Housing ​“Bullies?” Elicker, Gold Coast Exec Differ

Lamont's first term was lauded for doing what????? Are we better off than we were before ?? I don't think so

The problem with the state's development strategy is that it is too watered down. DECD should be focused entirely on doubling the size of New Haven's downtown. The downtown is the only area of the Northeast (other than Boston) that's drawing people in and succeeding economically, except for a few areas of Connecticut that directly border New York.

As much as people might like Waterbury or Norwich, those places are never going to be a dynamic city like New Haven.

Incentivizing more companies to move to Stamford or Greenwich is great, but growing Stamford doesn't help people in New Haven, Hartford, or eastern Connecticut much if at all, because most of the people filling those jobs in Greenwich are going to come from New York State.

The cigars and smoke are gone, but lots of old money in that room. Diversity, eh not so much.

If we are serious about addressing climate change and making our environment better, we need:
(1). first and foremost to control and reduce our population;
(2) concentrate our population in dense urban centers.
Destroying towns like Woodbridge, destroying trees and farms for inefficient sprawl with dense single family or multifamily housing, like much of Branford, is a recipe for environmental disaster. New Haven still has a lot of surface parking that's naught but heat generators. As Anonymous would say, build tall towers on sites like the Collesium. More housing like 360 State is far more environmentally friendly than the stuff Beacon, Community Builders, or NHHA builds.

Did the forum discuss the history of redlining that restricted access to mortgages for people of color with the blessing of government?
Were those familiar with the need for housing, such as Neighborhood Housing Services, represented in the mix?
Were people who wanted to move to other places for educational opportunities for their children there to explain why they couldn't afford 1-3+ acre zoning in places like New Canaan?
I can't really tell from the article, but it looks like it was a mini-Davos type gathering of the elites, who know nothing about how most people live, explaining why they choose not to open access to their 99% white towns.
Where is Threefifths when we really need him?
Actually, next time just invite him and it will be a better meeting.

Always beware 'smiling experts' looking to make a buck.....
They will arm themselves with all the best BS'ers in the field to huck their game of cups to the public at large
Non-professional commissions will continually be forced to approve these deals because there is there is nothing 'opposed by experts' to contradict the written transcript.

Wise up to the game!!!!!!
What a bunch of narcissistic fools running our city into the ground!

1644, there are many good reasons for people worldwide to have fewer children. But there is a limited relationship between climate change and population growth. The bulk of the CO2 that is in the air today was produced in countries whose population has been declining for years (most of Europe, Japan, and Russia) or has stabilized (China and the U.S., which both grew by 0.1% between 2021 and 2022 and are growing no faster this year). In contrast, the countries where population is still growing substantially, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, are producing relatively trivial amounts of CO2.

Anonymous, people should be able to live reasonably close to where they work. As you know, the bulk of jobs in the state are in the suburbs. But many suburbs have adopted land use policies that bar all but the well to do from living there. I'm all for promoting the development of downtown New Haven - I live a block away and it is increasing my home's value. But the issue lies elsewhere.

BTW - Great photos by the NHI!! A picture tells...

A room full of well off White people planning for poor mostly non white people. Just what we need.

Did anyone besides the mayor address the issue?

"Bullying" the wealthiest community in the state?

Where would the CEO like the 8 million homes to be built?

Just not in his community.

It’s silly to say that the city of NHV should be the only densified area in the state because it’s the only “city”. Keep in mind that the entire county of NHV is about the same size as Houston (which has 3x NHV’s population.) There’s room for densification in surrounding towns.

More Progressive liberals trying to ruin beautiful communities. Keep fighting, don't let them ruin your towns like they did here in New Haven and surrounding towns.

Bill, I am arguably a "smiling expert" on this topic. I have a PhD in City Planning, and smile regularly. No one took my recommendations as Gospel when I staffed the legislative committee responsible for land use policy, nor should they have. Policy formulation involves values as well as facts, and I claim no expertise on the former. But knowing the history of restrictive zoning practices and their socioeconomic effects is relevant to this discussion.

I know your comments were not aimed at me. But they reflect a widespread and troubling denigration of the role of knowledge in policy formulation.

Kevin: If people cause pollution and climate change, fewer people mean less pollution. We had no pollution controls when my grandmother was born, but, while there were localized problem areas, pollution wasn't a world-wide problem with a billion vice 8 billion people. In our lifetimes, we have seen tremendous population growth, consequent deforestation, and industrialization in Brazil and Africa. Huge swaths, including much of the State of Para, have been deforested for agriculture, as while as timber. Vast areas of South America, Asia, and Africa have been destroyed for massive strip mines to feed our desire for minerals, including those needed for electric batteries.

I am happy that Elicker stood up, even at a "feel good event", against the rich suburban NIMBYs. Kevin has a good point that many jobs are in the suburbs.

I still think that we should heavily tax suburbs that oppose housing and use the money to build workforce friendly housing elsewhere, in the cities and in less hostile suburbs. Jobs will follow population growth, moving at least to transit oriented locations. Political representation follows population as well.

KM,
The 'smiling experts' I was referring to are the outsiders 'plying there wares' for Development Contracts....
What we need are more 'professional experts' involved in the 'public process' to mitigate the charade....

The problem with only building affordable housing in the cities and a few large towns is then CT becomes a state that is even more segregated than it is now. If you force all the poor people, many of whom are minorities or immigrants, into cities and a few large towns, and keep all the suburbs mostly white and wealthy, you create even more racism and discrimination and classism by that segregation.
Institutional and systemic racism, classism, sexism and other forms of discrimination makes it harder for many lower income earners to ever be able to be able to move up the socio-economic ladder. Segregation reinforces stereotypes and reduces exposure to people of different socio-economic background, and increases the potential for systematic discrimination. We become a society of “us versus them.”
And what happens if you were living in a town, and then your financial circumstances change? Divorce, death of a partner, loss of a job, disability, aging, coming back after college with a starter income and student loans, graduating from high school and just starting out on your own in a non/college degree job can all make it almost impossible to stay in your home town.
Front line and essential workers that can’t afford to live in the town they work in, means far fewer employees who will commute into that town to work. You can’t stay in your community because you have nowhere in that place that you can afford.
We need affordable housing in every community to keep diversity in in each community, and to enable people to remain in their home town even when their financial circumstances have changed, and to provide housing for the community’s workforce who fill the lower to middle income jobs in the community.

Elicker did not bully anyone. He made a righteous demand. Unfortunately we are still a country where our words are larger than our actions. Our failure to understand how hard it is to create a country that lives up to its stated political ideals and the values of its spiritual traditions leaves us with a nation of haves and have nots. It is refreshing to see a young White male who has the moral sensibilities and courage to speak truth to white power. Despite his failure on the international stage, Lyndon Johnson used his power to ignite the War on Poverty. The policies in his domestic agenda helped a lot of people. Unfortunately a lot of people did not help themselves. Predators and parasites come in all colors. Elicker is different in a refreshing way, but you cannot please everyone. Ask Jesus, Malcolm, MLK, Kennedy, and President Biden, or Liz Cheney.

What gets lost in all this is that we need housing options. Not just slamming affordable housing rentals into higher income suburban communities. We’ve only been building luxury, relatively large apartments, mostly in 5 over 2 buildings. We’ve neglected a myriad of other housing options which can be affordable without being Affordable Housing.

We can build Single Room Occupancy units. A sizable portion of the population lives alone and just needs a bedroom and bathroom.

We can building housing geared toward ownership by first time buyers and old people. 1-2 bedroom condominiums, smart small stand-alone accessible homes on slabs. Houses built out of sustainable materials or shipping containers.

We can build in places that people have deprioritized like suburban contaminated sites (there are many) using techniques to make sites safe. We can use our riverfront and waterways for floating housing, experiment with living arrangements that are non-traditional.

There are communities where Affordable Housing makes no sense. Woodbridge for example. It has no jobs, no public transportation, and true challenges accommodating density without municipal water and sewer. So the only motivator for trying to shoehorn such housing in Woodbridge is to make a point. This gets headlines and wastes resources with litigation. If I was a Woodbridge resident, I’d oppose outsiders coming in to force my town to change under some pretext of remedying historic discrimination. From where I sit, anyone who can get a mortgage snd buy in Woodbridge. There’s no gatekeeper picking and choosing who can move into Woodbridge.

None of our recently adopted housing related ordinance amendments (ADU and Inclusionary zoning) will have substantial impact on creating housing choice and the few beneficiaries won’t be the populations intended to benefit.

Making more lux rentals is ok, but we need diverse housing options.

1644, carbon intensity and other per capita metrics are as important as population in determining the level of pollution. Russia's population has declined in the last 20 years, but its CO2 emissions have increased due to economic growth.

The world is making substantial progress towards zero population growth. Sixty years ago, the average woman world-wide had more than 5 children. The average now is 2.4, slightly above the replacement rate of 2.1. The number in the U.S. is 1.6. The population of Europe and Japan is already decreasing, and the UN projects that the population of China will fall by 100 million by 2050. Some parts of the world, notably sub-Sahara Africa, still have rapid population growth. But they are relatively minor sources of pollution.

Incredible intellect here posting really good ideas and info.. ( let's call the whole thing off)
Supply Chain Problems still or no ?

Building supplies were very hard to come by a couple of months back ,stories of waiting months for materials.

Wildfires out west, Flooding down south, Tornados landing here and there.
Destroying homes..creepy men caught in the middle of Canadian logging forests with a small gas can and matches (no id, no answers)

Interesting article on New Haven housing in the Yale Daily News.

Yale housing shortages may cause displacement in the Elm City - Yale Daily News
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2022/09/09/yale-housing-shortages-may-cause-displacement-in-the-elm-city/

I agree 100% with NH06515 and encourage more common sense posts from that person.
The left believes that their cause is more nobel so it justifies any means to carry it out. In a room of his peers, with only a short time to speak, Elicker has to get to the point and says what elitists think - the first step to getting you to comply is bullying. The next steps are legal, political, and ????, but they absolutely know what is best for everyone and you will comply.

Basic points:

1) Theres a national housing problem that’s acute in CT because we don’t plan regionally. Yale distorts the rental market because it’s jobs pay decent wages to all, and it’s students are captive to proximity to campus.
2) there are affordable rental options in NH limits. Like 1 BR under $900 and 2 BR under $1400.
3) solving housing for the very poor should fall on government; not investors.
4) at 50 percent AMI for 99 years, our new Inclusionary ordinance is the most progressive in the country and will have a negative impact on development.
5) our new ADU ordinance will not create any more new units than traditional zoning tools allowed until owner occupancy is lifted. The city can't police that anyway.
6) the bold participation of the Yale Law Clinic in social issue advocacy (Woodbridge) is so dangerous. Where does it stop? Woodbridge should make it’s own decisions on its ordinance (which it did after a highly deliberative process). Resort to the courts to solve these issues is a tactic by the new liberal housing coalition because they know they have endless free student labor. Providing some elderly affordable options (fine by me) is very different from abandoning an ordered system of land use for a rural town with no jobs. Prohibiting multifamily is not racist in and of itself. It’s not even implicitly so.

Complicated issues. But our current social undercurrents on race, and equity are pushing decisions by elected officials (our mayor) and we get these policy reactions that no one has thought through from IZ, to Columbus, to ADUs, to government reorganizing, and how we police. And this great city just gets scarier and more out of control day by day. We all can feel it. I hear it from everyone I talk to. Regardless of color or income.

“We’re not bad people,” he said of New Canaan. ​“I promise. We’re feeling bullied."
It would be impossible for me to respond to this statement with anything less than long expletive laden rant.

The only legitimate reason for the government to bring a group of CEOs and other very wealthy people together is to tell them that they no longer have extremely disproportionate control of our government. Anything else is, at best, public relations theater to keep "the poors" from rioting.