obligations of home ownership. Theyre a great in between for renting versus owning and maintaining a house.
This city and its middle classes and lower working classes would be ideal for these types of housing.

Trees also add urban heat island reduction and reduce storm water runoff, which reduces power bills and potential basement flooding issues, and improves air quality, improves mental health, increases desirability of a property, reduces crime, and slows down traffic. Landscaping with low allergy shade trees has proven positive impacts, and the city should require landscaping and trees on all new builds and major rehabs.

It was my understanding that the Route 34 corridor has developments planned. I asked the NHI to do an article about planned developments, empty lots and empty buildings around the city with who the owners are and a map so we can see what is going where and what is being left neglected.
I think that would help readers have a better overall view of our little city and development and lack of development.

Exactly. The retail space in that area is 50% or better vacant and has been since construction.

We need to think creatively about the ground level retail space. Grocery stores, daycares, gyms, lab tech space, lifestyle and services businesses, eateries and beverage places, experiential businesses, etc. a traditional retail boutique might not work to fill everything, but there are lots of other businesses that could.

3/5th - I agree that the homeless issue is serious but you counted more homeless than residents. It's not a private sector issue, it's hard enough to take care of oneself. The government should solve this problem - not a private investor.

You said.The government should solve this problem - not a private investor.

Did you read what they did in Newark N J.
MAYOR BARAKA PROPOSES CHANGES TO INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO CREATE ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The Newark IZO, originally adopted on October 4, 2017, is one of the strongest in the nation, requiring developers of City projects of 30 units or more to set aside 20% of their units to be affordable for low-and-moderate-income families over a range of incomes, from below $40,000 annually to $80,000 for families of four.

This is the government who set this up.In fact there are developers who build affordable housing for low-and-moderate-income.

Mo" Vaughn Omni New York LLC. builds affordable housing for low-and-moderate-income.Across this country.
http://www.onyllc.com/

The real reason is they only want one class of people.

The exterior renderings of this development is actually rather nice, especially with the ground floor being large glass windows. I would guess the more the first floor is occupied with various businesses, the more walkable and desirable the property will become.

Exactly.
So where do the poor front line and essential workers and elderly and disabled live? They are being forced out by the gentrification of new developments and major rehabs raising property values, which raises taxes and desirability and demand, which means landlords have to raise rents to afford taxes, and can raise rents because more affluent renters are interested and competing for units in the area, and more developers and speculators compete to buy up properties so they can remodel older stock and charge higher rents, which then makes the area more desirable to higher end renters.
Its a vicious circle once gentrification starts.
Poor folks who are able to have been moving out to the poorer towns suburbs, and commuting longer distances to get to work.
But then those areas like Waterbury, Ansonia, Derby, Meriden, etc, have an influx of renters with moderate means, and the competition for units drive rents up, forcing lower income folks even further out.
The poorest of the poor and the disabled, elderly, and those who dont own vehicles, cant easily move, and the slumlords profit off them, and they are forced to live under inhumane and unsafe housing, and dont complain because if they get retaliated against or the building is condemned, they have nowhere else to go.
We need to legislate systemic changes to ensure that gentrification doesnt force people out. Its at the beginning third of the process, so its not as obvious now, but like ripples in a pond after you throw a rock in, its has far reaching impacts as it progresses.

Kevin. I just spoke to someone related to one of the new developments downtown - an out of town developer- and he said the taxes are double what they anticipated and nearly killed the project. I think I mentioned to you before that some out of towners dont understand the taxes here. Thats why the build. The numbers just dont work.

Its a broken system.

Not just white people, anybody with upper middle incomes or higher will find everything will cater to their needs and wants.
Poor folks and lower middle class people will struggle, of all races and ethnicities.
But of course, systemic racism has made it very difficult for poor and lower middle income folks of color to get ahead and move on up the ladder of wealth.

It will benefit only the rich or at least well-to-do. And the tax breaks will benefit the developers, as usual, no one else. Meanwhile, we have people of all ethnicities sleeping in the parks, and the city is throwing up roadblock after roadblock to thwart private community efforts to do something about it. A novel idea that won't be tried because the politicians have neither the vision or the commitment: why not renovate this building and create nice apartments that are everyone to all at 1/3rd of their income, whatever that may be?

Every municipality in the state should be required to have affordable and deeply affordable housing of at least 10% of their housing stock or face steep penalties which then get awarded to communities that have more than 10% affordable and deeply affordable units in their housing stock.
Then we could stop New Havens rental market from becoming similar to San Franciscos.

You always say,I do not see people being displaced or push out.What would you call this.
Tenant Lewis Nelkens new landlord sent him unwelcome news this December: He can renew his apartment lease on Broadway for another year, but, after that lease runs out, he has to move. Just because he doesnt work or study at Yale.
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/yalies_can_stay_townies_must_go

Did you know people are starting to be push out on Munson St by there Landlords?
The preponderance of evidence also suggests that developments like this help to lower rents (or keep rents more stable) in the surrounding area, not increase them. If these new apartments didnt exist, the families who will be moving into them would have moved somewhere else instead, displacing whoever lives there now and bidding up rental
Not True.
More Building Wont Make Housing Affordable
Americas housing crisis has reached unfathomable proportions. But new construction isnt enough to solve it.

Building more is not a panacea on its own. In fact, it can make the crisis worse without strong policies designed to help low-income people stay in affordable housing.

https://newrepublic.com/article/170480/building-wont-make-housing-affordable-gentrification-book-review

And even though Newarks inclusionary zoning ordinance has been on the books for over six years, it is the worst city in the country for renters. An even larger share of renters there are cost-burdened than is he case here..

Not all true.New Haven is also on the list.
Bridgeport, New Haven among worst cities to rent

Two Connecticut cities made the list of some of the worst places to rent in the country.

Bridgeport and New Haven landed at the bottom of a new list out by Wallethub ranking the 182 worst cities for renters.

The study looked at 23 factors like rates, cost of living, and job availability.
https://www.wtnh.com/news/bridgeport-new-haven-among-worst-cities-to-rent/

Renting in New Haven: Study ranks Elm City among least affordable in U.S.
Photo of Nicole Funaro
Nicole Funaro
July 22, 2021
After examining factors such as cost of living and rent-to-price ratio, as well as data on city satisfaction and quality of public schools (among other elements), WalletHub analyst Jill Gonzalez said in an email that New Haven placed as the 30th worst place to rent in America.

The city ranks fourth lowest in terms of rental affordability because the median annual gross rent makes up 34 percent of the median annual household income, she said. Along the same lines, the rent-to-price ratio is one of the highest at almost 11 percent.
https://www.nhregister.com/realestate/article/renting-New-Haven-ranked-among-least-affordable-US-16332309.php

Signs of Gentrification in Connecticuts Cities
Connecticut has been suffering from a housing shortage of homes that are affordable and readily available for low-income residents.Overall, the most vulnerable group in Connecticut are low-income renters.
https://www.pschousing.org/blog/signs-gentrification-connecticuts-cities

Part One

Part Two.
You always say,I do not see people being displaced or push out.What would you call this.
Tenant Lewis Nelkens new landlord sent him unwelcome news this December: He can renew his apartment lease on Broadway for another year, but, after that lease runs out, he has to move. Just because he doesnt work or study at Yale.
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/yalies_can_stay_townies_must_go

Like I said you do not get around.I do.Did you know people are starting to be push out on Munson St by there Landlords?

But it is rapidly becoming an issue for seniors, young adults, singles and couples and young families who can not stay in their suburban community where they live because there are no multi families units being allowed to be built there.
So volunteer firefighters are dropping off in numbers because of residency requirements and lack of affordable and appropriate sized housing within the town. Which puts pressure on the suburbs to hire full time paid firefighters, which means they have to raise taxes, or build appropriate housing.
And the young people, widowed and divorced and retirees are not finding appropriate sized and affordable places to live, forcing them to leave the suburbs, for the cities, which have apartments and condos.
Which reduces the number of retail workers, junior police, junior firefighters, teachers, civil servants, and other lower and lower middle income workers that will live in or nearby the suburbs, and will look for work there.
Politically it will become more clear that the suburbs have to build affordable multifamily housing, to accommodate these community members, and to build housing that they can afford and that suits their needs for less large single family homes on large lots.
As the suburbs grow older populations with one or two people in a large property with lots of upkeep and too much square footage, and younger folks are priced out, the needs of the suburbs are changing.