Attorneys representing the town last week pushed back on a local developer’s effort to have the state reconsider its issuance in August of four years of relief for New Canaan from a widely discussed affordable housing law.
After an initial denial, the Connecticut Department of Housing in August granted New Canaan a four-year “moratorium” from the law known by its statute number, 8-30g. Under it, in towns where less than 10% of all housing stock qualifies as affordable, developers who propose projects where a certain number of units are set aside to rent at affordable rates may appeal to the state after a local P&Z Commission denies their applications. New Canaan since its last moratorium lapsed in July 2021 has received three such applications, at Weed and Elm Streets (120 units), Main Street (20 units) and Hill Street (93 units). P&Z denied all of them. Those applications are now under appeal in state Superior Court.
Though the moratorium is not expected to affect the active 8-30g applications, the developer who filed them, Arnold Karp, in September petitioned the state Housing Department for a “declaratory ruling,” effectively challenging the moratorium approval. Referring to the 8-30g projects, attorneys representing Karp in a brief filed Dec. 20 said, “Though these applications and appeals are ostensibly grandfathered from the moratorium granted to New Canaan in August 2024, the appeals are not over, and thus the petitioners have a substantial interest in the Department’s response to these declaratory ruling issues.”
As summarized by Karp’s attorney—Timothy Hollister of Hartford-based Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP—the petition asserts that New Canaan’s application for a moratorium lacked evidence of compliance with affordability regulations and also “asserted, without any statutory or regulatory basis, that it is exempt from the point deduction statute because the units demolished would not have qualified for moratorium points under current §8-30g criteria if constructed today.”
First reported by the New Canaan Advertiser, the petition for a declaratory ruling is the newest front in the town’s affordable housing-centered legal battles, which already include an active lawsuit against the DOH itself. (That lawsuit centers on the question of whether the state, in its initial denial, failed to credit New Canaan for “excess” affordable housing units that had been completed prior to the issuance of the 2017 moratorium.)
Attorneys for the town on Dec. 23 filed a memorandum opposing Karp’s petition. In it, attorney Nicholas Bamonte of Westport-based Berchem Moses PC reviewed the town’s affordable housing history and acquisition of the new moratorium.
Reached by NewCanaanite.com, Karp said in an interview that the town has been miscalculating its affordable units for 40 years.
“They applied for a moratorium many years ago and got that, but we now know the math was incorrect and they reapplied a year ago,” he said. “So at a minimum, it’s embarrassing because the town has told the state and anyone who would listen that they have 3.6% affording housing, and based on attorneys admitting they’ve been doing this wrong, that was a pretty serious error.”
Asked whether his interest in the town’s moratorium has anything to do with the active 8-30g applications, Karp said, “From a competitive standpoint I would love the town to get a moratorium, because potentially that keeps my competitors out of town.”
He added, “We’re a town that should be able to calculate the affordable housing and live by the state rules and that we have not for all these years is concerning.”
Karp also noted that one of the reasons P&Z denied the 8-30g applications is that the town has been claiming it’s done well in developing affordable housing and “that was all incorrect.”
First Selectman Dionna Carlson did not respond to a Dec. 31 email seeking comment.
The state has until March 7 to issue its declaratory ruling.
The legal battle regarding the active moratorium is unfolding in the wake of the New Canaan Housing Authority’s $75 million purchase of the Avalon property on Lakeview Avenue (the complex has been renamed Riverwood at New Canaan).
Here is how we compare to our neighboring towns in 2023 total affordable hsg appeals listing per 8-30g and (% from Fed & State Grants just in Column 1):
New Canaan 3.93% (3.4%) – Note that we will designate another 21 units within a year or so, from Avalon, which should bring our total to around 4.21%
Darien 4.09% (2.2%)
Greenwich 5.73% (3.7%)
Wilton 3.55% (2.4%)
Westport 3.77% (2.5%)
Ridgefield 2.96% (1.8%)
Weston 0.16%. (0%)
Easton 0.51% (0%)
Redding 0.44% (0%)
Fairfield 3.05% (1.1%)
New Canaan has made good progress on increasing the percentage of affordable units relative to our neighbors. New Canaan is almost at 4% affordable per the Dept of Housing’s 2023 list: (https://portal.ct.gov/doh/doh/programs/affordable-housing-appeals-listing)
NC’s totals are all under Col 1, the state and federal sponsored “affordable” recognized under 8-30g, and we have built it ourselves with 4% State & Federal LIHTC loans. We rely on Column 1 because we only have very a few FNMA loans since high property values and salaries exclude most potential mortgage borrowers from FNMA loans (Col 3) and we have no farms that could access USDA loans (Col 3), and NC doesn’t have generous allocations of vouchers (Col 2) provided by the state to our Housing Authority.
Despite these limitations, our already highly built-out town, high land costs, high development costs, New Canaan is in the middle of the pack statewide in their % of affordable housing and that is with little state support relative to what is given to Hartford, New Haven and other large cities that have well over 10% affordable, with many of the projects very generously funded with state grants, state low interest loans, 9% LIHTC loans (covers over 70% of a project’s development costs) and LOTS of vouchers on top of that as well.
To see the % of affordable breakouts for all 169 municipalities, see CT169Strong’s spreadsheet, 8-30g tab: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E7CFl9DNXxc0RS5wOPQ_81FehtpoiepYVkWECgR2Nxk/edit?gid=2076243779#gid=2076243779
Being in the “middle of the pack” says less about NC’s efforts to build housing, or allowing it to be built, and more about how little peer towns have done, or have actively resisted, for decades. Yet most of those peer towns on that list above now have housing being built by private builders/developers (NC might take note). All of this against the unspoken background reality that those numbers above would be 0.00% were it not for the existence of state housing laws.
I don’t love what you’re implying about our town’s character, Paul. And I’m not sure that you and your employer have earned the right to paint yourselves as crusaders for socioeconomic justice when all three of these proposed projects are 70% market-rate housing that would stand to make whoever develops them a verified boatload. A calcified economic system has created the biggest wealth inequalities this country has ever seen. Developers don’t get to pretend they’re on the side of the people in that system while burning taxpayer money with petty lawsuits.
Laura, I’m really not implying anything. I’m saying directly that towns (not just NC) have resisted AH being built for decades and what little that has been built is only because of state housing laws that are on the books. While few might admit it aloud, deep down most know this is the reality we’re living in.
I’m no crusader of “socioeconomic justice”, just a guy that would like to build housing in general because there’s a huge deficit of all kinds of it, affordable and otherwise, due to government overregulation, despite the growing need. And if making a living while doing that happens, so be it (FYI – it’s not a “boatload”). Developers get maligned for making a living/profit yet virtually every other profession is safe from that all-too-common ad hominem attack. Should we denigrate doctors, executives, consultants, writers, etc. in this town and others for accepting payment for their efforts? I think we know the answer to that.
If you are decrying the fact that of the 3 proposed developments turned down by the town of NC that 70% of those living units are market rate (presumably as opposed to being all affordable), then consider the pragmatics – that’s how the numbers can work. I’m a fiscal conservative. I believe in a free market society (and the property rights that go with it). If supply is constrained while demand simultaneously rises, guess what? Prices rise. That’s econ 101. And it’s been happening for decades in the housing market. Housing is one of the few, if not the only, industry that has an artificially constrained supply (due to overregulation). We see what’s happened and continues to happen as the housing affordability crisis grows. These 3 developments certainly won’t solve the big problem but it’s a small step in the right direction, and yet opposition hysteria continues. An enormous part of the reason for the wealth inequality that you mention is due to this very fact. And developers can make a living (and, God forbid – maybe even a profit!) while simultaneously providing a mix of housing. The two are not mutually exclusive.
After wearing a toolbelt for years and being involved in the building industry for years, I’ve seen how important housing is to folks. There’s no “pretending to be on the side of the people.” And btw – NIMBY’s don’t get to pretend they’re for housing.
I’m with Paul Stone on this. The US is built on capitalism, not socialism. So if a developer makes money of AH projects, that’s a great incentive to achieve the 10% goal. Instead, we whitewash our biases through moratoriums and density concerns, approving every McMansion while creating hurdles for every AH development.
According to Mr. Stone, “Housing is one of the few, if not the only, industry that has an artificially constrained supply (due to overregulation).” Simply inaccurate. Any self-described toolbelt totin’ guy should well know that housing supply in this area is constrained by lack of dirt. Land and the built inventory are precious commodities, hence their value which others rightfully seek to preserve. That’s also capitalism. Prices and the current constraint on inventory were caused not by overregulation (i.e., typical zoning) but on a complex combination of factors including historic overall desirability of this community and an unprecedented demand for its limited supply caused by the exodus of city dwellers amidst Covid that continues as business and work models change. After lecturing on the fundamentals of the US economy, Mr. Phillips says, …”we whitewash our biases through moratoriums and density concerns, approving every McMansion while creating hurdles for every AH development.” Again, simply inaccurate. Conforming homes are easily approved and built because they are conforming with zoning regulations. AH developers (those dang capitalists) hide behind 830-g as a way to thumb their noses at zoning and density regulations to maximize their profits unfairly in nonconformance with long existing standards, often while conveniently representing themselves as champions of affordability. Fellas, you can’t have it both ways. I think all anybody wants is to preserve the character and value of the town while expecting those who develop here to allow that to happen, i.e., don’t poop in your, or our nests. The town is also trying to deal with regulations imposed on it relative to AH while still preserving what they’re elected to protect. Perhaps builders who want to be part of the community and who truly want to do good should take every opportunity to make it happen peacefully and timely through negotiation and compromise, rather than distracting and wasting all of our limited time, attention and money on legal battles for their own enrichment.
Where to begin? Let’s see…
“…the housing supply in this area is constrained by lack of dirt.” Except that the amount of dirt doesn’t change. Access to it does, or can, were it not for the very thing that constrains the supply – overregulation!
“Land and the built inventory are precious commodities, hence their value which others rightfully seek to preserve. That’s also capitalism.” So, capitalism when it suits you, but not when it doesn’t. Okay to tell others what to do with their property. But when it goes the other way………well.
When the basic economics of the housing crisis are pointed out you’ll often hear housing opponents point to other factors, usually vague abstract mumbo jumbo (“historic overall desirability”), all in an attempt to distract from the very basic market fundamentals. Yes, of course there are other factors at play in housing unaffordability, and those existed, like overregulation, for decades, well before Covid. There’s a reason the housing affordability crisis is far less severe in red states, far worse in blue states.
“Conforming homes are easily approved and built because they are conforming with zoning regulations”. Isn’t that the point of some state housing laws? To allow those that want to build not to be burdened/prevented by overregulation?
“AH developers hide behind 8-30g as a way to thumb their noses at zoning and density regulations…” Hide? Really? That’s what you took away from the 3 very public proposals that were denied? While I disagreed with those decisions for denial it was not “thumbing noses” to employ state law to prevent something fundamentally unfair.
“….to maximize their profits unfairly…….” There it is again – deriding profitmaking when it’s something you don’t like. Those state laws exist so opponents can’t unfairly deny housing being built.
“….you can’t have it both ways.” Referring to simultaneously building AH and making a living/profit – please reread that part of my comment regarding those not being mutually exclusive. Why would they be?
“…don’t poop in your/our nests.” Thanks for clarifying how you regard AH.
“Perhaps builders who want to be part of the community……..should take every opportunity to make it happen peacefully and timely through negotiation and compromise….” There have been numerous attempts over the years, prior to the applications, to no avail. And the ”peaceful” aspect that you refer to was violated by an opposing neighbor (the assault charges we reported in this news outlet and are publicly available in a police report).
“…… for their own enrichment.” Yet once more.
Ok, let’s simplify things so you can understand the “mumbo-jumbo” and not feel so picked on. Once upon a time, there was a 332-year-old small town that was naturally picturesque. Hard-working neighbors built it up. A charming town center with good businesses, beautiful homes and neighborhoods, churches, government buildings and recreation for families. Along the way, the community and governing bodies worked to protect the
investments of these families by memorializing centuries worth of community development standards (i.e., zoning) by agreement of the community. That guaranteed development would be harmonious with what residents had worked so
hard to build. One could think of zoning as the community’s promise to itself. (Not over-regulation.) Next thing you knew, there was hardly any land left to develop that wasn’t spoken for already.
However, in more recent decades, 114 miles away in Hartford, and 275 miles away in Washington, DC, politicians sought to address housing affordability issues across the country. They funded and mandated all kinds of well-intentioned but mostly unpopular ideas like housing projects, Section 8 and 8-30g. These long term “solutions” to cyclical problems like unemployment and under-employment and housing shortages are too often abused
and corrupt. Moreover, a law like 8-30g undemocratically overrides years of well-thought-out local community developed zoning standards that successfully created beautiful towns. That is overregulation!
The net effect is where we find ourselves today and why people feel the way they do about 8-30g. They see opportunistic builders, some would say cynically purporting to be affordable housing advocates, who take it upon themselves to flip a big middle finger to zoning by invoking a bad law to coerce approval of overly dense and often ugly developments. This lets them make more money than they should be “entitled” to make if they were operating within and respecting community standards. Legal or not, residents rightly see it as builders gaming the system. Neighbors are financially harmed.
Fights break out. Lawsuits are filed. Precious resources are wasted. As a reminder, making money is encouraged by all – gouging, however, is illegal.
Kindly do not assume that residents do not support affordable housing. That’s wrong. Most simply do not support the version being foisted on the town. Many passionately and creatively support newer and better ways to promote AH. For example, the formerly private Avalon community converted to affordable housing at Riverwood. Successful solutions like subsidized lease-to-own co-op communities. These are meaningful solutions at scale, and we need more of them.
However, dozens of poorly planned and ill-fitting one-offs, shoe-horned into non-conforming lots are destined to cause all sorts of harms while making little real contribution. What thoughtful and supportable AH solutions have in common is that “they fit” within existing or specially created local zoning by agreement of the community. The very real problems of unhoused and neglected
peoples are not best solved by bad legislation used as a bludgeon.
Instead of dissecting a counter-narrative, why not tell us how these 8-30g proposals better and beautify the town, rather than burdens it, and how it doesn’t hurt its neighbors, and how they meaningfully helps to solve the AH problem? Betcha can’t.
PS – Didn’t want to get political, but since you mentioned it, those red states had better thank their lucky stars for the blue states because they way overpay taxes and support the red states. (get less back in fed spending) Red states affordable? Oh sure they are, with the highest vacancy home rates in the country. (see FL – sky high home vacancy AND homeless rates) Careful what you wish for.
Thank you, Dave. This is an extremely well written and thoughtful reply and accurately distills the views of most New Canaan residents.
Everyone should read Dave Leopold’s comment. Spot on.
Regarding the over simplistic view of supply and demand. Demand in Fairfield County is due to the proximity of New Canaan to the metro NY’s economic engine. It should be noted that Stamford has recently developed lots of housing with the second highest population and the cost of rentals has not declined. We also now have the worst traffic congestion on I-95 through Stamford in the entire U.S. per the Inrix 2024 study. https://www2.inrix.com/l/171932/2025-01-02/71rhrd/171932/1735857445DSlvhZjd/INRIX_2024_Global_Traffic_Scorecard.pdf
The impacts of overdevelopment without necessary investment in infrastructure, local and state level, must be recognized. At a local level, those financial investments would raise local property taxes, taking residents even further away from affordability. In addition, 8-30g units of affordable expire in 40 years, while New Canaan’s Housing Authority has built forever affordable that does not expire. 8-30g only creates generational wealth for the developers that are able to override height, density, setbacks, etc. The number of units of affordable at the Vue = zero and the fee in lieu the town received was no where near what it would have cost to build 10-15 units of affordable.