Connecticut SMART GROWTH - Recent Comments

critical transition in CT

densityisgood — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:35:30 GMT

Time to contact CT's governor and lobby for transit-oriented people. Specifically for the Transportation Commissioner post

From 1,000 Friends of CT email today Dec 12, "The Governor announced this morning that Department of Transportation
Commissioner Ralph Carpenter is resigning his post at the end of the month. He will be replaced in the interim by former DOT Commissioner Emil Frankel."

This isn't just a utopian goal. From Brookings Institute's recent study, ""It may be possible that if action is not taken with regard to rail transit, a have versus have not gap may appear in American metropolitan areas."

Meaning transit is critical to economic development, not just to walkability and smart-growth.

Full study at http://www.brookings.edu/~/med...

Walkability study

densityisgood — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:36:16 GMT

Brookings Institute has a whole "Metropolitan Policy" program. They just (Dec 4 2007) published a study "Footloose and Fancy Free: A Field Survey of Walkable Urban Places in the Top 30 U.S. Metropolitan Areas"

Link to full study is http://www.brookings.edu/~/med...

Conclusion #2 is interesting, especially for CT - "Today, walkable urban places are just as likely to be found in the suburbs as in center cities."

Stamford/Greenwich etc are included within the NY Metro area for the study, but the rest of CT was not part of the study.

To sign up for a monthly newsletter (I haven't read them yet, but seems cruel to mention without providing the link), go to
http://www.brookings.edu/newsl...
and scroll down to "Metro Update"

Hamden smart code

densityisgood — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:13:39 GMT

Does anyone have a link that makes it easy to track progress of Smart Code in Hamden?

Hope all the players (er, stakeholders) stick with this through to implementation - kudos to all for being pioneers.

Seems like once smartcode goes live, there are a number of exciting things that could happen - not just the nuts & bolts of smart growth (which are great!) but also a competitive edge for Hamden. Likely will be easier for developers to build projects that are good for town, tax base & residents vs. doing so in a non-smart-code communities.

A code that makes visionary (hopefully in a decade we'll just say "sound") projects do-able, and not just on a grand scale, is a plus. In communities with more traditional (challenging) zoning, economics can spur developers to swallow smart-growth whole only for big projects(to spread pre-development costs over more buyers) - even though big projects have inherently higher risks vs. small ones, limiting actual built smart-growth projects (ULI New England's first design awards went to 2 non-implemented plans & just 1 actual project).

In an ideal world (or at least toward an ideal world), a smart code in a town with New England/village center characteristics already in place (like Hamden) can help smart growth make the transition from "big concept" (isolated big projects) to every-day (lots of small projects that integrate with existing functioning neighborhoods), which would be great imo for just about everyone.

I will be writing

commonweal — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:20:55 GMT

a diary on SmartCodes very soon. It will have the appropriate link. By the way, Hamden is only the 10th town in the nation to adopt SmartCodes

Conference underscored local=critical

densityisgood — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:25:48 GMT

I enjoyed the conference too.

For me, the conference really underscored how, especially in CT, the local codes & regulators are critical to smart growth and preventing sprawl.

At least we're making progress, town by town. Will be interesting to see if Hamden's 'smart code' adoption starts a trend, or if other towns wait a few years to see how it's working (does anyone have good links to this code? I did a quick search & didn't find any).

For now, in most towns even once people get to a smart growth "aha" moment, it can be hard to get such projects approved until/unless zoning is changed.

Although likely a good thing overall IMO, the rising difficulty of getting & upholding variances makes updating codes critical to moving from accepting smart growth as a good idea to actually building smart growth.

Eventually, we will need to shrink the much-longer time frames for smart growth project approvals vs. building-as-normal projects - especially for smaller infill projects. Hopefully the pioneering CT smart growth projects will do well (at least by zoning) & subsequent smart growth projects will benefit - time will tell

Active commuting

densityisgood — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:33:19 GMT

Hopefully CRCOG will be able to make headway (not just hold meetings). I am amazed at how friends think my biking (and sometimes walking - it's only 2 miles) to work is so amazing. Some of these same folks pay $$ for a healthclub or bemoan their lack of exercise. With gas prices so high maybe more folks will consider walking or biking - at least for errands if not to work (depending on distance).

There's certainly plenty of opportunity (meaning not much current activity), judging by the look on my hair dresser's and doctor's faces in the last month when I (respectively) walked and biked to my appointments.

At least here in CT we have many strong village centers that make active commuting relatively easy, vs. longer distances in more sprawly regions - that is, most people in CT have at least some trips that are short enough to consider walking or biking.

Cheshire 'lifestyle center'

densityisgood — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:14:52 GMT

Amazing how powerful words can be. There actually are "lifestyle centers" that embrace smart growth - hide the cars, encourage pedestrians and neighborhoods, include residential in same building as retail, etc.

But from what WS Dev't has posted so far, the Cheshire proposal looks conventional, not smart growth...Perhaps W/S will be open to change/compromise/improvement??? Best luck to the Cheshire Smart Growth folks (FYI their website isn't live quite yet).

Millions For a Boardwalk?

frank118 — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 05:27:25 GMT

Is not childrens health insurance in Milford a higher priority over a boardwalk? With the SCHIP veto thanks to Emporer Bush, I thought much of this wasteful money might be better put toward ensuring the health and well being of CT's soon to be uninsured children.

Jim Amann is out to Spend more big bucks and further indebt the state of CT. Amann has threatened to rally his group of "tax and spend liberals" in Hartford in a bond cause likened to the abuse of the state credit card.

While it is clear there are projects that need funding in our state, charging them to the state credit card is irresponsible, especially when doing so may damage the states credit as Gov. Rell indicated. Higher interest means more taxes, and less money for future services.

Amann has made it clear that he does not care, that he will defiantly attempt to override the Governors veto while blaming former governor Rowland for the states debt. How can he use blame to justify indebting our state? Amaann blaming Rowland makes about as much sense as an Indian blaming the weather for a lack of rain.

CT is already outrageously paying %11.00 of all taxes collected in interest to banks. Is Amann really fighting to see that number increase further? Does he believe our state can absorb such massive bonding debt without a problem?

To hear Amman say its former Gov. Rowlands Fault is got to be the most ill thought excuse for spending I have ever heard. I thought only children cried over spilt milk. What about our already overburdened taxpayers, now burdened with foreclosures, high food costs, outrageous electric costs, and a devalued dollar? Is Amman that out of touch that he believes the rest of us should pick up the future increased interest bill to big banks? Or is there a more financially responsible way to fund government projects. Like cut spending from wasteful consulting projects and agencies to fund schools?

Is anyone fed-up with this guy's lack of ideas yet? Or should CT follow in the footsteps of the Federal government and it's out of control Debt problem? Somebody please help CT by kicking out this Lieberman loving "Tax and Spend Liberal."

Enclosed is a PDF study where it is clearly indicated that Bond debt during a period of potentially high inflation could be disastrous. Read the associated PDF.

http://odotoutlook.d...

Just add a variant of a TDR and then you've got something... Groton, Massachusetts hosts an incentive TDR program that was adopted by the town in 1980 to protect natural resources of "special importa

jdcorning — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:02:17 GMT

p.s. Your comment section is too small.

Response to Commonweal

Jack Kaplan — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:15:33 GMT

River Oaks has both good qualities and bad ones. It does not, unfortunately, do anything to break the exclusionary zoning barrier. It does, however, provide for medium-density housing in an area near large employment centers. That means both less land consumption and less automobile traffic.

I would prefer, in place of River Oaks, 240 inexpensive single-family homes on quarter-acre lots. But that is not what SHARE advocates. SHARE advocates development that would, among other things, lead to lower property taxes. That precludes inexpensive housing that is suitable for families, doesn't it? On their website they suggest, in place of River Oaks, medical arts and office buildings, light industrial development, and housing for the elderly. Opposing River Oaks does not, by itself, mean advocating exclusionary zoning. But if you look at the totality of what SHARE is saying, I think it is fair to conclude that they do advocate exclusionary zoning.

I agree that our zoning laws and land use regulations are archaic, and I would like to see them changed. But even within the present system, one can work to reduce sprawl. I see no reason to choose between working to change the system and working within the present system. Why not do both?

No, I haven't spoken to any members or leaders of SHARE. I draw conclusions about them based on the policies they advocate -- primarily from what is on their website. But I would be happy to hear from them if they have anything they would like to communicate which is not on their website. My email address is jack.kaplan@quinnipiac.edu. My phone number is 203-582-8563.

My definition

commonweal — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:41:20 GMT

of exclusionary zoning is when a community fails to accommodate, through its zoning laws, the provision of affordable types of housing needed to meet proven regional housing needs. River Oaks will NOT have affordable housing. You stated in your Courant op/ed that the housing would be expensive, and it will be -- so how is River Oaks breaking the exclusionary zoning barrier?

The reality is we have archaic zoning laws and land use policies at all levels of government that promote greenfield development. Will we save every inch of greenfield? No. But until we change the rules of the game, we will continue to lose open space and farmland at an alarming rate. Some of the developments that gobble up this land will be better than others, but the land will still be lost in the end. The question to ask is do we accept the rules and try to use our limited influence as citizens to make developers build more aesthetically pleasing projects with some Smart Growth concepts, or do we use our influence as citizens to change the rules.

You seem to want to accept the present rules and hope the Konovers of the world do the right thing. As a leader of a local citizens group trying to stop sprawl, I can tell you we have won some battles and lost others. We can go around trying to put out sprawl brush fires for the next fifty years, continuing to win some and lose some. In the end, we will lose because we are playing by rules that are intended to promote sprawl. I'd rather change the rules of the game so we can win.

As for SHARE, have you actually talked to any of their members or leaders? I have, and you couldn't be more wrong about them.

Exclusionary Zoning

Jack Kaplan — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:53:19 GMT

Whaler takes a hard line that he is opposed to any greenfield development. That is an unachievable goal. It is simply not going to happen. So the question becomes: Is it better to try to improve the real world or to yearn for an impossible utopia? I think it's better to try to improve the real world. That means working to reduce greenfield development, which means supporting higher-density residential development even if takes place on greenfields.

I don't know if it is true that all population growth in Connecticut is due to low-income foreign immigration, but let's say it is. It may well be true that those people won't be able to afford to live in Simsbury, even if the town allows construction of inexpensive housing. So what? There are currently low-income families living in the state's central cities whose children will get a good education and find better-paying jobs than their parents. Eventually the parents will die, the children will move to the suburbs, and the immigrant families will replace the old families in the cities. So a growing population will increase demand for housing, even if the population growth is due entirely to immigration.

I'm really not a big fan of River Oaks. If the residents of Simsbury feel that they don't want a big box store, but they are willing instead to have 240 inexpensive homes on quarter-acre lots, that would be fine. But I'm sure SHARE would oppose that at least as vigorously as they oppose River Oaks. If, as Whaler suggests, the residents want to keep the River Oaks site as open space and instead have 25 existing older homes on one-acre lots replaced by 200 homes on 1/8 acre lots, that would be find also. But SHARE would oppose that as well.

Whatever Whaler's views are, I think it is undeniable that SHARE is an organization that advocates exclusionary zoning.

Reply to Jack Kaplan

Whaler0718 — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:24:42 GMT

I'm certainly not for exclusionary zoning, but I am for open space. Unfortunately, the former has been used in lieu of the latter. Rather than follow the European model of requiring dense, centralized development in order to preserve green space between population centers, we sprawl out over every inch of land. At some point, the density of new greenfield development becomes irrelevant because it still is greenfield development.

Here's how much I'm against exclusionary zoning: I'd prefer it if Simsbury rezoned existing 1950s era subdivisions close to the center to allow dense development, and then Konover could buy out existing acre-lot homeowners and put 200 houses where there now are 25. I'm all for that.

Although I applaud the density of River Oaks, I still decry the development of a greenfield. Our population is barely budging, and those 20,000 you cite aren't looking for housing in Simsbury. That population growth is thanks entirely to the immigrant community, to whom Simsbury's definition of "affordable" does not apply.

If everybody who moves to this project comes from Simsbury and surrounding towns, they'll leave houses already occupied in those towns ... and who will fill them? Folks who drive to Rocky Hill or Hartford or Manchester or Enfield, not folks looking to ride their bike to work. The result is a net increase of out-bound commuters.

Here's how you stop Greenfield development: stop allowing building on greenfields. The state should put a moratorium on greenfield development and devise a true smart growth scheme to create incentives for brownfield redevelopment and to charge greenfield developers the soft costs of their development. I look at greenfields in this state like the ocean; they should be held in the public trust.

Response to Whaler

Jack Kaplan — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:39:32 GMT

A couple comments:

1. Whaler writes that just over 3000 people live and work in Simsbury and about 3800 work in Simsbury and live elsewhere. So about 45% of the people who work in Simsbury live in Simsbury. That is not a small percentage. Plus, the percentage would be substantially higher if the town did not practice exclusionary zoning, thus greatly limiting the amount of inexpensive housing available. Many of the people who work in Simsbury -- including policemen, firemen, teachers, nurses, etc. -- would like to live in Simsbury, but can't afford to.

I might add that of the 3800 people who work in Simsbury but live elsewhere, around 1500 live in an adjacent town. So about two-thirds of the people who work in Simsbury live in either Simsbury or an adjacent town.

All else being equal, most people naturally would like to live reasonably close to their place of employment. Long commutes are not a whole lot of fun. Many people who live far from their place of employment do so only because they are forced to in order to find housing they can afford in a good neighborhood with good schools. Again, this is primarily because of the exclusionary zoning practices of many suburban towns, including Simsbury.

There is every reason to expect that a majority -- probably a large majority -- of the people who would live at River Oaks would work in Simsbury or nearby.

2. Whaler writes: "[T]he notion that greenfield development is inevitable ... in a state without a growing population ... is not just wrongheaded, it's the problem! Greenfield development is not inevitable."

First of all, Connecticut is not a state without a growing population. It is a state with a slowly growing population -- about 20,000 annually. That translates to a need for about 8000 new housing units per year. And the reason the state is growing faster is, in large part, because of the high cost of housing. Many people who grow up in Connecticut are forced to move out of state in order to find housing they can afford. This is not humane, nor is it good for the state's economy. Does Whaler want this sitution to continue?

Despite what Whaler says, it is absolutely inevitable that there will be some greenfield development. It's been happening year after year. Between 1970 and 2000, the urbanized portion of the state more than doubled while population grew by only 12%. If Whaler knows of a way to stop all development of open land in the state, he should let the rest of us know.

Although some greenfield development is inevitable, the amount that is developed would be greatly reduced if housing development took place at medium or high rather than low densities. River Oaks does that.

3. Whaler writes: "If people really want to work, they should move to Hartford."

Why is that? This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Every person who walks or bicycles to work rather than drives means one less car on Connecticut's congested highways. That is a good thing, isn't it? People who work in all towns, including Simsbury, should be encouraged to walk or bicycle to work, not told to go someplace else.

4. I really don't think having a Target on the River Oaks site would be such a horrible thing for Simsbury. Life would go on as before, without anyone noticing much of a difference. But, on the other hand, I have no particular desire to see a Target in Simsbury. What I like about River Oaks is the housing, not the Target. If SHARE would like to advocate a different development with at least an equivalent amount of housing that is not reserved for the elderly -- let's say 240 (four per acre) inexpensive single-family homes -- I would support that enthusiastically. But SHARE won't do that. That's because they are not an organization that cares about sprawl, they are an organization that advocates exclusionary zoning.

Too many assumptions

Whaler0718 — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:11:19 GMT

Is there some magical requirement that people at River Oaks live close to their jobs?

The irony of sprawl is that retail and jobs followed people from the city to the suburbs. When Hartford County first expanded, everybody worked and shopped in Hartford. Retailers--namely, malls--saw an opportunity to offer the "convenience" of being located near where their customers lived. Then cheap land enticed jobs to follow, with the same billing: "convenience."

But there's nothing convenient about it because people never seem to live in the same suburb as their mall or their job. The numbers bear this out. The Connecticut Economic Resource Center, Inc. (CERC) 2007 town profile for Simsbury shows that just over 3,000 people live and work in town. Another 3,800 work in Simsbury and live elsewhere. And nearly 5,500 live in Simsbury and work elsewhere.

So it seems to me that it's absurd to think that River Oaks is chiefly going to attract people who work in Simsbury.

Moreover, the notion that greenfield development is inevitable ... in a state without a growing population ... isn't just wrongheaded, it's the problem! Greenfield development is not inevitable. A benefit of density is the preservation of open space, but building density in the only open space that remains would defeat that purpose. Thus, municipalities should continue to fight greenfield development.

If people really want to walk to work, they should move to Hartford.

River Oaks

Jack Kaplan — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:20:16 GMT

I agree with Commonweal that we should look at the facts.

Fact I: Most of the shopping trips to River Oaks will not be new trips. If people want to go shopping, they will go shopping. If they don't go to River Oaks, they will go someplace else instead. Therefore the reduction in traffic resulting from making it possible for a couple hundred people to live close to their jobs will not be offset by additional shopping trips. Building River Oaks will, as I said in the column, lead to an increase in traffic in Sinsbury, but to a reduction in overall traffic in the region.

Fact 2: If it were true that the additional shopping trips would outweigh the benefits of having people live close to their jobs, the obvious solution would seem to be using the site for inexpensive, medium-density housing that is suitable for families. But that is not what SHARE is advocating. Why?

Fact 3: Building River Oaks will indeed consume nearly 60 acres of open land. But if River Oaks is not built, that will almost certainly result in the consumption of a larger amouont of open land. The people who would live in River Oaks, if it were built, will not disappear from the face of the earth if it is not built. They will live somewhere else instead. Most of them will probably live in housing that is lower-density and therefore consumes more land.

The problem with SHARE and similar groups is that they seem to ignore the fact that the alternative to building housing in a certain location is that housing will instead be built somewhere else. Any development will impact the environment to some degree. People who are serious about smart growth have to weigh the impact of a proposed development with the likely impact of what will get built instead if the proposed development is not built. If the impact of a proposed development is compared to the impact of not building anything, then the decision will always be to oppose the development. That kind of thinking does not lead to smart growth. It leads to exclusionary zoning.

I was baffled also,

commonweal — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:26:38 GMT

but my sources tell me Kaplan tried to get the Sierra Club to endorse the project when he was actually on the board. It is against their policy to endorse any project, so they refused. Something tells me he is allowing himself to be used by Konover so they can show people they are environmentally friendly -- another example of greenwashing.

Right on

Whaler0718 — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:02:32 GMT

I was absolutely baffled by that op-ed. You can't perfume this pig; it's sprawl in smart-growth clothing.

Good post

andrix — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:21:08 GMT

Shemale
Shemale Sex
Asian Shemale
Black Shemale
Shemale Cum
Shemale Movie
Cocktail Shemale
Shemale Video
Porn Shemale
Shemale Hentai
Free Shemale
Shemale Pic
Shemale
Hot Shemale
Shemale Fucking
Absolute Shemale
Shemale Girl
Brazilian Shemale
Escort Shemale
Shemale Strokers
Hoodia
Hoodia Gordonii
Hoodia Diet Pill
Hoodia And Phentermine
Hoodia Weight Loss
Hoodia Side Effects
Hoodia Patch
Hoodia Oprah
Pure Hoodia
Hoodia Love Oprah
Hoodia Pop Power
Hoodia Xpf
Hoodia Liquid
Hoodia Dex L10
Hoodia And Review
H57 Hoodia
Burn Hoodia Smart
Pure Hoodia Diet Pill
Hoodia X57
Hoodia 57
Shemale Gallery
Free Shemale Video
Free Shemale Pic
Ebony Shemale
Teen Shemale
Sexy Shemale
Shemale Personals
Shemale Cum Shot
Big Cock Shemale
Shemale Fuck Guys
Ass Shemale
Big Dick Shemale
Young Shemale
Shemale Orgy
Blonde Shemale
Shemale Hardcore
Blow Job Shemale
Brazil Shemale
Shemale Charm
Hung Shemale

good

I am familiar

commonweal — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:09:26 GMT

with Duany and I am sure his design follows the principles of new urbanism. However, in this case, the location of the proposed development creates too many environmental concerns for me. My opinion is nothing should be built on the property and should be bought by the state.