Crossroads is defined as “a place where two or more roads meet; a place where different cultures meet; a crucial point or place.” It serves as an appropriate metaphor to summarize the findings from a number of recent reports that focused on various quality of life issues in Connecticut.
Connecticut Regional Institute for the 21st Century
In 1999, the Connecticut Regional Institute for the 21st Century, a coalition of public, private, and institutional leaders, was formed to develop a framework for defining the basic structure, relationships and linkages that drive the pattern and location of economic activities. The resulting publication, Connecticut Strategic Economic Framework (the Gallis Report), prepared by Michael Gallis and Associates concluded that metropolitan regions serve as the functional economic units within the emerging global transportation and communications network. Metropolitan regions, in turn, are structured in a pattern of centers and corridors created by the development of freeways, transit systems, international airports, and suburban population and job growth.
The Gallis Report places Connecticut at the center of the “New Atlantic Triangle” – a unique cluster of five metropolitan regions anchored by the New York, Boston and Albany metro regions, and including the Hartford/Springfield and the Southeast corridor metro regions. This multi-state area is characterized by its large, diverse population and its massive concentrations of economic, institutional and cultural resources.
Notwithstanding these attributes, the Gallis Report cautions that inadequate Hudson River crossings and the area’s heavy dependency on its congested highway network could impede the flow of commerce between New England and the larger continental grid west of the Hudson River. Gallis cites the emergence of northern New Jersey’s ports as the preferred point of connection to the continental grid as a prime example of the dynamic nature of global networks shifting to more efficient routes. Over time, constrained access to global market flows could result in slower growth and a higher cost of living in Connecticut and New England.
In 2003, the Connecticut Regional Institute for the 21st Century published another report, Economic Vitality and Land Use, to help business, civic, and government leaders understand the effect of current development patterns and land use decisions on future growth opportunities, urban revitalization efforts, transportation mobility, and other economic and quality of life issues. The report lists several steps for invigorating state, regional, and municipal planning processes, and cites recent efforts in Massachusetts and New Jersey to restructure state government activities to better coordinate land use and environmental regulatory programs.
Connecticut Transportation Strategy Board
In September 2000, the Governor and legislative leadership convened a Transportation Summit to discuss the critical linkages between transportation, economic development, and land use planning identified in the Gallis Report. An Interim Transportation Strategy Board was subsequently established, and a number of its recommendations were captured in Public Act No. 01-5 of the June (2001) Special Session. This Act created the current Connecticut Transportation Strategy Board (TSB), a 15-member panel of government, business, and private interests, and established five Transportation Investment Areas (TIAs) representing Connecticut’s major transportation corridors.
The TIAs, which are somewhat similar to the Gallis concept of metro regions, are required to prepare a biennial corridor plan that assesses their competitive strengths, opportunities and challenges in both a regional and statewide context. With broad input from their member towns, affiliated Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs), the business community and other interested parties, TIAs bring an important local and regional perspective to the statewide transportation planning process.
In January 2003, the TSB published Transportation: A Strategic Investment, which incorporated recommendations from the five initial TIA corridor studies and from the five working groups charged with addressing the movement of people, the movement of goods, land use and economic development, funding and finance, and evaluation criteria to measure the effectiveness of proposed projects. This report unveiled a 20-year transportation strategy, a set of 10-year action plans to implement that strategy, and specific recommendations on fiscal and other incentive programs to enhance Connecticut’s ability to sustain economic growth and to preserve its premier quality of life.
The TSB strategy is based on the following five elements:
• Leverage existing transportation and other infrastructure assets, especially in urban centers;
• Expand and market the quality and quantity of options to single occupancy automobile trips to mitigate road and transit congestion;
• Expand and coordinate the State’s air, rail, road, and water-based infrastructure to expand the quality and quantity of options for the movement of freight;
• Implement a 10-year financing plan with revenues dedicated to funding the capital component of the strategy’s strategic actions and tactics; and
• Ensure adequate and reliable financing of the State’s ongoing capital and operating costs of the transportation system.
In developing its strategy, the TSB focused primarily on transportation’s role as an enabler of economic activity, but it also recognized the implications that transportation has on land use and quality of life issues. For example, increased access to land raises its potential for development, and this development generates additional travel. Once access has been provided, land use patterns begin to change over a period of time and are, for the most part, irreversible. The societal impacts resulting from such changes have historically been treated as a by-product of development because they are fluid and not easy to gauge.
CenterEdge Project
The CenterEdge Project, a broad coalition of religious, environmental, business, civil rights, educational, governmental and civic-minded organizations, is a leading voice in moving public debate forward over economic and social disparities created by long-term patterns of development. It provides a forum to help people from different settings understand their common problems and self-interests concerning access to good schools, jobs, affordable housing, safe streets, and public spaces and parks. CenterEdge claims that how we organize society directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community.
The basis for the CenterEdge Project’s conclusions is the publication entitled, Connecticut Metropatterns: A Regional Agenda for Community and Prosperity in Connecticut. A primary theme of this study is the interdependence of Connecticut’s cities and towns, and how they can benefit from regional efforts to counter inefficient development patterns and social and economic polarization.
Connecticut Metropatterns finds that the way the state is growing hurts all communities over time – from the most impoverished to the most affluent. The study organizes the state’s 169 municipalities into six distinct community classifications based on their fiscal, social and physical characteristics. Despite their different sets of problems – from poverty, crime and poor performing schools, to rapid population growth, traffic congestion and loss of open space – each type of community faces complex choices in balancing the cost of providing quality public education and local services with the desire to preserve or improve their community character.
The study cites the state’s heavy reliance on the property tax to finance municipal services and schools as a leading cause of fiscal zoning. Fiscal zoning occurs when land use decisions are based primarily on the amount of net tax revenue that can be generated from a parcel, instead of based on the overall physical suitability of the land and the long-term needs of the town and region. The resulting competition among municipalities to increase their tax bases often undermines the character of local communities, and can lead to short-sighted land use decisions that foster costly, inefficient development, traffic, and loss of open space.
Two important predictors of cost to a municipality are population change and density of development. For example, municipalities coping with a loss in population and jobs must spread the cost of public services across fewer taxpayers. Conversely, municipalities with rapidly growing populations are able to spread the cost of services across more taxpayers, effectively subsidizing the cost of infrastructure expansions to accommodate new residents and businesses.
Similarly, low-density development increases the per capita cost to extend road and sewer infrastructure to widely dispersed areas, and to provide school transportation and police and fire protection to these areas. Moderate to high-density development, on the other hand, can help limit per capita costs by maximizing the use of existing infrastructure capacity and by having a more concentrated public service area.
Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Tax Burdens and Smart Growth Incentives
The proliferation of fiscal zoning practices is an integral factor behind the creation of the state’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Tax Burdens and Smart Growth Incentives (the Commission), created by Special Act No. 02-13 in June 2002. The Commission comprises a number of chief elected officials, town managers and others appointed by the Governor and Leadership of the General Assembly, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) and the Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST), as well as representatives of business, labor, and the state. The Commission’s report is intended to stir debate over possible changes to the state’s tax structure to reduce municipalities’ reliance on property taxes, while promoting incentive-based approaches for encouraging municipalities to develop and conserve their land in a manner that serves the long-term needs of the community and the region.
Although “smart growth” can mean different things to different people, the Commission generally defines the term as “a comprehensive planning process that encourages patterns of development that can accommodate and sustain economic growth while at the same time limiting sprawl, reducing transportation congestion, protecting natural resources, preserving the traditional character of communities and ensuring equitable access to affordable housing, jobs and community services.”
The Commission suggests that public debate of these issues can be enhanced through improved data sharing and planning tools, such as a coordinated statewide geographic information system (GIS) database, a statewide build-out analyses, and an evaluation of the public costs associated with alternate patterns of development. This GIS database would comprise the most up-to-date digital information on existing infrastructure and natural resources, and would enable exchanges between state, regional and local decision-makers. The build-out analysis would provide a visual projection of what the state might look like if development patterns were to continue under existing land use regulations. The build-out analysis should also be tested for sensitivity to the state’s surface and groundwater resources, transportation systems, and sewer plans to determine how these resources should be managed to accommodate projected development.
Although the reports summarized above were commissioned by largely disparate groups, they tend to share a common theme: Current patterns of development in Connecticut are not sustainable; and cities, suburbs, and rural communities are impacted in different ways that make the provision of municipal services increasingly inefficient and expensive, and contribute to a host of socio-economic and environmental challenges. Moving forward, how we deal with these challenges will have profound impacts on the state in terms of its ability to compete in the national and global economy, and on the quality of life that we seek in our hometowns. Connecticut is, indeed, at a crossroads.
How did we get here?
Connecticut is a land blessed with abundant natural assets, such as its scenic rolling hills, fertile valleys, freshwater streams, and expansive coastline. Over time, its citizens leveraged these natural resources to build the physical infrastructure necessary to support their evolving social and economic needs. It is this human influence that provided Connecticut with its characteristic New England villages, historically vital cities, innovative industries, and rich cultural heritage.
Following the Industrial Revolution, cities provided housing and employment opportunities to the vast majority of factory, retail, and professional workers and their families. As working class families accumulated modest wealth, additional housing opportunities in close-in suburbs became a viable option to many. A hub and spoke system of public transit was created to provide ample mobility between home and city services. This trend toward decentralized development continued into the first half of the 20th century, facilitated by growing automobile ownership and an expanding state highway system.
The post-World War II era ushered in a period of accelerated migration from cities to suburbs, fueled in large part by federal highway construction and suburban housing initiatives. This migration became the engine for a long period of economic and physical expansion. Over time, highway-accessible suburban shopping malls, corporate offices, and industrial parks further lured retail and employment opportunities away from cities.
Today, single-family homes on private lots continue to be the most desired form of residence, and “big box stores” are exceptional economic performers. Low density and strip development exists because the market supports it, and many suburban dwellers enjoy their quality of life. Despite suburban gains in wealth and political clout, Connecticut’s cities still hold major concentrations of economic activity and service centers that support regional populations. Many of their remaining businesses are part of regional “clusters” that compete nationally and internationally.
This ability to compete, however, is undermined to an extent by the national ratings that place some of Connecticut’s largest cities among the poorest in the nation. While many other cities across the country have the ability to annex their wealthier unincorporated suburbs and gain new land for development, Connecticut cities are confined by their relatively small and highly developed political boundaries. Without the benefit of a broader representation by metropolitan area, both the perception and the reality of this geographic stratification by income leave few opportunities for cities to increase their tax bases in the short term.
Where are we going?
The landscape we have created is the framework within which we must work to balance the environment, economy, and community. Over the past decade, the state has seen very little actual new growth occurring relative to population gain and job creation. What appears to be growth in one town is often just another town’s loss in disguise. Essentially, the Land of Steady Habits has developed a bad habit of consuming land at a disproportionately faster pace than the actual rate of new growth.
As a result, open space and farmland are converted to subdivisions and strip commercial developments, water quality is threatened by excessive demand and the loss of natural buffers, ecosystems are fragmented, vehicle travel and congestion increases, and taxpayers effectively subsidize the higher cost of delivering municipal services to dispersed developments. Recognizing that this pattern is not sustainable from an economic, environmental and quality of life standpoint is only the first step in what needs to become a consistent, long-term ethic to slow this trend.
The introduction of growth management principles in this Plan puts in place a framework for improved coordination among state agencies, so that there will be early recognition of cross-agency issues and better planning for the potential consequences of their actions. Although land use trends are not highly responsive to any one particular factor, strategic public investments can leverage and influence subsequent private investment in key areas. Connecticut has pursued the concept of growth management as illustrated by the following recent major initiatives:
• Revitalizing Our Cities
Ø Bridgeport – New multi-modal transportation center, Harbor Yard entertainment complex, and maritime infrastructure improvements.
Ø Hartford – The Six Pillars of Progress economic development initiative includes the Adriaen’s Landing convention center, hotel, and entertainment district; downtown and neighborhood residential development; the riverfront park system; central business district improvements; a downtown college campus; and the Rentschler Field football stadium in East Hartford.
Ø New Haven – Phase II of the Ninth Square downtown redevelopment project and the new State Street Train Station.
Ø New London – Pfizer Headquarters campus development, Fort Trumbull added to state park system, and State Pier rebuilt.
Ø Stamford – New multi-modal transportation center.
Ø Waterbury – Downtown college campus, Palace Theater renovation and arts magnet school.
• Industry Cluster Initiative – This statewide market-driven strategy linking the public and private sectors is designed to increase the competitiveness of key industries, including: bioscience, aerospace, software/information technology, metal manufacturing, maritime, plastics, agriculture, insurance and financial services, and tourism.
• Urban Site Remedial Action Program – Former urban brownfield sites have been cleaned up and put back to productive use. Large-scale projects include:
Ø former New London Mills site (Pfizer);
Ø former Waterfront Steel Mill in Bridgeport (Derecktor Shipyard); and
Ø former Scovill/Century Brass factory in Waterbury (Brass Mill Center Regional Shopping Mall).
• Open Space Acquisition – The goal is to preserve 21% of the state’s land as open space by the year 2023, through the combined efforts of the state, municipalities, private non-profit organizations, and water utilities. In 2002, the state made the largest such acquisition in its history by purchasing approximately 15,000 acres of public water supply watershed land in southwestern Connecticut.
• Farmland Preservation – In accordance with Section 22-26cc of the Connecticut General Statutes, a goal of the state is to acquire development rights to 130,000 acres of farmland of which at least 85,000 acres are prime or important cropland soils that can be devoted to the local production of food products.
• Transportation Strategy Board – Created to bring a strategic economic framework to planning and prioritizing investments in the state’s transportation systems.
• Higher Education – The UConn 2000 and UConn 21st Century Programs have committed $2.3 billion to the state’s flagship institution, and over $860 million has been committed to the Connecticut State University system and the Community Technical College system to modernize and improve the physical infrastructure of their campuses.
As indicated above, Connecticut already has a number of key growth management programs and policies in place that can be enhanced through better coordination, packaging, and marketing. In order to build on these and other state initiatives, however, there is a reciprocal responsibility on the part of municipalities, developers, individuals, and interest groups to be fully engaged in a deliberative civic planning process.
By focusing on its human capital, Connecticut is well positioned to flourish in the growing knowledge-based economy. It is ranked among the top states in the nation for per capita income and educating its children. These factors are key to generating significant purchasing power for consumer products and investment capital for entrepreneurial activities, in addition to producing the highly skilled and educated workforce for which Connecticut is known.
Investments in our higher education system help to provide attractive in-state options for Connecticut families, as well as highly competitive choices for out-of-state students. Given the state’s aging demographics, a primary challenge is to not just cultivate this resource, but to provide the type of environment and amenities that entice such students to ultimately become rooted in Connecticut.
Connecticut’s urban areas can play a vital supportive role in facilitating affordable housing and entertainment options to attract this highly educated and creative class. Underutilized infrastructure in urban areas represents a significant resource that can be efficiently utilized to develop pedestrian-friendly, mixed use neighborhoods that cater to young professionals, couples, and retirees.
While the potential for urban revitalization is significant, there remain serious issues regarding quality of schools, perceptions of public safety, housing costs, and taxes relative to services. In order to truly be a land of opportunity, we must make every effort to ensure that every person, regardless of income or race, has reasonable access to the same opportunities available to others. The growth management principles addressed in the following chapters lay the foundation for guiding state planning and investments to provide a future in which no citizen of Connecticut is limited in their ability to pursue the American Dream on account of where they live.
Growth Management Principle #1
Redevelop and Revitalize Regional Centers and Areas
with Existing or Currently Planned
Physical Infrastructure
The development trends of the last century have brought a high quality of life to many in Connecticut. Advances in technology, particularly transportation and communications, have increased the availability of previously undisturbed land. Consequently, development patterns have concentrated growth and wealth at the fringe of urban areas. In the last half century, this growth pattern has pushed beyond traditional urban boundaries creating new suburban communities while abandonment and poverty have been concentrated in urban centers. This has required suburban growth areas to create new infrastructure to support outward development, while urban infrastructure is available and maintains excess capacity. An alternative to this outward development pattern is not a reduction of development, but rather a fuller use of already developed places.
The challenge in revitalizing or maintaining development areas is to create an atmosphere that promotes the establishment of desirable, quality urban communities (For the purpose of this Plan, development areas are Regional Centers, Neighborhood Conservation Areas, Growth Areas and Rural Community Centers as defined in the attached Locational Guide Map). This will demand greater civic creativity and a coordinated approach to planning at the state, regional and local levels. To overcome concentrated urban poverty, access to social and economic opportunity must be available to all. Resources need to be directed towards promoting profitable businesses, quality housing choice for all income groups, economic opportunity, recreational opportunities, public safety, education and transportation options. The competitive advantages of inner cities, including strategic location near major transportation nodes, a large, diverse and available pool of labor, and untapped local markets with substantial purchasing power, must be promoted and more fully utilized.
Sustainable quality communities need economic opportunities that are available to persons of all income and education levels, where jobs are available close to home and people have transportation options. Quality communities need neighborhoods that are stable places, with opportunities for households of all income levels to find apartments, condos or starter homes, for those able, to buy up, and for the elderly to find affordable housing and services. Quality communities need to have recreational opportunities, accessible green spaces, and provide safe, clean environments where children can grow to adulthood with a sense of community and of place. And, quality communities need to be desirable places to live and work that attract and can accommodate diverse populations and businesses.
Revitalization of our development areas cannot take place in a vacuum. State and local policies promoting urban revitalization and neighborhood stabilization must be coordinated with regional planning efforts. Addressing the concentration of low-income households and low rates of homeownership in urban areas must be done on a regional basis. Where there is a lack of diversity, there is a need to create incentives for new development that incorporates low and moderate income housing reflecting the percentage of all such households in the region. Housing mobility could give poorer households the ability to settle in middle-class, suburban areas resulting in closer proximity to employment and enhanced educational opportunities. Likewise, urban development policy must be focused on creating housing opportunities, and communities that are also desirable to middle and higher income populations in order to foster investment. A coordinated approach, or regional planning strategy, must be adopted to revitalize our urban centers and develop communities that are demographically diverse, economically vibrant and sustainable.
A. Nature of Development
Improving the quality and fabric of urban centers is key in beginning to reverse the development patterns that produce sprawl. It is only natural that households that can afford mobility will choose to live in communities that are attractive, safe, have good school systems, and have commercial amenities close to home. If urban centers and their associated neighborhoods are unable to provide these attributes, growth will continue to take place in an outward direction at our urban boundaries. The alternative is not mandated stagnation and a reduction of development, but a more planned and fuller use of already developed areas. Creating quality urban environments and offering stable livable neighborhoods will help attract people and development inward to built up areas in existing communities, where infrastructure is already in place (already built environment).
Ø Policy: Focus urban design to help old and new neighborhoods to function by mixing housing types and land uses, creating meaningful central places, and introducing new forms of open space. These communities should be distinguished by attractive design, and a diversity of people, places, open space, recreational opportunities, transportation options and economic opportunity.
o Plan for compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development patterns and land reuse, and promoting such patterns and reuse.
o Provide a broad range of choice among housing types, designs and costs to meet diverse individual family needs for each community in locations convenient to other activities and existing facilities.
o Provide attractive neighborhoods with mixed-use development adjacent to transit stops to create a sense of place and build the critical population mass to support the transit system.
o Focus land use patterns inward, utilizing existing infrastructure to build on the community’s assets.
o Encourage development on a scale that promotes street level activity to maximize sense of neighborhood and encourage pedestrian activity.
o Consider expanding local authority to regulate aesthetics such as orientation of building entrances, amount of window space, and facade treatments.
o Planning for urban neighborhoods must incorporate clearly distinguishable boundaries such as common streetscape, similarity of architecture, landmark structures or landmark public spaces and appropriate signage to create a sense of cohesion.
o Promote infill housing and address land use regulations to insure infill development is at the proper scale and density to maintain or improve the character of the neighborhood.
o Transportation planning must make downtown areas accessible and create intra-neighborhood accessibility.
o Link affordable housing land use planning objectives with transportation systems planning.
o Integrate downtown and main street areas with surrounding neighborhoods.
o Community groups and governmental leaders must be engaged in order to help create, or in some cases, re-create a sense of community.
o Investigate and develop new design practices and principles that promote sustainable compact urban design and development.
o Utilize greenways to link together residential and recreation areas, schools and community centers, protect existing trail and greenway corridors and encourage new linkages as development occurs.
B. Infrastructure
Connecticut’s existing infrastructure systems should be viewed as the building block for continued development in the state. State, regional and local policy should promote the maintenance and improvement of existing infrastructure systems and development in the areas where such infrastructure already exists. Infrastructure support in urban centers, transportation corridors and growth areas is necessary to attract and support investment in those areas and to reverse development patterns resulting in sprawl. Promoting development in areas with existing infrastructure saves taxpayer dollars and makes both public and private investment more cost effective.
The state, municipalities and private sector must focus on creating a physical environment in urban areas that enables development to take place as well as providing the necessary support to maintain stable first ring suburban neighborhoods. The state must target funding for water, sewer, road improvement, housing and economic development and to improve or maintain other existing infrastructure where appropriate and withhold such support in those areas where it is not appropriate. The first step in realizing the vision of living urban communities that sustain human and financial capital is to ensure that the existing infrastructure can support redevelopment. Areas that have been abandoned, where buildings and infrastructure have deteriorated, need to be targeted and support needs to be extended to communities that are experiencing the fiscal strain of maintaining older infrastructure systems. Subsequent redevelopment and private infrastructure improvement in these areas will serve to create the fiscal climate to sustain growth in these communities.
Ø Policy: Support existing communities and neighborhoods by targeting state resources to support infrastructure improvement and development in areas where the infrastructure is already in place.
o Encourage fuller use of already developed places with existing infrastructure, particularly deteriorated areas where site abandonment or neglect are responsible for lack of investment, job loss and neighborhood flight.
o Support maintenance or improvements to infrastructure systems that are experiencing deterioration in first ring suburban neighborhoods and mature suburbs.
o Encourage innovative programs that assist homeowners in urban centers, and mature neighborhoods to maintain the quality of aging housing stock.
o Balance the full environmental, social, and economic costs and benefits of new development, including infrastructure costs such as transportation, sewers and wastewater treatment, water supply, stormwater quality and quantity control, schools, recreation and open space and project benefits such as job creation, brownfield redevelopment and impact on local tax base.
o Focus on improvement of existing infrastructure to support redevelopment and infill, and discourage intensive development in rural areas not already supported by local infrastructure, or where development is not consistent with state, regional and local land use policy.
o Protect stable neighborhoods and extend their useful life through continuous upgrading.
o Support communities to effectively develop long term growth strategies which will promote meeting economic and housing needs within a planned infrastructure framework.
Energy:
The State of Connecticut imports most of its current energy supply, including oil, coal, natural gas and uranium. In addition, the state continues to be particularly dependent on oil, which is generally imported from foreign countries. These markets are now commodity driven, and this creates a significant continuing risk of economic disruption from sudden cost escalation or supply interruption, conditions over which we have little or no control.
Energy supply and pricing have a substantial influence on economic growth within the State of Connecticut, particularly in the industrial sector. Energy prices in New England are much higher than prices in most of the United States and represent a competitive disadvantage to Connecticut businesses and an economic burden to Connecticut families. The introduction of competition in many parts of the electric and natural gas industries in Connecticut and other Northeastern states has been motivated by the need to try to reduce energy costs as much as possible.
The ability to redevelop Connecticut’s Regional Centers requires that existing infrastructure be maintained and updated to support compact urban development. This holds true and is particularly relevant regarding electric capacity and delivery systems. While concentrated development in Connecticut’s Regional Centers will require appropriate energy capacity and distribution infrastructure, this type of compact growth can help reduce the need for multiple delivery systems across dispersed areas. This becomes increasingly more important as issues relating to the state’s aging power grid and increasing energy demands are addressed. The development and utilization of distributed electric generation facilities, small scale generation capability that is not “piped” in from a remote location, should be contemplated in addressing load management issues in areas of concentrated development. To maximize the efficient use of energy infrastructure, compact, higher density development should be promoted in areas served by distributed generation. Distributed generation can be helpful in areas subject to locational marginal pricing by reducing congestion charges.
In addition, Connecticut will need to continue to bolster its efforts towards conservation of energy. Conservation has the ability to not only help reduce energy costs but also create other economic and environmental opportunities for the state-notably industries dedicated to the development of high-efficiency products, renewable technologies and perhaps most importantly, fuel cells. Every dollar that Connecticut businesses and families don’t have to spend on energy can be used for other purposes and every molecule of fossil fuel that is not combusted causes no pollution.
Ø Policy: Secure a sustainable supply of energy at the best possible cost and promote its efficient use.
o Expedite the review and site approval of needed and environmentally acceptable energy generation and transportation facilities, consistent with Public Act 03-140. Siting decisions should give preference to existing sites that have adequate land and the infrastructure necessary to support the development and operation of new or modified facilities. Where existing sites are located within or adjacent to areas of environmental concern, minimize impacts to the environment.
o Explore creating a mechanism to proactively identify future energy related needs and problems and then solicit solutions to the identified need or problem. Proposed solutions could include transmission, generation, conservation, load management or a combination of strategies. Proposed solutions would be evaluated with regard to environmental and social impacts, costs, reliability and security.
o Seek to diversify the state’s energy supply mix where practicable with energy resources least vulnerable to interruption, depletion, or security issues.
o Use renewable energy resources, such as solar and photovoltaic systems, hydro, biomass, and wind energy, to the maximum practicable extent.
o Encourage competition among energy sources and generators consistent with the need for safe, economic and reliable energy supplies.
o Decisions concerning electric power generation should consider means to promote conservation, load management, fuel diversity, and the quality of the environment.
o Identify efficiency opportunities in each sector and cost effective improvements. Educate consumers to recognize the life cycle cost saving of energy efficient major purchases.
o Capitalize on opportunities to develop and deploy innovative energy technologies.
• Maintain a consortium of government, commercial, industrial, educational and utility organizations to accelerate the commercialization of advanced technologies.
• Identify and support energy related research currently taking place.
• Assist firms in locating and applying for federal financing for energy research, development, and demonstration projects.
• Remove state regulatory barriers to the introduction of new energy technologies; e.g. fuel cells offer clean, diversified, and efficient sources of energy and should be encouraged with streamlined permitting and financial assistance.
• Provide host sites at state facilities for demonstrations of new technologies and encourage siting at commercial facilities through partnering efforts with industries that might utilize the technology.
C. Revitalization and Reuse
Revitalization and reuse of the state’s regional centers and neighborhoods is key to changing existing development patterns that promote sprawl. Maintaining existing green spaces and the character of the state must not rely solely on preservation efforts, but by making development in the urban core more attractive than at the urban boundary. This will create a development pattern that promotes the revitalization of our regional centers and neighborhoods, while preserving open spaces.
Efforts to revitalize the state’s regional centers and neighborhoods must take advantage of the existing assets in these areas as well as create new opportunities. This includes utilizing existing infrastructure as discussed above, and creating other incentives to make urban development more attractive. Issues pertaining to zoning, building code and regulatory review processes must be addressed at the proper state, local and regional level to help streamline urban revitalization efforts while insuring that appropriate development, reuse and revitalization occurs.
Ø Policy: Revitalize the state’s regional centers and neighborhoods by investing wisely and sufficiently in improvements to their human resources and infrastructure systems to attract private investment. Promote reutilization of older and vacant buildings for mixed-income housing, mixed-use development, commercial and industrial development, as well as infill development on available urban property.
o Create incentive-based priming of the urban housing market through strategically targeted housing development to create additional investment opportunities in urban housing markets.
o Create incentive-based priming of urban commercial and mixed-use real estate market with targeted commercial projects in order to create possibilities for private developers.
o Pursuant to Section 8 of Public Act 03-184 continue the ongoing efforts of the Office of the State Building Inspector and the Codes and Standards Committee to establish a building sub-code that applies specifically to building rehabilitation rather than new construction.
o Review zoning requirements at the local level for modifications to allow for density bonuses for mixed income housing rehabilitation projects.
o Consider pre-approved development areas to promote certain uses and streamline regulatory approval process.
o Support local communities that develop strategic plans for neighborhood revitalization.
o Pursue opportunities to link revitalized areas, particularly in river corridors, to trail and greenway projects.
Brownfield Redevelopment:
Because of Connecticut’s historically industrial dependent economy, and the number of brownfields sites existing in the state’s development areas, brownfields redevelopment is a key element in urban revitalization efforts. Brownfields are properties that have real or perceived environmental contamination, which adds additional risk to redevelopment. They are often underutilized or abandoned, and due to the uncertain cost, additional liability and the uncertain timeframe to complete remediation, these properties are more difficult to develop. In addition, obsolete structures, inadequate parking and loading, insufficient land area or poor location often hinder development of these properties.
However, there are several benefits to redeveloping brownfields in urban areas. These include public health and safety, urban economic development, increased municipal tax revenue and a more complete use of already built areas that relieve the pattern and pressure of development at the developed fringe. To address these issues and stimulate the redevelopment of brownfields sites, Connecticut has implemented a number of incentive programs to assist in the assessment, remediation and development of brownfields. Connecticut has been a leader in revitalizing brownfield properties, and has been successful in recycling contaminated properties beck to productive use. The state has been successful in creating the public private partnerships needed to be effective in addressing brownfield redevelopment. Programs administered by the State Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as well as the Connecticut Brownfields Redevelopment Authority (CBRA) offer tax incentives, up front grants, tax incremental financing, low-interest loans, direct financial assistance and technical assistance. In addition, CBRA maintains a partial inventory of Connecticut brownfields. These efforts, in conjunction, have begun to break down both real and perceived barriers to the remediation and development of brownfields sites. State, regional and local policy and planning must continue to focus resources on and address the need for brownfields redevelopment as part of a larger strategy to revitalize areas with established infrastructure and create quality communities.
One important lesson learned by the State of Connecticut, through its efforts to redevelop brownfields properties, is that loan funding to projects generally is not effective to address this problem. Brownfield properties are competing with undeveloped land. The costs to test and remediate a brownfield site represent a significant premium that an undeveloped parcel does not have. This cost and possible uncertainty in timing to bring a site to usable condition makes brownfield sites uncompetitive with raw land. To improve the competitiveness of brownfield sites, the environmental investigation/remediation costs should be non-loan funds that do not render the bottom line of developer’s pro forma to be economically unfeasible. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) or the repayment concept used by USRAP (repayment sought from responsible parties) is an effective and proven means of remediating sites using non-grant or grant-like programs.
The use of tax credits to foster economic development activities has become an important tool for state and local governments. Tax credits can also be employed to revitalize brownfields. Tax credit programs provide the developer with credits for state corporate taxes. These credits can be sold as a commodity by the developer to raise capital for development. Connecticut has recently implemented the Industrial Site Investment Tax Credit Program, which provides tax credits and the potential for local property tax abatements.
Ø Policy: Promote, encourage and market brownfields remediation and redevelopment in development areas as designated in the State Plan of Conservation and Development.
o As permitted by fiscal ability, the state should fund, to optimal levels, the Urban Sites Remedial Action Program (USRAP).
o Support DEP plans to develop a statewide comprehensive inventory of brownfields that will build on information already included in the CBRA inventory and should include additional information such as the cost of site assessments, site characteristics and remediation costs.
o Encourage municipalities to submit all brownfields sites within their town to CBRA for posting on the brownfields inventory.
o The state should consider remediating, and marketing, certain targeted urban sites to encourage private investment, and encourage municipalities to use the Municipal Development Program (MDP) and USRAP to prepare brownfield properties for reuse.
o Study the potential effectiveness of the existing state brownfield development programs and amend as necessary to improve the effectiveness of these programs.
o Undertake outreach activities to educate the development community about the existing brownfields programs
o Study and evaluate existing regulatory requirements for the sale of small abandoned urban brownfields and consider alternative approaches to promote reuse of these properties as infill development.
o The state should focus resources on marketing brownfields sites by maintaining a brownfields program website that combines brownfields information available on the DECD, DEP and CBRA websites.
o The state should actively promote programs that offer technical assistance for entities looking to secure environmental insurance for brownfields remediation.
o Market availability of state subsidies for environmental liability policy premiums under the DECD manufacturing assistance program.
o Study brownfield liability, its effects on brownfield development, and develop strategies and programs to address pertinent concerns.
o The state should continue to support funding regional entities to administer loan programs for site investigation and remediation in support of industry and housing.
o Consider the greenway potential of a brownfield site, particularly in urban areas and along waterways.
Historic Rehabilitation:
Historic rehabilitation programs can give residents of older neighborhoods incentives to stay and invest in their communities. As such, older homes and structures that have been designated on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places can be an asset in helping to create neighborhood investment. In addition, historic landmarks can help define neighborhoods and create a sense of place and permanency. This is important in the state’s already developed areas, particularly regional centers and neighborhoods in inner ring suburbs. These areas have older housing and building stock that are more likely to qualify for available assistance. However, when deteriorated, and investment is not available for rehabilitation, older and or historic structures can have the opposite affect, becoming a neighborhood detraction, and an advertisement for decay. Public sentiment to save these structures and the historic character of the neighborhood must be balanced by analyzing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation, the potential for mothballing the structure until rehabilitation funding can be secured, the impact demolition may have on the neighborhood, particularly if no alternative development is planned in its place, and the opportunity cost of losing a cultural resource.
Connecticut established the Historic Homes Rehabilitation Tax Credit program in 1999 to encourage new homeownership and to assist existing homeowners in maintaining or renovating their historic properties. In addition, the state has the Connecticut Historic Restoration Fund, a grant program focused on funding municipal and/or non-profit owned projects. Listing on the State or National Register of Historic Places is required in order to qualify for either of these programs, which are administered through the State Commission on Arts, Tourism, Culture, History and Film. While the provision allowing eligibility for properties included on the State Register is beneficial because it is a more expeditious application process than the National Register (which can take up to a year), the application process for both does require a certain level of knowledge regarding the structure’s history and architectural significance. To maximize utilization of these programs, agencies with technical expertise need to provide assistance to interested individuals and organizations. In addition, under the Historic Homes Rehabilitation Tax Credit program assistance should be available for individuals and organizations that are unable to utilize the tax credit and must take the additional step of selling the tax credit for corporate use in order to realize the program benefit.
In addition to the programs administered through the Commission on Arts, Tourism, Culture, History and Film, programs offered by The Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) such as the Urban Rehabilitation Homeownership Program (A low interest loan program targeting urban municipalities and certain census track neighborhoods) can assist prospective homebuyers in purchasing and renovating homes in need of repair, and should be developed and encouraged.
Ø Policy: Seek to increase rehabilitation efforts for historic structures and older homes in development areas.
o As permitted by fiscal ability, re-fund the Urban Rehabilitation Homeownership Program to meet demand for this program.
o Continue to encourage municipalities to develop historic inventory surveys to list homes that are on the State and National Register of Historic Places, and to identify older neighborhoods with buildings more than fifty years old that retain architectural integrity and illustrate a period in town history.
o The state and municipalities should promote outreach efforts and provide technical assistance for homeowners interested in applying for state or national historic designation and the Historic Homes Rehabilitative Tax Credit program.
o Continue and promote outreach and education efforts, as currently performed by the Office of the State Building Inspector, for property owners regarding Section 29-259 of the Connecticut General Statutes, and Chapter 34 of the Connecticut State Building Code, allowing for certain code waivers for the rehabilitation of historic structures.
o Explore and develop options and strategies to enhance the use of tax credits by homeowners for rehabilitation of aging housing stock.
Main Street Development:
Many towns and cities in Connecticut have traditional town centers that are in varying states of economic health. Some are popular, attract investment and continue to be centers for economic and community life. Other town centers have difficulty attracting investment are plagued with vacant storefronts and are in a state of disrepair. Revitalization of these main street areas is important not only because they are usually the historical, cultural, civic and geographical center of the community, but because they are also an alternative to the forces that fuel low-density development at the fringe of growth areas. A revitalized main street can accommodate compact, mixed-use, pedestrian oriented development. Higher density development with a mix of commercial and residential uses can create a variety of housing and transit opportunities. Revitalization strategy must take advantage of existing main street assets and build on historic architecture, a traditional town center sense of place, pedestrian friendly safe walking environment and the opportunity for unique business development in order to provide an alternative to “big-box” and mall shopping.
Ø Policy: Focus resources to promote and encourage the revitalization and reuse of town center main streets in rural community centers, regional centers and older suburban towns.
o Municipalities should review and enact zoning regulations that are conducive to development of the town center environment.
o Municipalities need to identify and build on a market niche for the main street area.
o Municipalities should engage local civic groups, the local business community and local colleges, universities and hospitals when assessing, planning for and marketing the future of main street areas.
o Identify and promote cultural and historical attractions.
o Promote economic development in the context of historic preservation.
o The state should continue to fund the Connecticut Main Street Center through the Department of Economic and Community Development.
o The state should encourage the use of funds from quasi-public and private agencies to encourage business startups in these areas.
o Encourage the linkage of main streets to trail and greenway development wherever possible.
D. Economic Development
Attracting and maintaining suitable economic development is a critical aspect in the creation of revitalized sustainable communities in Connecticut. The competitive advantages of Connecticut’s urban areas must be promoted in order to achieve development patterns that focus investment in areas with established infrastructure and away from expansion at the urban fringe.
Planning for economic growth needs to be comprehensive and incorporate not only business development, but housing, transportation, recreation and public safety in order to create desirable, attractive, urban communities that will sustain and grow economic opportunity. Public resources need to be targeted in an efficient and effective manner to prime urban areas for sustainable private development. The state, regional and municipal authorities, must be creative in utilizing scarce resources to maximize private investment in urban economic development. The state should continue to encourage vigorous economic development in the state’s urban centers, however these activities must be tempered by the reality that market forces have an impact on the selection of site locations for businesses.
The primary goal of economic development policy must be to build stronger and better communities through sustained economic growth. Connecticut has adopted a comprehensive approach to economic development, which utilizes both short-term and long-term strategies and addresses the primary issues of job creation/retention and economic expansion. Since there is no single solution or method to achieving sustainable growth and economic prosperity, the state uses this approach to maximize the holistic and synergistic effect these efforts have on one another.
Connecticut’s Industry Cluster Initiative is the state’s long-term economic development and competitiveness strategy. This strategy is based on the economic premise that clusters of industries, not individual companies, will drive Connecticut's economy and that the expansion of quality jobs and wealth will only occur where large number of companies can successfully compete in the global marketplace. The ultimate goal of this strategy is to increase the competitiveness of Connecticut's businesses, to identify and nurture industry clusters, and for the businesses involved in these clusters to make a high level of commitment to help strengthen the "economic foundations" and environment in which they compete.
This initiative represents a decision to strategically invest a portion of the state’s economic development resources in certain industry clusters. This approach compliments the need to invest in the long-term growth and sustainability of the state’s economy with the immediate case-by-case business needs that are met through the utilization of the agency’s other economic development tools and initiatives.
An outgrowth of the Governor’s Council on Economic Competitiveness and Technology, administered by the Department of Economic and Community Development, is the Connecticut Inner City Business Strategy Initiative, which focuses on urban revitalization through business development and increasing the income, wealth and job opportunities of inner city residents. It incorporates the thinking of the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC), a national not-for-profit organization, and replaces the traditional focus on urban deficiencies with a more constructive focus on market opportunities, promoting Connecticut’s cities and their competitive advantages. These advantages include, strategic location, underserved local demand, underutilized workforce, and access to regional business clusters. The State and Connecticut’s cities should continue to build on the strategies through the promotion of these advantages, and by creating incentives to bolster the economic viability of development, and a more business friendly urban environment as well as focus on strengthening linkages between the inner city and regional economies.
Forming urban business clusters unites leaders in the public and private sectors and serves to market Connecticut’s urban centers to ensure these areas become an attractive draw for leading businesses. Through collaborative efforts in workforce development, joint purchasing, information sharing, technology consulting and other areas, members of a cluster network can significantly improve operations and develop and sustain a competitive edge. Clusters serve to promote and stabilize the business base in cities and also create an opportunity for inter-city cluster collaboration that can strengthen regional business and promote sustainable economic development across the state.
Connecticut has established a number of active business clusters including: aerospace, agriculture, bioscience, insurance/finance services, maritime, metal manufacturing, plastics, tourism and software information technology. Formation of these clusters represents a cooperative approach to business development that includes business, civic and government leaders. By implementing a business cluster strategy, a city can build on its existing business base. This is often its strongest asset. Public policy, on the state, regional and local level, should continue to support the growth of urban business clusters as primary engines for sustained economic growth.
In addition to the formation of business clusters, economic development incentives that target investment and business development to urban areas, such as the state’s Enterprise Zone program, the Economic And Manufacturers Assistance Act program and the Urban And Industrial Sites Reinvestment Tax Credit program, and brownfields development programs, are vital to the redevelopment of the state’s urban centers. Connecticut was the first state in the nation to utilize enterprise zones, and continues to encourage the re-use of the state’s existing industrial infrastructure through its targeted development programs. Both state and local policy focus efforts on reutilizing and promoting development of selected places already serviced by infrastructure by offering property and corporate tax incentives in targeted investment communities and along certain transportation corridors.
Utilization of these types of programs serves to attract economic development to designated areas, enhance urban revitalization, provide businesses with strategic locations that utilize existing transportation infrastructure, enhance local and state tax revenue, and create an alternative to development at the urban fringe. State and local policy should continue to use these targeted incentives as a tool to encourage and leverage private investment in selected areas already serviced by infrastructure and add to a business environment that will attract economic development to the state’s urban centers.
Through the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development and quasi-public agencies such as the Connecticut Development Authority, and Connecticut Innovations, the state supports a number of financing and business incentive programs. Through these three agencies, the state provides incentive driven loans, direct loans, loan guarantees and investments in high technology companies throughout the state. In addition to these funding sources, business can take advantage of a number of programs that offer tax credits and exemptions on corporate, property and sales taxes. While some of these programs (as mentioned above) target investment in our urban centers, many of these programs offer business assistance on a statewide basis. In order to focus resources inward and decrease the pressure of development at the urban fringe, state economic development agencies should continue to encourage business development in Connecticut in a manner that incorporates the growth management policies presented in this Plan and support inner city projects and the reutilization of existing infrastructure with all of their available business assistance programs.
The state’s labor force is also a major factor in attracting and maintaining economic development in urban areas. Workforce development must be focused on strengthening the competitive edge of urban residents and training must be relevant to the needs of the evolving urban marketplace. Connecticut’s public and private educational institutions must work with local business in order to invest in programs that provide real world experiences and focus on relevant training and education. The Connecticut Inner City Business Strategy Initiative, through programs such as STRIVE (Support and Training Result In Valuable Employees) and NFTE (National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship), suggests a critical need for innovative training programs that will improve work readiness, upgrade skills of incumbent workers and provide executive education for urban business owners.
Attracting and maintaining industry is dependant on many factors including the livability of an area, productivity of the work force, market potential, and cost of doing business. As a state, Connecticut is competitive in all of these aspects. However, targeted attention must be given urban areas that lag behind in terms of livability and work force development. Urban areas must not only have an attractive business climate, but must be desirable places to live as well. It is vital that the interdependency of economic development and the supply and development of affordable housing be recognized and that community development activities create the environment necessary for sustainable economic growth, stable neighborhoods and healthy communities.
In addition, transportation planning in urban areas needs to ensure the accessibility of our urban centers and should take advantage of natural assets such as deep-water ports and existing rail lines. Not only is it important to attract incubator business, but urban centers must have the amenities and infrastructure to accommodate these industries as they grow. The involvement of existing institutions such as universities, hospitals, and large private companies must also be encouraged. State, regional, and local planning, in partnership with the private sector must be engaged in creating and maintaining a supportive urban business environment, and actively marketing this environment, in order to foster economic opportunity in Connecticut’s cities.
Ø Policy: Promote an urban economy that will attract and retain businesses, sustain business investment and create individual economic opportunity and jobs.
o Encourage companies to convert unused or underutilized buildings in urban areas into productive properties.
o Continue to leverage existing programs, as well as develop new ones as appropriate, that make it easier to reclaim or clear industrial property for new development.
o Continue to leverage existing incentives, as well as create new incentives for companies to reclaim old industrial real estate that create jobs where employees don’t have to travel great distances and will add cohesion to a central neighborhood.
o Encourage the development of transportation hubs in neighborhoods that will entice residents and pedestrians into the community and into businesses that will make the transit stop more attractive.
o Encourage the use of existing assets in urban neighborhood economies and develop them to serve residents more effectively.
o Encourage municipalities to reserve a sufficient number of desirable sites for industrial development through protective regulation or acquisition by the municipality, which is consistent with the successful, state-sponsored Municipal Development Program.
o Strive to minimize conflicts between industrial development and residential development and transportation patterns to assure accessibility.
o Promote the protection of the state’s marine resources industry, ports and harbors from incompatible development and promote access to the waterfront for commercial users and the public.
o Promote urban areas as centers for arts, entertainment and culture.
o Continue to consider job quality when prioritizing economic development investments.
o The private business community, state and local government and regional authorities should be encouraged to continue to support the formation of active cluster working groups.
o Promote expanded use of the state’s higher education institutions and vocational education facilities for training and retraining in response to the changing needs of the community and business world.
o In order to reduce the current tax disadvantage of inner-city locations, the state should continue to provide and expand the range of tax credits to businesses seeking to develop or expand in Connecticut’s cities.
o The state should continue to support the Connecticut Inner City 10 Initiative and other outreach/marketing programs to change current perceptions about doing business in, and increase the competitiveness of the state’s inner cities.
o The state should continue supporting urban inner city development through programs such as the Urban Site and Industrial Site Investment Tax Credit Programs.
o State and local government in partnership with the business community should continue to market the inner-city business environment and competitive advantages of the urban location.
o Encourage economic redevelopment through the use of start-up loans provided by organizations such as the Community and Economic Development Fund, which can now make loans to eligible parties in all 169 Connecticut cities and towns.
Growth Management Principle #2
Expand Housing Opportunities & Design Choices to Accommodate a Variety of Household Types and Needs
Housing is a critical component of effective community development for the state and the nation. Among the many indicators of economic change, positive or negative, is housing construction. The type, location, and number of units constructed or rehabilitated has significant impacts on other community resources including infrastructure, public transportation, school systems, local services, and taxes. It is necessary to create housing development policies that integrate the need to respond to these variables.
Strategic growth management principles must also recognize the differences of housing development opportunities in the urban and suburban communities throughout the state. For the most part current housing stock, availability of land, and market value influences these opportunities. Specifically, urban development initiatives related to housing require a balance of rental and ownership units, density and green space, and income diversity.
Today, Connecticut’s urban centers are home to a population of primarily low and moderate-income individuals and families who reside in rental housing. Cities are challenged to create more home ownership opportunities for these households. Census data show that 67% of all Connecticut’s households own their own homes while in the cities of Hartford, Willimantic, New London and Bridgeport the home ownership rates are 25%, 38%, 40% and 43% respectively. At the same time family median incomes in those cities are one-half to two-thirds of the state’s median income of nearly $54,000. The cost to construct new housing far exceeds the market value in many cities which is further exacerbated by a gap between actual market value and what many city residents can afford. The cost to own a home for city residents, relative to income, is proportionately more expensive than for Connecticut’s residents on the whole. Increasing home ownership rates in Connecticut’s cities is an important step in fostering responsibility for the upkeep of neighborhoods and serves as a building block to creating desirable, stable residential areas. Homeowners have a long-term stake in the community, contribute directly to the tax base and have a vested interest in the quality of their real estate.
The rental costs for city residents are also higher relative to income. For example, in the City of Hartford, 37.4% of households in rental units pay gross rent that is 35% or more of their household income. This compares with 25.9% of rental households in the rest of the municipalities comprising Hartford County. The same data indicates that median rent in Hartford is $560/monthcompared to Hartford County at $645/month, making the significant indicator the low household income in relationship to housing cost. This holds true for all of Connecticut’s urban centers.
Aging housing stock is also an issue. For instance, in the City of New London 68.5% of the existing household structures were built prior to 1960. Similar percentages exist across the state’s urban areas. These structures typically require more upkeep and are more expensive to maintain than newer housing. For those city residents who do own their own home, this expense, coupled with lower incomes, can be difficult to meet.
While the cost of housing, relative to income, is higher in cities, between 1990-2000, conditions for housing did improve in some areas of the state where increases in income levels kept pace with increases in housing costs. Median household income rose 9.6%, while the cost of an owner-occupied dwelling unit fell 6%. And although median monthly rent rose 14%, this did not cause an increase in the percentage of income households paid for housing costs. Although income has maintained pace with housing costs in certain areas, without assistance, many potential buyers will have little chance to enjoy homeownership. The April 2002 study of Southeast Connecticut, “Housing A Region In Transition”, indicates that between 1990-2000, the region’s economy shifted from primarily defense dependent to one now dominated by the tourism and gaming industries. The growth of new job opportunities in these industries has created a population shift (while the overall population increased by only one percent, single person households increased by 22% and total households by 7%) that has placed a significant demand on the region’s supply of housing units. This market demand has served to increase housing costs and reduce availability.
In order to fully address the housing and economic disparities that exist in Connecticut, the development patterns that have grown over time and the way growth is viewed as a society must be re-examined. Continued growth at the outside boundaries of urban and growth areas will only serve to reinforce existing population and housing disparities, abandon existing infrastructure, strain transportation systems and increase environmental risks. Strategies must be developed to create new opportunities within our existing development areas that will revitalize our regional centers, sustain older suburban communities, and give more residents the ability to secure housing across regional areas. As such, state programs that support housing development need to prioritize project assistance in a manner that incorporates the growth management policies presented in this Plan.
Connecticut, through the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) and the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) has programs in place to assist with homeownership, rehabilitation, maintenance and the development of affordable housing. CHFA offers several home mortgage financing programs to assist low and moderate-income borrowers to encourage homeownership. CHFA’s single-family mortgage programs have income and sales price eligibility requirements. However, to encourage homeownership in urban areas of the State, income limits do not apply. CHFA also provides financing to build and/or rehabilitate affordable rental housing throughout the State and supports economic development objectives by providing financing for market rate rental housing in key urban areas consistent with state development and revitalization efforts. Through the administration of its lending and tax credit programs the Authority seeks to support land-use and growth management strategies consistent with the objectives of the Conservation and Development Policies Plan. The DECD offers a variety of affordable housing products and services that are primarily income targeted and support development projects through grants, loans and loan guarantees. The opportunities DECD provides are market driven and include: first time homeownership opportunities, land trusts, limited equity cooperatives and mutual housing associations, transitional and permanent housing for homeless populations, supportive housing for special needs populations, adaptive re-use of commercial properties for residential use and elderly and congregate residential housing. While these programs are designed to address many of the issues discussed above, they may not be specifically tailored to address land-use patterns and growth management strategies, key elements of any housing development policy.
Local land-use regulations must also encourage the appropriate development of multifamily, mixed-use, mixed income and low and moderate-income housing. Housing policy needs to be managed in a manner that promotes inclusionary zoning practices at the municipal level, affords municipalities the ability to maintain the unique character of their communities and address housing choice and mobility on a regional basis. Connecticut General Statutes, Section 8-2, state that zoning regulations of every Connecticut municipality shall;
“…encourage the development of housing opportunities, including opportunities for multifamily dwellings, consistent with soil types, terrain and infrastructure capacity, for all residents of the municipality and the planning region in which the municipality is located, as designated by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management under section 16a-4a. Such regulations shall also promote housing choice and economic diversity in housing, including housing for both low and moderate income households…”
According to the Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission to Study Affordable Housing, dated February 1, 2000, over half of Connecticut’s municipalities have not followed this legislative directive. If the state is to achieve housing mobility, even at modest levels, zoning policy must be balanced with the need for housing opportunity. One of the conclusions of the “Housing A Region In Transition’ study is that “local land use policies and regulations are a key element in any regional effort to meet housing needs.” Regional strategies should promote fair share housing practices to address the concentration of affordable housing in some areas and the lack of affordable dwelling units in others.
Commitment to a regional housing strategy means that some areas must try to accommodate growth of market based housing in a manner that maintains environmental and community values, while creating opportunities for diverse income groups. Other areas will require strategies to promote compatible infill or to expand low and moderate-income housing opportunities through either new construction or through rehabilitation of substandard housing. Still other areas with severe deterioration of housing will require a focus on neighborhood revitalization strategies that cut across human service, health and safety, economic development, transportation and housing disciplines. Planning will need to address the need for mixed income, mixed use, transit oriented housing development on a regional basis to create housing, and employment mobility.
Community development planning needs to take a multi-disciplined approach in order to address the many facets involved in sustainable urban revitalization and housing mobility. It is necessary to integrate planning for affordable housing across disciplines in order to encourage investment in cities and promote economically diverse urban centers, as well as create incentives for affordable housing in areas that are underserved. Policies must be directed toward building capacity and critical mass in order for all areas to be economically vibrant and sustainable. The development of mixed-income housing and housing choice is a first step to community development and creates opportunity, residential stability, public order, and confidence. Housing should be seen as a building block to create the necessary critical mass to support neighborhood business opportunities and sustainable quality communities.
Ø Policy: Promote housing mobility and choice across income levels utilizing current infrastructure and the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods and housing stock.
o Study regional housing cost patterns and zoning practices and establish regional plans to address and promote affordable fair-share housing and inclusionary housing policies.
o Encourage planning for affordable housing on a regional basis to provide choice across income levels, proximity to employment and greater opportunity to develop income diverse neighborhoods in urban and suburban areas.
o State funded programs for affordable housing development and homeownership should be implemented, when and where appropriate, in a manner that is consistent with the growth management policies in this Plan of Conservation and Development
o The State should encourage regular contact among government agencies and housing providers to tailor housing, job training, transportation access and economic development resources to meet community needs, and be cost effective.
o Invest in the maintenance of existing publicly assisted rental housing stock to preserve it as a long-term resource.
o Continue to encourage and support existing incentives as well as to encourage the development of local initiatives for the promotion of homeownership opportunities in regional centers where homeownership rates lag far behind.
o Provide favorable loan terms for multifamily housing and mixed-use properties in targeted areas.
o Market urban communities to certain niche populations more likely to move back to urban environments such as young people and empty nesters
o Support local efforts to develop appropriate urban infill housing to make better use of limited urban land.
o Continue to support incentive based priming of housing markets through strategically targeted housing development to create additional investment opportunities in those areas.
o Support adaptive reuse of historic structures for use as residential housing.
o The state should promote support for mixed-income developments in areas that currently under-serve low and moderate-income households.
o Study existing zoning regulations to determine if they provide realistic opportunities for development of multifamily dwellings and low and moderate-income housing where needed.
o Study the need for and impact of developing model zoning regulations that encourage housing opportunities for multifamily dwellings and promote housing for low and moderate-income households.
o The state should consider strengthening language in CGS 8-2, or a new section, to define inclusive zoning policy and require municipalities to adopt zoning regulations that adhere to this policy.
o On a regional basis, the need for equitable housing choice and mobility should be addressed to promote fair share affordable housing across municipalities.
o The state should consider giving regions and/or municipalities that meet affordable housing thresholds priority for open space funding or other incentives.
o Encourage interaction of civic groups, local political, religious and community leaders in order to build a sense of community.
o Recognize the interdependency of economic development and affordable housing and encourage public/private partnerships in the development of affordable housing as a statewide economic development strategy.
o Encourage alternative land use strategies by municipalities that support the housing policies of this Plan.
o Encourage and promote access to recreational opportunities, including trails and greenways, for affordable and mixed-income housing.
Growth Management Principle #3
