New Commercial Gateway Zone Pitched

What does "affordable" mean?

And it's worth noting that most of the new "affordable" units, in developments like 360State or Randy Salvatore's new Parkside apartments in the Hill, -- are going to Yale grad students and Yale Medical employees.

It's great to talk about the need for affordable housing, but to date the efforts in New Haven have all been pretty much a joke, with single professionals being subsidized to live in luxury studios and one bedrooms. (The need is for struggling families and elderly tenants. Not twenty or thirty-somethings, with solid sources of income.)

AverageTaxpayer, developers won't be able to build affordable units on their own, because they won't find any investors.

These types of zoning regulations may kill development in New Haven. Consequently, this would put the city into a downward spiral of higher taxes, lost revenue, and more expensive housing (since the people who would have rented these units will just find housing in some existing unit instead).

If the city wants to create more affordable housing units, it can try to lobby the federal and state government to create more subsidies for that. Unfortunately, the federal government is unlikely to change course unless the Senate flips and Warren is elected. And the state government already has arguably the most progressive and generous affordable housing subsidies in the nation. Lamont seems to be cutting those, not expanding them.

A better approach would be for the city and state to maximize private development of all types, especially on the 0.5% of the state's total land area that is viable for high-value development, i.e., areas within about a one mile radius of the Stamford, Norwalk, and New Haven train stations.

Then, it can use the resulting increases in tax revenue to help support programs that can serve the needs of low income residents (such as better bus service to Waterbury, where housing is cheaper, and maintaining or expanding those generous housing subsidies that we do have as a state.... at least as of the last state budget).

I commend them for trying to make improvements in those neighborhoods but unless you make developers pay for additional police staffing and patrols, Whalley, Dixwell, and Grand, will have a hard time becoming what they envision as pedestrian friendly and attractive to commercial enterprises. Existing business owners struggle every day with issues that business owners in Orange and North Haven don't face.

The inclusive zoning ordinance that I submitted to the city and the alders, actually recommended 20-22% set-aside for affordable housing. Affordable is supposed to be targeted for residents that are at or below $42,000 annual earnings for families of 1, and $56,000 for families of 4 or more.

City planning is still muddling with the original proposal I gave them nearly 7 months ago to satisfy the mayor's housing vision.

Urn Pendragon

The best and cheapest way to encourage development is to increase what kinds of development are allowed by right. This is a step in the right direction. Making these streets more pedestrian friendly would be a gift.

The current Whalley avenue zoning is particularly wild---a massively out of date set of rules intended to keep auto dealers there. That battle was lost a long time ago, but the rules are still in place.

I am pretty sure that the current location of BAR downtown was a auto dealership before it became a garage (back even farther when the auto dealers moved out of downtown, out to Whalley Ave!).

A pipe dream until the homeless are housed and the jobless find jobs (that pay fair). Like 3/5's says, "Snake oil".

This is great news. But let's envision what we want (or need) fifty years from now in our city and plan for that now. I think these higher FAR and density options should extend further up these streets and apply to some other streets that are nearly as ripe for development. Or maybe whole zones. Doing this incrementally is not the best approach. Look at how disjointed the zoning map already is.

Getting rid of the Whalley automotive zone in its entirety and replacing it with a more dense zone with compatible commercial uses is a start.

And forget about the affordable housing requirement. Maybe incentivize affordable housing by giving higher density if the developer puts in affordable units? But tying density to green building techniques or similar green targets just leads to higher rents for all as developers seek to recover the costs of these high priced systems.

While making more developments "as of right" is certainly welcomed, every substantial development will still need CPC site plan or special permit approval. And not just some administrative approval. Full approval with storm water, heat reflectivity and light. So there is still a long "process" even before you go for building permits. So, "as of right" only avoids having to go to BZA for a special exception or variance for some developments.

Will developers be able to ask for relief from the affordable component as a special exception or will it be a variance? Is that even legal to make it anything but special exception? Or is it legal to have such a requirement? I'm sure this will be tested.

I hope someone has thought this through. Again, even at 10 units as a cutoff, developers are not equipped to do affordable housing. Period. Let the nonprofits and the PHA's do it. It's not a burden that should be carried by the average developer.

Such a low level of inclusionary zoning. I'm all for decreasing parking requirements on housing but why shouldn't this be tied to more affordable housing? Perhaps 10 percent is the appropriate threshold but why wouldn't City Plan wait for LCI to do the study it promised to do?

Good work on an area, as attested to by the comments here, that is fraught with difficult choices. Thank you to the city staff who have labored on this.

Ben,

You want to eliminate a very modest affordable housing requirement? Looking to displace even more of the working senior citizen "middle class" to support the struggling millionaire developers?

This is a good start at bringing the zoning ordinance into the 21st century. I suspect the sustainability and walkability provisions could be extended to apply more generally.

As others have noted with regard to an inclusionary housing requirement, a key issue is "affordable to whom". The difference between market rents and what a "moderate" income household can afford is fairly modest. But the difference between market rents for a new development and what a minimum wage worker can afford is about $1,000 per month. Even for the maximum income levels Urn Pendragon has proposed, the difference is about $600 per month for a 1-person household. (A person making $42,000 can afford a rent of $1,000 per month; a studio at The Novella is more than $1,600.) I have seen no plausible proposals for funding such a gap.

missthenighthawks, Grand and Whalley already have special services districts. Increased development there could fund the equivalent of the Downtown Ambassadors program operated by the Town Green SSD.

I'm not arguing that 10% is necessarily too low, though it seems low to me. I just find it baffling that the city is committing to fund a study on inclusive zoning, and yet City Plan is moving forward before the study has even been initiated. I thought that City Plan would be a department that would want to make a decision with the best information available.

I would be fine with requiring an affordable housing component to every development over 10 units if there was money available from the State or Federal government to close that gap. There used to be all sorts of money available in the form of Tax Credits, low interest loans, forgivable loans, etc. These don't exist anymore. So, adding an affordable requirement is a TAX on developers because that decreased revenue is not going to be made up. Its not the responsibility of developers to solve social problems. The cost of development is so high that the numbers don't work when you have to include affordable units; even studios. If people are looking for affordable two bedroom units, the gulf between market rate and affordable is HUGE. Even at 80 percent AMI.

BevHills730, this is the first step of a lengthy process. The proposal would need to go to City Plan Commission and the Board of Alders, which would have to hold public hearings. I trust that several of the people commenting here would provide input. Moreover, the gateways are fairly small areas. They could serve as test cases for affordable housing requirements and incentives.

Anonymous, requiring affordable housing may make some developments infeasible. But eliminating parking requirements (something you have long advocated) and providing incentives for sustainability and affordable housing are definitely pro-development.

Echoing Paul Wessel, I want to thank Aïcha and her staff for their work on the proposal.

Kevin,

I know you didn't mean it like this. But using the main streets in low-income neighborhoods as experimental laboratories seems wrong to me. At least, City Plan should use all of the information that is or will soon be available to guide these decisions.

Using these limited areas as test cases is a smart idea as these "plans" may have unintended consequences. Maybe the inclusionary zoning requirements trigger a huge influx of affordable developments. Maybe developers can find money to close the gaps that will exist. Maybe no one bites. We need to know what the developers are going to do. The only way is to make the changes and see what happens. I don't think that's offensive in any way. This is called the "lab function" of democracy and its vital. Otherwise, we have no progress.

This is exactly the kind of stuff City Plan should be doing (along with all the other things they do). The work of that department really touches the lives of all city residents in a palpable way. Glad to have some reasonable people there. Glad to have some new blood and youth with no baggage. Glad to have some great ideas. In every meeting I have had, I get the true sense that the staffers actually care about getting a good outcome for the City. They balance the needs of all stakeholders damn well.

Yes, any policy is going to have unintended consequences and some experimentation might be necessary. But the consequences in this case are that many people could be displaced and forced to leave the city. The idea that we can ignore a study and instead experiment on low-income neighborhoods without that information strikes me as wrong. I thought the study that LCI has promised to conduct would inform these decisions. Why not try to minimize risk by getting information from a study that is on its way? Perhaps Kevin's optimism that this study will inform the process before these changes are finalized will turn out to be warranted. That would be great.

Sounds like a case of getting the cart before the horse, but in this case, with no parking, there wont be any carts so I guess that's a bad analogy. I guess the good people living in these developments wont have visitors either, and the businesses wont have customers, as most people don't live on bus routes. Better to isolate them and their businesses I guess.

BevHills730, thanks. Certainly City Plan and the Board of Alders should use all of the available information available in amending the zoning ordinance, including the study you mention. But I think it is unlikely the proposal would have negative consequences for current residents of the districts. I'm most familiar with the Grand Ave. gateway - I live nearby and bike there every weekday. The bulk of the land there is currently occupied by parking lots. There is little housing nearby other than the new Mill River Crossing development, where rents are subsidized. At least in the case of this stretch of Grand Ave., there is little risk of displacement.

Missthenighthawks, the proposal is not prohibiting parking at new developments and developers will have to provide parking in order to get financing. The proposal only deals with the segments of the three streets that are closest to downtown and have extensive parking lots. It eliminates the mandate for developers to provide more parking than is needed, which can reduce the cost of development and rents.

Tom, could you provide maps of the proposed districts? (Aïcha presented the slides at the information session held a couple of months ago). As I understand it, the districts are small. For example, the Grand Ave. district would run from Olive to Hamilton Streets.

KM,
Thanks for the clarification.

If the linked website is accurate there are maps showing the extent of each new zone or study area. Grand goes up to Hamilton. Dixwell up to Henry Street. And Whalley around Sherman.

One concern is whether the same limiting conditions that currently apply to reduce the FAR will apply with these new zones. If a property In a BD1 abuts a residential zone, it's FAR is reduced by 50 percent. So you don't get the density bump to the fullest, you get half.

The vast majority of properties along Whalley, Dixwell, and Grand abut residential zones to their rear. So that would seemingly bring them back to a FAR of 2.0 appx. One workaround would be language stating the FAR is reduced only when a property abuts a residential zone at its side yard . This comes up often since business and residence zones are usually abutting along major streets.

Another idea would be to allow most relief by special exception.

I'm glad there is progress on this. Lots of City Plan ideas seem to be coming together. Mill River. Farmington River Canal extension. Westville village regulation overhaul was already done. They rewrote the industrial zones to allow residential by special permit too. I'm sure that I'm missing many others.

From seeing the day to day, these changes have made Westville village ripe for development. Smart regulations will attract investment. The Westville regulations are particularly good because there is no limitation on unit count based on FAR or lot size. Instead, the regulations define a "box" that you build and what you stick in there is largely unregulated. There are height requirements and design requirements, but these new regulations leave room for designers and architects to really shine. As a Westville resident I hope we get some big new developments to make the village more vibrant.

I don't know why city planning & economic development continue to delude themselves into believing that 10% is the only percentage that is self-sustaining for the development of affordable housing. 20% is very sustainable & DOES NOT strain city finances. In fact, rent is controlled at the source of housing without relying on section 8 subsidies. It's actually less money that comes out of the pockets of tax payers.

I can't stress enough that costs are spread out. It would be nice if city planning took the time try to understand how inclusive zoning actually works instead of clinging to old models of affordable housing. Why do they not face what HAS to be done to build housing that supports the city into the future?

Inclusive zoning is more than being just an advantage to low income families. People from all walks of life are mixed together,so there is complete & absolute desegregation. So education, jobs and cultures are fair, equal & equitable; a model of democracy at its best.

Urn Pendragon

@ Urn Pendragon

Everyone would love to see more affordable housing but if you impose a 20 percent requirement, someone has to pay for that. And the traditional sources like state loans and other such devices have dried up. With no money to bridge the gap, there will be no development. Or developers will break developments into small pieces that avoid the affordable component. Or they just will rely on the fact that there is no enforcement mechanism and will just do what they want.

Developers who hold their properties are not looking for huge rates of return; they want stable income that continues for 30+ years. New construction is really expensive. If they wanted to make a 25 percent return they'd just go to the ghetto and rehab old housing stock. What this boils down to is that all new construction will be luxury market rate unless and until the state and federal government step in to make loans that offset the lost income that doing affordable housing brings by default.

So, inclusionary zoning is a bad idea unless implemented with all the supporting structures to make it work. We don't have those structures in place yet. So why kill development by implementing something that just cannot work?

And I'm not sure that mixed income projects result in complete integration. Instead of fences you just get closed doors. Until you address the underlying poverty and other issues, expecting people to pay market rates to live with poor people as neighbors is just unrealistic.

Interesting side note to all of these 'new developments'....

I just got back from a short trip to a small town in East Tennessee.
Recently, the town voted AGAINST promulgating any Zoning Regulations at all.....

While that decision might make some sense to the 283 folks living in that 'rurality' now, I see 'that lack of regulation' to be a potential boon to future development that may or may not ultimately fit within the tenor of this small community. Fortunately, that won't happen until all of the mid-sized cities get the development 'comb-over'.

Also important to note that 'this rurality' voted 94% for Trump -- the populous must have been 'attuned' to the Horn of Deregulation (among other 'things').

Either that, or they know it is a fool's errand to be digging in that tightly compacted 'clay' which poses as 'mountain soil'.

Two worlds, One Country.

Urn,

Giving the 'current business climate', how does 'inclusionary zoning' protect 'renters' from 'real estate flippers'?

Ben

What is wrong with having poor people as neighbors?

In the real world, without government intervention, rich people and poor people don't live next door to each other. It's just how it is. And will be. Unless government puts its nose under that tent too. Personally, I'm happy to live next to anyone who takes care of their home regardless of color or income. but it's more a cultural issue.

The culture that surrounds poverty is not appealing to me. It's violent. It's backwards. And it's generally unhealthy. There's a lot of beauty too, but I'll forgo that for stability in my environment.

A few examples from my drive around town today. I went to Ferraros and pulling out I saw the beautiful, expensive, stone clad new Farnham Court. Three unit doors along grand avenue were open and you could see inside the apartments. They already looked half destroyed. What a shame. What a giant waste of money. close to $250,000 per unit just to be destroyed in what, a year or two?

Then, I was driving in Hamden. Out dixwell near Treadwell or whatever the next street is with all those new mixed income units. Must be hundreds. It's called canal crossing or river crossing. Maybe it's Mather street. Same damn thing. Doors wide open. Apartments destroyed. Dozens of people just hanging out looking suspicious.

Why keep building housing for a population that just destroys it?

And you want to integrate this into market rate developments. It won't work.

I know this sounds terrible but we need new approaches. Because what we do doesn't work.

@bill,

Once an inclusionary zoning ordnance is adopted, it doesn't matter who owns the property, the rental agreement remains in full effect. Since its a city housing ordinance, tied to the charter, it can't be easily undone. Charter changes are extremely difficult to reverse, especially if language is added that it must be voted on by a public referendum.

That's how it would be protected.

Urn Pendragon

I just want to clarify that when I was talking about poverty I was talking about poverty in the USA. In parts of the world where poverty is endemic, poverty is very different. Poverty in America carries with it certain learned behaviors. Just like being wealthy. These can be changed over time.

@Ben,

I'm not going to attach you, but I will point out where you are wrong on your assumptions regarding low-income people not caring about their homes and trashing their neighborhoods. By having a supportive housing environment and price-fixing monthly rent/mortgage, frees up money needed to pay for housing repairs. Having housing that is inclusive in which residents have a choice of where they want to live, possibly near their jobs, has been proven to invest people into their communities. Bringing down classism and desegregating school districts, has been found to lift up community morale, increase test scores and reduce crime rates.

And on your biggest misconception about costs of inclusive housing, it costs half as much per unit/house as does traditional affordable housing. I cannot overstate this position on cost-sharing enough; inclusive zoning spreads out the cost so that it takes LESS MONEY per unit/house.

So, I think you need to seriously read about inclusive zoning before asserting your position. While I appreciate your voice, and you have the right to say what you want under our laws, incorrect information is the gateway to spreading intolerance.

Thank you for your commentary, and as always, take care and be well,

Urn Pendragon

Urn,

Good Luck with that!

The contractors pouring money into CT Politics have a different set of priorities which somehow get 'heard louder'.

I don't think putting spot 'rent control' into the New Haven Charter is something that will ever happen!

We still don't even have an active CRB!!!!!!

@Urn Pendragon

I spent some time reading about inclusive zoning and it seems the jury is out on whether it has a benefit. Even the "case study" Washington DC, seems to be a mixed bag.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/citylab-university-inclusionary-zoning/565181/

Main points: it's created 40 units per year in DC which has a population 6 times larger than ours. It's focused on workforce housing. It doesn't do anything for the lowest income residents. It's a guaranty that developers and interest groups will sue to stop it.

The BOA should not adopt such an IZ regulation because it will get the city sued again. And it won't be some disgruntled employee suing. It will be the full force of the development community supported by various groups that are well funded and will have real legal counsel. A case will go to the CT Supreme Court taking years. By that point, no one will want to build in New Haven. The market will probably have cooled down.

Let's think of something other than a requirement to do affordable housing. How about getting surrounding communities to bear the cost. Or coming up with strategies that better address poverty so we don't have so many poor families in need of below market rents. Or maybe we just need to change our perception of what's "affordable". Up until a few years ago I spent nearly 45 percent of my income on housing expense. It was a choice. Cheaper options were out there. I just didn't want them. And they weren't substandard. Some of the answers lie in our own bad habits as they relate to housing.

One point on which we don't disagree is that the cost of traditional affordable housing is high. But if the cost of building a market unit and an inclusive unit is the same, and if a developer is getting a 6-8 percent return on market rate new construction, how do they afford to include affordable units?

And don't tell me a developer shouldn't be allowed to profit. If no one makes money, no one gives back. Profit isn't evil.

Ben,

So the full force of the development community will sue to avoid building affordable housing? It will sue New Haven for a similar measure that has already been implemented in other Nee Haven towns? Will these lawsuits be motivated by the logic of segregated housing that you have outlined here?

In virtually every jurisdiction where an inclusive zoning ordinance has been adopted a lawsuit has followed. Just read the link I posted in a prior comment. I'm not saying that I'm going to sue the city or that anyone has even talked about this. There is a clear argument that inclusive zoning is an infringement on fundamental property rights.

Ben, to what extent does it matter that (1) there is explicit statutory authority for an inclusionary housing requirement and (2) there could be incentives offered for affordable housing in conjunction with the requirement?

@kevin McCarthy

The legal authority to adopt such an IZ regulation is present in CT according to most sources but no municipality has done so. Where these programs have been most successful it seems they are voluntary and tied to a "bump up" in density. What the government takes away with one hand it gives back with the other. So the costs balance.

It's all about money. As always. If the higher density is permitted and the regulation is voluntary, there is a big enough incentive (at some point) for developers to do it.

Ben,

Why haven't developers sued Hamden over its affordable housing requirements? Do you think the broader development community shares your views in pushing for segregation in housing?

CT towns that have adopted IZ in one form or another have seen modest results at best. Stamford has added about 40 affordable units per year since the early 2000s. And it's revisiting it's overall zoning code. It allows payments to the town in lieu of affordable units. And developers can build the affordable housing at a different location. Stamford is clear about what it wants: affordable housing. It sacrifices some of the social justice stuff.
Other towns have "overlay" districts limited to parcels larger than x acres or the program is voluntary compliance. Some regulations were clearly written with certain tracts of land in mind. Many of the towns aren't at the 10 percent affordable threshold of CGS 8-20g so they need the units.

affordable housing is not the primary goal of IZ. IZ mixes lower income renters into market rate developments for the perceived desegregation, the social benefits. If our goal is getting more affordable units, they should be built on the cheapest land to maximize the number of units that can be done. We get better bang for our buck doing a regional or statewide program. The smaller the political subdivision is that adopts the IZ regulation, the worse the outcome.

No notable lawsuits in CT but I haven't really searched. No city like New Haven adopted IZ so who knows what legal challenges would arise. I think it depends on the particulars of the ordinance, if it happens.

I think my views are quite widely held. While I support the aim of IZ, I would want to do some due diligence before moving into a 20 percent affordable 50%AMI building. Especially if it was all Yale grad students claiming poverty.

Hamden hasn't been sued bc it's not in a building boom and doesn't have a downtown or land scarcity in appealing areas. It's a sprawling town. There is less at stake. A lot less. Developers have choices. Not so in NH.

There is lots of good content on the Internet. @urn was right about that. Let's all educate ourselves and go testify.

It's disturbing to see a room full of white people making all of these decisions regarding "development" in predominantly Black & Brown areas of town. Am I missing something, or are People of Color's voices being left out yet again, "particularly for the main commercial arteries that connect Downtown to Fair Haven, Newhallville and Dixwell, and Dwight, Edgewood, and Westville."

I'm OK with an inclusionary housing requirement, particularly if it is supported by incentives. But Ben Trachten is right, it would have a very modest impact. In a good year, 500 units are built in town. A few are single family homes, more are in small developments that would not be subject to the requirement. If 20% of the affected units were required to be affordable, that would be fewer than 100 units added per year. There are about 59,000 units in town, many of them unaffordable to their tenants.

An alternative aporoach is to reduce the number of units lost to the market. Some loss is unavoidable; buildings burn down, etc. But if the loss rate was reduced by 0.5%, that would be the equivalent of more than 250 additional units.

@ Kevin, Bev, Ben, anonymous, Wendy, Average, missthenighthawks, Esbey, Paul, Bill and the rest of the good residents of New Haven.

Inclusive housing ordinances are not a cure all, but can be a best practices solution. I know that I talk non-specifics, of which, there is good reason for my approach. First, this is my personality, second, I want people to feel that I am approachable, and lastly, that I am not a stuffy "full of myself" know-it-all academic.

All of your points over the last couple weeks are very valid concerns. Which is why I frequently post on the NHI; you are all very active in your opinions and great sources of information. With that said, I am not running my campaign through this forum, rather, taking in your information, so that I can fill in the gaps. No single person, no matter how long they have lived in the city, can know it all.

Now, to answer some of your points of concerns and commentary:

NeoHavener, the "room full of white people" weren't making any decisions. The final decision on any change to the zoning ordinance would be made by the Board of Alders, a substantial majority of whose members are African-American or Hispanic.