The Saranor Apartments property in Milford is comprised of 104 rental units for the elderly that were built under the state’s affordable housing appeals law.
When the state Legislature made changes to Connecticut’s affordable housing appeals process four years ago based upon recommendations from a Blue Ribbon Commission that studied the law, advocates of the law hoped that would be the end of changes for a while.
But every year since then legislators have considered bills and amendments that would tweak the process even further, and this year is no different.
Rep. Larry Miller, R-Stratford, one of the Legislature’s staunchest critics of the appeals process, is again trying to push through several amendments that would make it more difficult for developers to build complexes or subdivisions under the law.
The affordable housing appeals law, or Section 8-30g, was adopted in 1989. It allows developers who set aside 30 percent of units in a project as affordable to override zoning restrictions in cities and towns across the state. The affordable units must be in a price range that would allow buyers or renters who make 80 percent of the median income in an area to pay no more than 30 percent of their income for housing.
The law applies to any city or town where less than 10 percent of the housing stock is affordable. That clause acts as an incentive. Communities that reach the 10 percent mark no longer have to worry about a developer coming into town and proposing a project under the law.
Cities and towns that haven’t reached 10 percent have some say over the design and implementation of the projects proposed under the law, but if the communities deny the project or place many restrictions on it, the developer can appeal to the state. In that case, the city or town assumes the burden of proving it was right.
Advocates of the law say it promotes a mix of income levels in cities and towns, something hard to come by in Connecticut. But critics, like Miller, say it hurts communities by encouraging development that is inappropriate for certain areas. The law also encourages the opposite of smart growth, he said. Smart-growth experts say to build housing near available infrastructure – such as rail lines, sidewalks and public transportation – but because developments built under the appeals law can’t be heavily regulated by cities and towns, that often doesn’t happen, Miller said.
“They’ll let us put affordable housing where there [is no infrastructure],” he said. “The affordable housing legislation is a failure.”
Miller also believes the law doesn’t do its job. He points to towns like Redding, which, in 2002, had no affordable units, despite the law. Miller also believes the legislation is geared more toward developers than to people who need affordable housing. He is also concerned for his constituents. In Stratford, where upper- and middle-income families sometimes have to work two jobs to pay for their Cape Cods and Colonials, a developer wants to build 167 condominiums under the appeals law, Miller said. He doesn’t want to see that happen.
“They’re apartment-style buildings in the midst of these lovely homes,” he said. “It’s going to have a major effect on their property values … This bill is killing us.”
Affordable housing developments have indeed taken many forms. They range from rental apartments for the elderly, like the Saranor Apartments in Milford – where all of the 104 units are considered affordable – to single-family homes, such as those at Doral Farms in North Branford, where six of the 24 homes are considered affordable, according to a research report from the state. Both of those properties are a direct result of Section 8-30g.
So, earlier in this legislative session, Miller wrote several bills that would change the process. He would do away with the law if he could, but says the Democrats at the Capitol make that impossible.
“The free market will do more for affordable housing than any fathead up here in Hartford,” Miller said.
Miller’s bills didn’t make it out of committee, but he said he will attach them as amendments to other bills.
One of Miller’s strongest proposals would raise the percentage of affordable units a developer needs to set aside as affordable from 30 percent to 35 percent. That could make it economically unfeasible for some developers to build a project under the law.
Another of his bills would raise the time a unit needs to stay affordable. The current law says an affordable unit built under the appeals law needs to stay affordable, through a deed restriction or covenant, for at least 40 years. Miller wants to raise that to 45 years.
‘Desperate’ Needs
Proponents of the appeals law, however, say weakening the law would be devastating for prospects of affordable housing in Connecticut.
“The affordable housing appeals procedure is Connecticut’s most important affordable housing legislation,” said Jeff Freiser, executive director of the Connecticut Housing Coalition.
Zoning laws that are largely regulated by individual cities and towns have created enclaves of housing that are impermeable to people who make less than the median income, according to Freiser.
“The problem is, exclusionary zoning practices have been pervasive across Connecticut,” he said. “Towns cannot use their municipal boundaries as immigration borders.”
The law has prompted the construction of about 3,000 affordable units across the state, Freiser said. That’s not a bad start, he noted, but more affordable housing is needed.
“Connecticut stands as one of the most segregated states in the country, economically and racially,” Freiser said. “We still have desperate housing needs.”
Although many communities have been fighting the law for years, the addition of affordable housing to their housing stock is usually positive, Freiser said.
“Study after study shows that affordable housing is an asset for communities and do not depress property values,” he said.
Miller’s amendments would indeed make it more difficult for developers to build projects under the law, but that’s not a good thing, said Tim Hollister, an attorney at Hartford-based Shipman & Goodwin who specializes in zoning and planning litigation and has represented developers seeking to build under the appeals law.
“He’s trying to make it harder for these deals to proceed,” Hollister said.
The 5 percent change Miller is proposing will mean little to communities, but could make a big difference to developers who are trying to make money with a party-affordable project, Hollister said.
“At some point, we make this financially unfeasible,” Freiser said.
Miller’s proposal to raise the amount of time the unit must stay affordable will hurt buyers more than developers, Hollister said. When the Legislature first adopted the law, it required the units to remain affordable for 30 years, or the amount of time it takes to pay off a standard mortgage. As the restriction rose to 40 years, where it stands now, it became more difficult for buyers to find mortgage companies willing to lend them money because the home would not be worth much at the end of the mortgage.
“It kills off individual buyers,” Hollister said.
Miller’s amendments will come up before the end of this legislative session in May, but aren’t likely to spark much debate because of a short session and because legislators are preoccupied with the current allegations of wrongdoing against Gov. John G. Rowland, according to attorney Colleen Danehy Lindroos, legal publications manager at title insurance underwriter CATIC.
“Probably the purpose of the bill is to make sure the word gets out,” she said.
Miller’s proposals likely will come up again next year, when the Legislature has a longer session, she added.
But even if the amendments don’t go anywhere, any proposals that could change the law degrade its integrity, according to Hollister. Cities and towns see constant changes and begin to think the law isn’t permanent, so community leaders try to stall and fight the developments for as long as they can while proponents tell legislators to leave it alone, he said.
