Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Viceversa10 t1_j1e4of7 wrote

Reply to comment by Frequent_Jelly_4138 in Opinion: CT must act on Fairfield County education, housing issues by LawyersGunsandMoneys

I can't afford to live in nice areas with low crime and good schools so you should change and let me live there too. /s

7

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1e6o57 wrote

Seriously, apply the same logic to cars. I can afford a Honda but that guy has Ferrari and I want one so he should call Ferrari and make them give me one half off

8

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1eiyqf wrote

We have allowed a regulatory system that artificially drives up prices in those towns. This is not a market for cars, it is a tightly regulated system, designed to benefit incumbent residents.

If the free market were allowed to actually dictate development in Fairfield county towns, there would be apartment buildings across from the train station in Darien.

−3

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1eo12e wrote

You new urbanists make me laugh. I’m literally a multi family real estate developer and all y’all who aren’t in the industry immediately jump to transit based development because it’s the easiest way to defend and disguise affordable housing when in reality it does the opposite

5

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1eoq4d wrote

I am a fan of any and all kinds of improvements to increase density- reduce lot size and setback requirements, allow multi family units as of right in more zones (preferably duplexes and triplexes allowed everywhere), make it easier to build larger multi-unit developments.

I also think we should embark on more publicly funded housing and deed restricted affordable developments. I think the solution is all of the above.

Also, loosening zoning restrictions will not only help developers build luxury units, it will make it easier for public housing and non-profits as well.

0

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1esezv wrote

You do realize the reason Connecticut is so beautiful and holds it’s charm is because we haven’t adopted those things. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective but to those who value that we hate the idea of changing for density, while those who can’t afford the nice party’s want to create denser towns so they can afford it. What they don’t know is that those towns would lose their charm and people would stop moving there, defeating the whole purpose and value of moving there

7

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1eszev wrote

Those towns along the metro north in Fairfield county aren’t valuable because they’re charming, they’re valuable because they’re within commuting distance of New York City.

Woodstock is a perfectly charming place, but there aren’t thousands of people clamoring to move there because it isn’t commutable to a major metropolitan hub, with (relatively) well functioning public transportation.

3

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1etnof wrote

There are plenty of charming commuter towns in the surrounding areas in three states. People would move there

2

bombbad15 t1_j1hsy4c wrote

So does every town along the rail line really need to build build build then? Stamford housing units in downtown has exploded in the past 10 years adding over 10,000 units and has the infrastructure to support the demand. Norwalk is building too with a similar capacity as a city. Why would you demand smaller towns take on similar development that is out of place, extremely rare or nonexistent?

1

DarkGemini1979 t1_j1enuak wrote

Teeechnically, there are (soon to be) apartments in Darien across from the (Noroton Heights) train station.

Now, are they affordable to the lay person is the question...

2

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1eo2vr wrote

The more we build, the more affordable they will get.

−1

Luis__FIGO t1_j1essux wrote

No they won't. Rental companies make it more expensive, not less.

They don't care about making alkiving less expensive, they are naturally only there to create money for their owners.

Apartments will sit empty instead of reducing the rent, or keeping it the same. This is already happening in stamford and norwalk.

If you want actual low income housing then yes if agree with you... Which Darien already has on Allen O'Neil.

It's also interesting you talk about fairifels County when you live in Litchfield County which has less apartments.... Maybe focus in your area first before casting stones

4

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1etf9s wrote

I want all of the above, and more of it!

More housing units produced will result in overall cheaper housing. I don’t believe that there is any commodity where an increase in supply will cause prices to rise. If we increase the number of housing units that developers are allowed to build, the price per housing unit will go down.

Also my apologies, I have moved to Fairfield county since the post you reference.

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1ezlzx wrote

They do it because it’s ok to take a loss for a few months to hold out for higher rent on a longer term lease. Vacancy of a high value unit looks better on paper than a lower than market lease.

1

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1ezz2c wrote

Yeah, but that’s holding out for a higher rent, it’s not just keeping a unit vacant to keep it vacant. Presumably if someone paid the asking price they would rent it to them.

Wouldn’t an environment with more competitors (i.e. more housing units available to rent) make this practice less economically feasible?

2

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1f1r4h wrote

Also we don’t want cheaper housing, cheaper housing is a bad thing.

1

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1f24af wrote

If housing were cheaper wouldn’t that allow people to enjoy a higher standard of living? If I were paying less on my mortgage (or rent), I could spend that money on other things. I would be more likely to go on vacation, start a family, etc. it seems like a very desirable goal to me. I don’t know what the downside is.

0

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1f2h3a wrote

You shouldn’t be able to have a higher standard of living if you can’t afford it. I want a house in the hamptons personally, but I can’t afford it. I’m not calling for them to get cheaper.

1

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1f2qr8 wrote

So you’re saying that even if we have the ability to make housing less expensive for the average person, we should not try to do that?

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1f33uu wrote

Exactly what I’m saying. When did we become so entitled that we demand nice things for cheap? If you spent half the time you are fighting for affordable housing actually working, maybe you could afford to live in a nice place. This is America, you have to pay up for nice things. Stop complaining

2

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1f3xxc wrote

Large portions of our economy are predicated on building nice things for cheap. We love Americans who make nice things cheap. Henry Ford is widely celebrated for inventing a way to build an item formerly reserved for only the rich (cars) and making it much cheaper and accessible to more people.

Most, if not all, consumer goods are much cheaper now relative to average salaries than than they were when they were introduced, because companies innovated to make nice things cheap for everyday people.

Housing costs have risen though, because the pace of construction has not kept up with demand.

Why shouldn’t we let entrepreneurs do what they do best, and make nice housing cheaper? We just need to pare back some of the excessive regulations and let Americans do what they do best.

I love America, what’s more American than letting Americans get out there and build shit?

0

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1fb0u0 wrote

I am literally one of those Americans building shit and explaining to you why it isn’t good for our home state yet you’re not listening bc it goes against your opinions.

2

Luis__FIGO t1_j1etyt6 wrote

Price per housing unit is a bs stat. It's not making apartments more affordable, it's literally decreasing property values. That doesn't help anyone.

0

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1ezqp6 wrote

Affordable housing is a fallacy. The only reason it is ever built is for the tax credits, then once ten years has passed it goes to market rate.

0

Luis__FIGO t1_j1f3p2x wrote

Making appartments that already exist affordable is not the same as building affordable housing way to miss the point.

0

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1exh48 wrote

Also (sorry) but if rental companies are only interested in create money for their owners, why would they leave apartments vacant? It seems like that’s just leaving money on the table- with a vacant apartment you’re just paying the carrying costs of taxes/upkeep, with no return.

1

Luis__FIGO t1_j1ey0a7 wrote

If you reduce the rent you devalue your own property, and then get other tenants asking for reduced rents etc.

I down own a rental company, you can ask them why they do it, I have just have lived, and have friends who currently live in apartment buildings with vacant apartments which would obviously rent if they were reduced.

2

bombbad15 t1_j1hlkmw wrote

I remember reading a while back that commercial building owners are perfectly ok leaving their buildings vacant for YEARS as it becomes some sort of write off and can be more advantageous than reducing rent prices. Same concept may be applied to residential as I’d guess their projections are based on a certain level of vacancy.

0