Creating Mixed Income Communities In Glastonbury

Page 1

CREATING MIXED INCOME COMMUNITIES IN GLASTONBURY

Erin Boggs, Esq. For TALK and Community Partners August 27, 2019


CT IS ONE OF THE MOST SEGREGATED STATES IN THE NATION Shaped by multiple factors: -

Zoning

-

Subsidized housing locations

-

Limits on housing authority jurisdiction

-

Disinvestment

-

History of intentional segregating policies 2


IMPACT ON OPPORTUNITY

Education Opportunity Score

Economic Opportunity Score

Housing/Neig hborhood Score

Final Opportunity Score (Map)

3


4


5


6


WHERE DO WE LIVE? OPPORTUNITY BY RACE AND ETHNICITY IN CT

% of People by Race & Ethnicity Living in Lower Opportunity Areas Blacks: Latinos: Whites: Asians:

73% 73% 26% 36%


OPPORTUNITY DETAIL AND RACE

Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

White

9%

17%

22%

23%

29%

Black

52%

21%

13%

9%

5%

Asian

14%

2% of the land area of the 21% 19% 20% state.

Hispanic

50%

22%

12%

9%

25% 7%


OUTCOMES  Disparities in educational outcomes by race and income – CT has one of the largest “educational achievement gaps” in the nation.  Disparities in unemployment rates by race. (Typically Black and Latino unemployment is double white unemployment.)  Disparities in Black/white (x6) & Latino/white (x12) incarceration.  Health disparities:  Life expectancy:  Hartford census tract – 74 years  Glastonbury census tract – 87 years

 Asthma – Asthma rate is 40 times higher in one Hartford census tract compared to one Glastonbury census tract. 9


ROLE OF HISTORY

10


11


THE ROLE OF ZONING Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. In 1926 the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed local zoning power to design zoning schemes that designated zones for certain types of buildings and dictated restrictions on lot and building sizes. The court upheld a municipality’s right to use zoning to block multifamily development. 12


ZONING AND RACE

Source: Hall, Eliza, Divide and Sprawl, Decline and Fall: A Comparative Critique of Euclidian Zoning, pg. 923, University of Pittsburg Law Review (2007). Available at http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/issues/68/68.4/Hall.pdf.

13


The core argument of [The Color of Law] is that African Americans were unconstitutionally denied the means and the right to integration in middle-class neighborhoods, and because this denial was statesponsored, the nation is obligated to remedy it. - Richard Rothstein


1966: BUSING REJECTED

15


1977: RESIDENCY PREFERENCE LITIGATION

16


1978: FEDERAL SUPPORT DENIED DUE TO HOUSING RECORD

17


1979: GLASTONBURY REJECTS UNITS AND PULLS FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION

90 units on Nye Road

18


1980: US V. GLASTONBURY At issue: 71 units in River Meadows and 90 units on Nye Road.

19


1999: CHRISTIAN ACTIVITIES COUNCIL 28 units on Hebron Avenue

Glastonbury the “need” for affordable housing should only be the local town need, not the regional need. Court sided with Glastonbury. This was fixed legislatively.

20


AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERFORMANCE Â Total Housing Units Avon 7,112

% Multifamily

% Affordable

% Subsidized

16.94%

3.76%

1.93%

Farmington 10,992

22.06%

7.96%

3.03%

Glastonbury 13,499

13.56%

5.46%

4.16%

West Hartford 25,813

24.30%

7.79%

2.19%

Wethersfield 11,380

17.16%

8.39%

6.63%

67.36%

37.89%

20.11%

Hartford 54,632

21


SOLUTIONS

22


TWO WAY STREET SOLUTION: (1) ENSURE CHOICES IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOCATION AND (2) INVEST IN STRUGGLING COMMUNITIES 23


WHAT CAN WE DO HERE?  Increase the percentage of Open Choice students.  Make sure our schools are welcoming and educating students about the history of our country, broadening understanding of other people and cultures, training global citizens.  Undertake a concerted plan for a beautiful mixed income community.

24


THE CONCEPT  Work together to design a project.  OCA would acquire the land with help from a foundation, land donations or a CDFI.  We would partner with a respected developer who shares our mission.  We would together undertake a public education and awareness campaign with faith-based partners addressing some of the myths around affordable housing and addressing concerns.

25


WHAT DOES AMI REALLY MEAN? Size of HH 1

Fed Poverty

50% AMI

60% AMI

80% AMI

100% AMI

$ 12,490

$ 34,265

$ 40,680

$ 54,824

$ 68,530

2

$ 16,910

$ 39,160

$ 46,500

$ 62,656

$ 78,320

3

$ 21,330

$ 44,055

$ 52,320

$ 70,488

$ 88,110

4

$ 25,750

$ 48,950

$ 58,080

$ 78,320

$ 97,900

Median Income in Glastonbury: $80,660


WHAT COULD A MIXED INCOME COMMUNITY LOOK LIKE?

Percent of Units

Percent of Area Median Income

Lower Income

10%

30% or below

$

26,247

Workforce

20%

50% or below

$

48,950

Market Rate

70%

100% or above

$

97,900

Population

Dollar Figure Max

27


MYTHS TO ADDRESS: CRIME Case Study: Mt. Laurel, NJ  140 Units

Built 2000-04

 Op en to low - and mod erate-income fam ilies (10% to 80% AM I).

 Outcomes  C r i m e : “We co mpared trends in…crim e rates…in Mount Laurel before and after 2001 w ith a matched set o f nearby townships and found no statistical differences [in crim e rates].”  N e i g h b o r s : “A third of nearb y residents did no t even know that an affordab le housing develop ment existed in the im med iate area.”  E d u c a t i o n : “Children…w ere 33% m ore likely to report having a qu iet place to study and they spent twice as m any ho urs studying or d oing homew ork. P arents said the relative tranquility of their surroundings allow ed them to d evote tim e to the sup ervision and edu catio n of their children.” Despite attending m ore com petitive schools, students’ g rad es were slightly higher.  I n c o m e : “Welfare use w as reduced b y 67%, em plo yment rose by 22%, and incom e increased by 25%.” 28


MYTH: AFFORDABLE HOUSING DECREASES HOME VALUES  R e s o u n d i n g F i n d i n g s : Mixed income units with some affordable units – and even with 100% affordable units – in low poverty areas have zero impact on property values.  M t . L a u r e l : “We compared trends in home values, crime rates, and tax assessments in Mount Laurel before and after 2001 with a matched set of nearby townships and found no statistical differences. Even neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the development experienced no apparent effects on property values.”  Mixed-Income Housing May Even Increase Property Values: “Properly maintained affordable housing developments, designed and built with sensitivity to the architectural and aesthetic standards desired by the community, may even increase property values.” (See Oak Park) 29


MYTH: AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL RUIN OUR SCHOOLS  Affordable housing typically does not bring as many children as the community anticipates  But regardless, diversity is good for our kids –  Improving learning for all students  Closing the educational opportunity gap  Creating a better, more tolerant, future  Becoming college-ready  Preparing for the workforce

30


WHAT’S NEXT?  Advise us! What do we need to think through?  Sign up!    

To To To To

get updates host a presentation at your home or with a group you are part of strategize about obtaining land be involved in creating a vision for this community

31


Maps provided courtesy of Professor Stefanie Deluca of Johns Hopkins University.

32


8 years later

33


Erin Boggs, Esq. Executive Director Open Communities Alliance 75 Charter Oak Avenue Suite 1-210 Hartford, CT 06106 Tel. 860.610-6040 eboggs@ctoca.org Check us out and join the coalition at: http://www.ctoca.org

34


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.