Towns fight affordable housing laws

NEW HAVEN >> For a law that has been in effect for 24 years, there is still considerable confusion over its implementation.

Suburban lawmakers recently argued in favor of changes to the state’s affordable housing act, while advocates and state officials said they could not support proposals that diluted the addition of needed units for low-income families.

The state legislature’s Housing Committee took testimony at City Hall on multiple bills that would amend or repeal the appeal process that allows developers to go to court when housing proposals for affordable housing have been turned down.

Affordable housing had stalled out for decades in Connecticut until Gov. Dannel P. Malloy made technical assistance and other incentives available, as well as $500 million in funding that has led to 7,500 units built or in construction, according to state Housing Commissioner Evonne Klein.

The statute under attack is 8-30g, which allows a developer to ask the courts to override a local zoning decision in order to construct affordable housing for working class and low-income individuals, which typically had been concentrated in urban centers.

While the law was adopted in 1989, only 31 out of 169 towns have the minimum of 10 percent affordable housing stock.

The confusion at the hearing was over the points awarded for building senior housing and for housing constructed before the law was put into place in 1990. Several lawmakers said this housing was not included in the 10 percent standard, but that is not the case.

Towns can apply for a four-year moratorium from being subject to 8-30g if they can show affordable housing equivalency points equal to 2 percent of its housing stock, something for which the town of Ridgefield just qualified. Other towns that have earned this are Darien, Berlin and Trumbull.

The intervening years give them more time to rezone or set up policies to encourage mixed-income housing or work with developers on getting tax credits or other subsidies to build a certain percentage of affordable units as part of a bigger project.

State Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, said it was unfair that construction of units for seniors only counts as half a point.

All affordable housing units however, constructed before 1990, whether it was family housing, senior housing, rental or home ownership were counted the same.

Affordable housing built after this earned different points in order to qualify for the moratorium. Higher points are given for housing that is more difficult to build with more for family housing, low income and rental units.

For instance, rented family units for residents with income no more than 40 percent of median income get 2.5 points; market rate apartments with 30 percent affordable units get .25 points for the market rate component as a way to encourage this type of mixedincome building.

Anika Singh Lemar, clinical professor of law at the Yale Law School, said a town can get greater credit for fewer housing units depending on the type built.

State Rep. Brenda Kupchick, R-Fairfield, said in her town, 100 units of affordable housing had been renovated inside and out, but it does not help the town’s rating because it was built before 1990. She said there should be some protocol to evaluate situations like this in favor of the town.

Klein said the point is to add to the affordable housing stock and 8-30g has helped overcome local zoning barriers and “not in my backyard mentality.”

She said well-designed mixed-income developments that came out of court appeals include: Old Farms Crossing in Avon, Oak Village in Wallingford and Avalon Apartments in Darien.

“We need the appeals process to compel communities to recognize the need,” Klein

“My point is these towns want good teachers, they want daycare workers, emergency medical technicians, nurses, police officers. They just haven’t done a lot to make room for them in their towns.”

— David Fink, policy director of Partnership for Strong Communities

testified. She said the goal is additional units of safe, secure, quality housing, not cheap, old or blighted housing.

In another instance, 38 units of blighted housing were razed and replaced with 50 new units, but Kupchick said Fairfield only got credit for the 12 additional units. She also described seniors as the “most vulnerable” population and contends the law discourages construction of housing for seniors.

Lemar said all 50 units count towards reaching the total of 10 percent of housing in the town. But only the net increase of 12 would go towards a temporary moratorium because it adds to the total.

Fairfield has 2.64 percent affordable housing units, according to the Department of Housing’s website.

Klein said there isn’t enough senior housing, but there also have been many local initiatives that aim to allow seniors to “age in place,” where social supports allow them to remain in their own homes.

She testified that far too many families are “rent burdened,” paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing, while the percentage paying more than half their income “is staggering.”

David Fink, policy director of Partnership for Strong Communities, said the problem is that many towns have not tried to meet the goals.

He said one community built 1,326 homes over the last decade, with 10 affordable units. Another town created 1,439 units of housing with none affordable; another saw 451 with three affordable. “I could go on and on,” Fink said.

“My point is these towns want good teachers, they want daycare workers, emergency medical technicians, nurses, police officers. They just haven’t done a lot to make room for them in their towns. In the final analysis, towns that want to create homes for working people on their own terms using Home Connecticut or any number of tools can avoid pressure from 8-30g. Towns that won’t try will and should be subject to its provisions,” Fink said.

He said Connecticut is in dire need of more affordable housing given that it is 6th in the highest median monthly housing costs; 8th in the highest median home values; 38 percent of all households spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. He said this is bad for residents and bad for the economy.

Hwang said Westport is working hard to meet the goal, but because it is short “they are now subject to some significant 8-30g statute building project that are inconsistent with the character and nature of the community.” He also again pushed the issue of credit for senior citizen housing.

Fink said the purpose of the statute is to “create housing for people that no one else wanted to create. It has never been a problem creating housing for seniors. They are not controversial. ... The highest priority was to create housing for low-income people, working class people for which there was none in this state.”

State Rep. Laura Devlin, R-Fairfield, said developers exploit the statute. She is backing amendments that would make sure designated affordable units remain so in perpetuity, while state Rep. Gail Lavielle, RWilton, offered an amendment to give exemptions to 8-30g to towns that demonstrated progress toward the 10 percent goal at regular intervals. Wilton has 3.8 percent affording housing options.

Lee Williams, a home owner in Milford, objects to 257 units of housing being built at 460 Bic Drive near his home of 45 years because of the 8-30g statute. He fears the project will be an environmental threat and he questioned how safe it is given the proximity to the Algonquin pipeline.

Hannah Croasmum, who represented Mothers for Justice, opposed the bills because they limit choices further for poor families.

“High housing costs are a significant driver of housing instability and homelessness. If we don’t do more to close the affordable housing gap we will be putting more families, including children, in danger of becoming homeless,” Croasmum said.

“It seems preposterous to me that we would choose to limit housing choices when we need them more than ever,” she said.

Erin Boggs, executive director of Open Communities Alliance, said the history of municipal zoning, established by a 1926 Supreme Court case, “has exclusionary roots” to keep out minorities and immigrants.

She said “if every town built its fair share of affordable housing, new pockets of poverty concentration will not develop.”

Given that it went into effect in 1991, “towns that are now expressing concern about being subject to the act have had 24 years to create the needed affordable housing.”

Michael Santora, director of the Office of Policy Research and Housing Support at the Department of Housing, said it is in everyone’s best interest for towns to decide where this housing is best situated in their community and take advantage of planning grants from the state and other resources. This can help avoid developers placing housing, by court agreement, where the towns do not want it. He said Klein has been going to communities throughout the state explaining the law and the means of complying.

Under the Incentive Housing Zoning program, Klein said 69 towns have been given technical assistance on complying, but only eight have adopted new zones and just two have completed housing projects. She said her department is proposing legislation that would lower density requirements and increase financial incentives in this program, but this alone will not produce enough new affordable housing without the force of 8-30g.