Share
The “fair share” of affordable units allocated to each town by OCA / HB6611 is ill-conceived and unattainable. It doubles Fairfield County and other (45 of 169) towns’ affordable housing requirements mandated under 8-30g from 10% to 20% when towns have been trying very hard to reach the original goalposts in good faith over the last 30 years and even meeting milestones for moratoriums.
OCA claims that “10% inclusionary zoning will be used less than 30% of affordable units generated under HB6611”. Even 30% of most towns’ fair share number will lead to at least 4500 units of housing needing to be built to achieve it, plus the other 70% of affordable units easily doubles towns’ existing housing stock. If the other 70% is supposedly built through subsidized housing, is it subsidized by local taxpayers? Or the State? There is no free lunch. It just means tax dollars will be spent on already high opportunity areas versus on schools and services in our underserved cities.
In Erin Boggs’ own words: “HB 6611 allows standing for non-profits advancing fair share, potential residents of affordable housing, affordable housing developers and towns in compliance with the law to compel non-complying towns to create a plan. If towns create and implement a good plan, this is a non-issue.” So much for local control.
Do towns really need such a punitive “stick” that allows all of the above outside actors to monitor and regulate its own affordable housing plan while towns pay for their legal expenses and funding?
Alexis Harrison
Fairfield, CT
Harrison is a member of CT169Strong