Suburban Zoners Seek Third Way

So, is New Haven's zoning racist because New Haven has a disproportionately low percentage of white and "Asian" people? Are wealthy, white or Asian people welcome in Dixwell and Newhalville, or are there cries of gentrification and opposition to a more diverse population?

In the past, developer-driven re-zoning proposals have met opposition from existing homeowners in Woodbridge. As a result, the Town may not be in compliance with the intent of State laws pertaining to zoning for economic diversity.

Ideally, any re-zoning effort would be done through a public process involving current and prospective residents and property owners, elected and appointed officials, and land use experts. Rather than take this approach, however, a group from Yale Law School and Open Communities decided to craft new zoning regulations behind closed doors and threaten Woodbridge with a lawsuit if they don't adopt their regulations.

This puts the Town in a tough position. Should the Town undertake a true community planning process and reject the proposed regulations, which risks facing an expensive lawsuit? Should the Town approve the regulations despite the lack of community input in the drafting of those regulations? Or should the Town, specifically the Planning Commission, undertake the monumental task of attempting to modify the proposed regulations on their own to comply with State Statutes and avoid a lawsuit?

Without the Open Communities Alliance's threat of a lawsuit, Woodbridge may have continued to avoid any action on this issue. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission is now putting itself in the position of undertaking a planning exercise that really needs a robust public process in order to be completed effectively and successfully.

In hindsight, I wish OCA had conducted a comprehensive community planning process in Woodbridge. And if after that the residents still rejected any change, then maybe threaten a lawsuit. All the press conferences, media attention, and the fact that a lawsuit was their first approach just reinforce the perception that this whole process has fundamentally been about something other than best practices in land use policy.

This isn't just a Woodbridge-New Haven issue, it's a statewide zoning issue that impacts the poor, the working poor, the lower middle class, the oppressed minorities, the young people just starting out in life, the disabled, the elderly on fixed incomes, and smaller households and single people who don't want to leave their community, but can't afford to stay there, or no longer want to live in a huge multi bedroom large lot home. And people who might want to move to a community, but can't afford to live there, or don't want to live in a huge multi bedroom large lot home. It impacts workers who have to live far away from the communities they work in because they can't find affordable housing nearby, and parents who want their children to have access to quality school systems. It impacts the cities and towns which are forced by zoning to host all of the "undesirable" zoning uses and tax exempt properties providing social support systems because their wealthier suburban neighbors have zoned such uses out of their borders, and the state of CT that encourages and supports these zoning enforced inequalities and inequities.
And it is about systemic racism that is perpetuated under the guise of zoning, character, and the great American myth of if you just worked hard enough, you too can live the privileged life. But as the Muslim founder of Edible Arrangements found out when he and his family tried to join a country club in Branford, just because you have succeeded in pulling yourself up the socio-economic ladder and buy a home in an exclusive community, doesn't mean that they will accept you ... https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/edible-arrangements-founder-club-banned-muslim-faith-article-1.2844733?outputType=amp

Heather: Just because someone claims something, doesn't mean it is true, nor should you believe what newspapers print. If the PO Club didn't want Muslim members, it would not have invited him for a trial membership. His family was not given permanent status because his kids behaved poorly, not because of his religion. If you talked to some club members, you would know that.

My understanding of the OCA's zoning amendments for Woodbridge is that they contain no restrictions on the number of dwelling units per lot area. If that is correct, than a property that can support a septic and well system for a dozen bedrooms, could become a multifamily building with a dozen one-bedroom apartments with a large parking lot. There are legitimate urban design and long-term market challenges associated with such open-ended multifamily zoning regulations. Virtually all communities, including New Haven, have zoning limitations on the number of dwelling units per lot area in their multifamily residential zones.

There is an enormous variety of zoning options to explore between single-family and multifamily zoning. A robust public planning process should include discussions about small lot single-family, accessory housing, two-family, and multigenerational zoning provisions as options for community stakeholders to pick and choose from. As it stands, community stakeholders were given zero options to choose from. A fairly liberal zoning amendment to allow multifamily housing by-right townwide has been proposed for them on their behalf by a group making decisions behind closed doors.

1644- I know somebody who knows the family, so I'm basing my impressions not solely on the media reports, but on discussions with someone who has discussed the issue with the family.
The club settled with the family, that leads me to believe that the club didn't have an entirely defensible case.
I also know people who belonged to the club in the past, they have admitted to me that they know of similar incidents that had occurred in the past with people who were denied membership.
Saying that someone's children misbehaved was the reason they were denied membership is an easy way out of explaining the decision.

1644,

Unless you're a member and saw the behavior of the Farid kids, please stop spreading the BS narrative PO cooked up.

The spoiled, fat, rude WASP children are far worse anyways..

A vibrant community is one where there is a mixture of residents. old, young, rich & poor.

Single family homes on 1 acre lots will only allow for the rich to purchase.

This zoning in Woodbridge says that we only prefer rich people.

sorry grandma, get out. sorry young family, not welcome.

As a white person who's had conversations about race with other white people, some of these commissioners' statements SCREAM white fragility to me.

In a dramatically segregated state like Connecticut, in a relevant position of power like the Woodbridge Zoning commission...when people talk about race and you feel uncomfortable, it's your job to sit with that discomfort and engage thoughtfully with it. Not search for a reason to dismiss their arguments, so you can go back to your "race-blind" comfort zone. Disappointing.

tmctague: Funny, I have never seen you at the Club. I presume you go there regularly to know that the "spoiled, fat, rude, WASP" kids are far worse than the Farid kids. I thought fat-shaming was out of style, but I guess if the fat-shamed are WASPs, its okay. I do know that Paul Bass has written derogatively of WASP culture (particularly in the context of Yale), so expect comments disparaging that ethnic group is an unwritten exception in NHI's comment rules. Examine your own prejudices.

PS, did you get all your students up to grade level after last year's lost quarter of learning?

mohovs: Some folks may prefer placidity over vibrancy. With acre and a half zoning, you don't bother your neighbors, and they don't bother you. Everyone gets the quiet enjoyment of their homes. On the other hand, some folks may enjoy living over a bar. Convenient watering, plus free live music at night with muted treble but lots of bass. Why must every community be the same?

As for the people, yes, they prefer rich people, but most of all its whether the properties will assess high enough that their taxes will pay for the services the residents want, at least over the lifetime of occupancy. Smaller, single family housing is the worst because for towns their children need to be schooled at $20K each but the homes pay nowhere near that in taxes. Woodbridge doesn't get the state aid New Haven does, nor does it have the commercial and industrial properties that Milford, Orange, and North Haven have to off-set the costs of residential properties.

What bothers me is the number of Woodbridge residents who own property in New Haven that they profit from but neglect. A prime example is the Dux store on the corner of Chapel and Kensington. It is a disgusting mess, very dirty, litter, and rampant drug dealing both in front of and inside the store. The owner of the building who lives in Woodbridge allows the operator of the store to permit this situation and they just sit back and collect the rent. The surrounding neighborhood and Park are adversely affected, it is a headache for the police, it is disgusting for people going to the St. Raph's campus of YNHH and it is dangerous for people walking on Chapel Street. But the Woodbridge owners just sit back and make money off New Haven instead of investing in their properties, having nice landscaping, good lighting, security cameras, and measures needed to eliminate illegal activities on their premises. Then they turn around and say, we don't want this in Woodbridge.

The reality (some would say "myth") of the American Dream has changed, really for everyone. But, it still functions as an aspiration to strive towards because of the real benefits. Though admittedly, now more difficult, these benefits are still obtainable and worthwhile. The American Dream ("myth" if that's your thing) never promised that a person would succeed and/or succeed greatly, "if only they worked hard enough". The "Dream" only offered that a person had the OPPORTUNITY and POSSIBILITY of succeeding and/or succeeding greatly if they did work hard. What constitutes success is different for everyone. I would venture to offer that one small measure of success would be to ask yourself, that after "working hard enough", were you "better off" now than if you had not expended your time, energy, and resources. Importantly, had your efforts contributed towards putting down a better foundation for increased opportunities for your children? The "American Dream" never promised a home in Woodbridge or other similar communities. It only promised that it could (not would) be possible if that was what you aspired to. There are many who consider working hard to achieve economic success as a strong incentive. An incentive that encourages individuals to obtain the skills necessary to perform the types of jobs that would allow one to "move up in the world". As I see it, this zoning debate is about class and not racism. For all the knocks and hits that "capitalism" takes, it is still the single best mechanism through which an individual or a family has the opportunity to succeed. As has been written many times in defense of "capitalism", "Class is mutable and determined by a combination of choices and opportunities." America has always been aspirational, and about moving up. If someone is given something, why work hard for it, and really, why work for it at all? Before anyone starts (as they will) condemning my post about the lack of "color" in towns like Woodbridge, I would only

... offer this – I know or have known more than a few individuals of color - academics, business owners, medical professionals, and more, who could certainly afford to live in Woodbridge if they so desired. And, they would be welcomed. Now of course, if you don't believe in the positive benefits of the capitalistic system, then you are going to see this zoning situation in an entirely different light. Everybody wants to go to the "Land of Better". It's how one gets there that counts. So, have at it and peace to all.