Connecticut’s Section 8 statute has been equitable in providing low-income families with rent and affordable housing. We do not need section 8 30-J or G, Public Act 21-29 (aka House Bill 6107). Currently taxpayers are told that a town cannot opt out of these bills. However, several towns are opting out of certain provisions of this bill: New Milford opted out at the P&Z level; Montville and now Glastonbury are limiting to elderly housing.
The Town of Granby Affordable Housing Committee is made up of several different people with different backgrounds. Unfortunately, some of them have no knowledge of housing. The committee’s draft plan suggests a Granby trust fund. On March 3, I participated in a Zoom hearing at the capitol, and in the southern part of the state there seems to be trouble regarding the financing between affordable housing and developers. These problems are serious. The committee did not hire experts to provide them with economic or environmental impact studies.
Donald Poland, of Goman+York, an East Hartford property advisor, spoke to the committee on the economics and financial feasibility of affordable housing at a meeting on Feb. 24. He stated that the town was going to get $200K income based on housing sales at $400K. Services/expenses would cost approximately $200K.
I am sorry—I don’t see that to be true since it will cost the taxpayers more in services. Poland extolled the benefits of affordable housing and compared Granby to South Windsor. He specified criteria; however, he acknowledged Granby’s lack of industry, businesses and residents. South Windsor’s status, according to articles appearing in the Hartford Courant, is that it decided to impose a temporary moratorium to study recent developments (Chairperson Packonis).
At the conclusion of the meeting I attempted to ask a question. Attorney and committee chair Chinni refused to accept any questions from the audience. Why? Poland probably would have provided clarification of questions that taxpayers have. Also, in the committee’s draft was a map of shaded/colored areas where it wishes to put housing; however, streets are not named. This again shows a need for clearer communication.
When a member of the audience attempted to ask a question, newly appointed Town Manager Erica Robertson told a taxpayer to “sit down and be quiet” and that she was not going to accept this conduct at a meeting. Her actions were totally unacceptable and should be addressed by the BOS. Her recent statement, quoted in the Drummer, dated March 22: “My staff and I will have a roadmap to getting Granby to where WE want to be in the future [emphasis added].” Taxpayers may draw their own conclusions on her disrespectful behavior. Robertson needs to realize that she works for the taxpayers of this town.
It is obvious that the members of the committee spent their time quickly gathering information from various sources. Through this top-down process, one important source was left out—the taxpayers! Instead, on March 24, taxpayers will have an opportunity to make comments—after the fact. In my opinion, greater input from taxpayers was warranted from the beginning of the process. Other towns in Connecticut facing this mandate did surveys, interviewed residents, business owners and other constituents. Impact studies were done, and clearly illustrated maps were presented. Granby needs to slow down on this issue and talk more with the taxpayers.
Many unanswered questions remain: 1) impact studies such as environmental (loss of the greening effect), town equipment needs (i.e. fire apparatus, trucks); 2) identifying how many units it will take to reach the 10 percent and what they will consist of as well as identifying current affordable housing up to and including elderly housing; 3) tax implications for residents when developers ask and receive tax abatements or incentives; 4) rationale for “modernizing” the center of town for the purpose of walking to jobs; 5) finally, how is this plan in keeping with the current Plan of Conservation and Development that contains numerous references to natural beauty and farming community?
Putting more affordable housing in Granby as stated in this proposal will reduce all property values.
Demographically Granby isn’t a good town to have this. Being too far from cities, jobs are few and far between and there is no intra-town public transportation such as bus service. According to CT DOT there is no local service in Granby. We only have an express service bus to Hartford during mid-day.
The next issue of the Drummer will appear after the March 24 hearing on the draft. I urge everyone who values the uniqueness of Granby to continue to make their voices heard. This initiative by the state to unilaterally dictate what our town should do with respect to housing is unreasonable and wrong given our demographics. One may wonder. What happens if “WE”, the electorate just say no?