Miles_vel_Day t1_jd8g462 wrote
Another 100 of these and we'll be on our way to being a state where renters don't have to shovel half their income to their landlords...
Yes, there are only 37 "affordable units," according to whatever stupid regulation that gets them their tax break for shoe-horning them in, but every unit of housing that gets built ultimately works toward making housing more affordable for everybody. (My wife and I make six times the poverty level and would still appreciate cheaper housing!)
It's in a great walkable area, accessible to transit... really you couldn't ask for a better new development than this - at least under the current status quo of all development being undertaken by private enterprise.
johnsonutah t1_jd8ujg4 wrote
Agree it’s exactly what ct need. There’s no excuse not develop around transit oriented areas like Norwalk
Miles_vel_Day t1_jd8z3gm wrote
I'm an easterner so I always get sticker shock whenever I look anywhere in the 203, but it's always seemed like a great place to live from the train.
jgjgleason t1_jdbczuc wrote
Noroton heights needs to be turned into a series of mid rises.
Luis__FIGO t1_jda2keg wrote
Would be nice of some of the tax revenue from these develoent went to improving public transportation, making sidewalks better, working on traffic flow etc.
Property developers are getting rich while everyone who lives in the area deals with way to many people for what the roads were built for. Not just norwalk either obviously
Itsmoney05 t1_jdbypu2 wrote
Tax break? It's called incusionary zoning. Requires developers to deem 10% of building as affordable housing. Otherwise they can pay the city a fee so the city can invest in affordable housing as they please, give it to nonprofits, etc.
Miles_vel_Day t1_jdcn2sd wrote
Thanks for the explanation, certainly more specific than my "whatever."
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments