Worker housing, That’s the key; Just don’t build it, Close to me.
by William A. Collins
When it comes to offering everyone a house or apartment, our state shows considerable character. We publicly worry about where our teachers, cops, firefighters, and maybe even nurses, are going to live. Not that we do anything about it, but at least we worry. That’s character.
Actually, we don’t really worry that much about nurses. They’re mostly just women anyway, and live with their husbands. Plus, more and more are from the Philippines. They can double up with their colleagues the way Filipinos seem to like to do. And when it gets down to pre-school teachers, nursing home aides, sales clerks, security guards and landscapers, our concern withers away altogether.
Happily, the town of Canaan is dealing with this issue right now. It has finally come to grips with an accessory (mother-in-law) apartment regulation. Unhappily, they got it wrong. The town just clearly affirmed that only relatives must indeed occupy such add-ons. Not even teachers, nurses or cops get special consideration. Fortunately, many larger towns dumped that archaic limitation long ago.
But other stern obstacles to dwelling construction remain. Take the biggest – minimum lot size. Perhaps the most famous example is the one-acre zone, but quarter-acre zones and four-acre zones serve the same purpose in various places. They “preserve the character of the town.” Add to these restrictions a robust “preservation of open space” program, and soon your town may have so much “character” that there’s no place left for newcomers to live.
Cities, naturally, are different. They feature condos, apartments, and density. So why not simply let them solve the housing shortage? Well, cities also feature poverty, minorities, and inadequate state aid. Their residents are no more eager to invite in new dwelling units than are suburbanites.
Nor do incoming and newly formed families jump to live in cities anyway, at least not after they have kids. With Connecticut schools being so segregated, a high percentage of families pine to live in nice white communities. Unfortunately, home health aids and other low-paid workers can’t afford to consider that option.
But they could if Connecticut (and other states) took a different approach to housing law. At present, we focus our zoning regulations on preserving property values and maintaining separation of rich and poor, both hallowed American precepts. These have always been the two core goals of home rule. In 2006 though, there are other values we might wish to advance, like improving people’s chances of finding a place to live.
The easiest way to accomplish this would be to require each town to set aside a certain portion of its land for multi-family housing, some of it subsidized. The positive effects would be sweeping. More people would have an affordable place to live, or at least have a place to live at all. Additional units would also slow the spiraling cost of renting and owning. Schools would become more integrated. Financing education and anti-poverty programs would be better equalized. Suffering would be reduced.
But these goals, while surely worthy, do not yet carry much clout in Connecticut. We are the richest state in the land and we didn’t get that way by catering to have-nots. Leave that stuff to Hugo Chavez. Our appeal, rather, is to rich corporations and rich taxpayers. They’ve made us great and we’re not likely to rock their boat. They’ll grudgingly pay higher taxes, but they definitely won’t allow changes to their lifestyle.
So if you really want an affordable place to live, try Arkansas.
