The Goodness of Affordable Housing, done RIGHT.

Affordable housing for good people should be everyone's goal. And the best way to accomplish it is the Free Market.

Unfortunately, efforts over the last decade have shifted exclusively to GOVERNMENT efforts. Like most reliance on government projects, this ensures that affordable housing is not accomplished well. The best that government regulations can do is make housing more affordable for a FEW, while TAKING from everyone else. Please consider an alternative:

The Free Market Solution

A free market for home building gets people the home they want at a price they can afford. That might not be available in every town, but it will be available somewhere, because the free market is a continuous incentive for builders to create homes for families or landlords who provide for those families.

Now, because added housing creates externalities that affect neighbors, it IS the province of towns and/or enclaves to direct home development. They DO need to account for road use, fire safety, waste management, environmental protection, police deployment, and public transportation.

Thus, the "free market" in housing is of necessity restricted to some extent within a town. But since towns have a wide variety of desires, and are (if states don't impede) free to make their own guidelines, a diverse region will inevitably have towns that want abundant low-cost housing. Respecting the free market means LETTING elected officials and planners, town-by-town to grow the housing stock, or NOT grow, as they wish.

On "Deservedness"

Yes, this implies some towns will relinquish any desire to have low-cost homes built therein. They have every right to do so, and the people who have put a long-standing stake in their communities deserve to have stability.

I say "less deserving" out of recognition that we cannot make a "deservedness scale" based on perceived morality, perceived niceness, or perceived intentions. "Deserving" is thus only measured by whether one can afford a home.

If through a series of misfortunes, or laziness, or a lack of skills to command a high income, "George" cannot afford the "dream home" he cherishes, it means he does not yet "deserve" the home. He alone can't pay for it. We all forego some non-essential things, and nothing about a given town is "essential". It's wrong to demand that others pay for him.

Making Towns Better

Why are some towns better than others? In part because people, over generations, have worked at it. Their officials have set standards, and all have made sacrifices. Restrictions on businesses, restrictions on lot sizes, and restrictions on parcels for development mean some towns whose people want to hold the line on growth, flourish.

And towns can become better. Tolland 40 years ago was a sleepy, lower-than-average-income spot; it is now well above Connecticut's average, highest in the county. Meanwhile, just east of Tolland, the governments of Willington have let standards slip, and over the last 40 years a once-nice community has been addled with drugs, crime, and poorly-performing schools.

Alternative Solutions

Without impinging on a single developer, indeed WITH the idea of spurring developments, towns should be free to unlimited use of Adjacent Dwelling Units ("ADUs"). These allow a family to build a small second home on their existing parcel. These homes are ideal for grandma, a youngster not yet ready for a place of his own, or a distant relative coming to the state with a new job offer.

Then there's individualized "affordability". 6 and 7 member families used to share 1400 square foot homes without feeling cloistered. Two parents and five children can still occupy a 3 bedroom home. Indeed, modern life almost dispenses with the need for a "family room" and a "dining room".

There is even the radical possibility of grandparents coming back to live with the kids and grandkids. The home affordability and the greatly-reduced cost of day care is almost always worth the small restraint on "independence".

Hope for Connecticut Cities

The places for whom I have the most hope are Connecticut's large cities. They have affordable housing, but also higher crime and worse schools. Connecticut's six largest cities all have good transportation, both highway and railway, meaning they can be home to those who work almost anywhere.

Yes, that last word is searing. "Still" denotes the decline of upscale employers in CT's cities over the last 30 years. But that should also give hope, and the impetus to change. Employers will return when streets are safer and schools are better cauldrons for a decently-educated work force. Both can change almost instantly; good schooling comes by enforcing standards; low crime comes by enforcing laws.

So towns can improve. Help make your town better, or make yourself financially better so as to afford moving elsewhere. Don't demand other people make it more affordable.