Editorial in CT POST March 26, 2004
Downsizing homes
It's highly ironic, absurd really, that a developer speaking against potential building size restrictions in Fairfield early this month said that the regulation changes under discussion would lead to the town losing its colonial appearance.  After all, there's nothing colonial at all about the "starter castles," or "McMansions" pick your own derogatory nickname that have been changing the New England landscape for over a decade now.

Supersized homes that seem to occupy every inch of property they sit on have been rapidly replacing much smaller homes in nearly every regional community's already developed neighborhoods. So it's really the popularity of such houses that's led to Fairfield and other municipalities losing their colonial atmosphere, not any proposed size limitations.

These opulent displays of wealth, with more square footage than any family could ever really need, seem to be hated by everyone except the people buying them. Indeed, at the same time as these oversized homes are readily selling, many communities are struggling to place size limits on such construction.  One such community is Fairfield, where the Town Plan and Zoning Commission is considering placing height limits on homes.

This effort began with a petition filed with the TPZ last fall by a group of 46 residents who are fed up with McMansions in their neighborhoods. They asked the commission to consider such restrictions.  In a public hearing on the issue this week, TPZ members indicated a preference for reducing the maximum permitted height of houses in three residential districts from 40 to 32 feet.  [NOTE:  Weston is 2 1/2 stories or 35 ft.in 2 acre residential & farming zone--the only zone in town other than "floating"
Neighborhood Shopping District zone.]

This reasonable restriction would still allow for building rather large, two-story homes, but not huge structures. It would not hurt anyone to follow this height limitation.       The TPZ could vote on the height restriction when it next meets on April 13 at McKinley School in Fairfield.  We applaud the TPZ's efforts to place modest limits on oversized houses and hope other communities act likewise.  No matter what you call them, McMansions hurt the character of the neighborhoods they're in and border on suburban disaster.

"It's expensive to live in Bridgeport," said Tanisha Jenkins, a 32-year-old single mother.  "I've always worked, but I've gone through two layoffs," said Jenkins, who last year started a new job that pays less than she is used to.  Jenkins, who lives with her 4-year-old daughter in a one-bedroom apartment on Charles Street, has worked for nearly a year as a team leader in the patient billing group at Dianon Systems' medical testing laboratory in Stratford.

"There are people who are getting up every day and working they're just looking to be able to keep a roof over their heads," said Carla Miklos, director of family assets for Bridgeport-based nonprofit Family Services Woodfield.  In Connecticut, a person needs to earn $18 an hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment. That earned the state the   rank of sixth on the list of least affordable states, behind Massachusetts ($22.40);  California ($21.18); New Jersey ($19.74); New York ($18.87); and Maryland ($18.85).

In 2002, Connecticut's average was $17.03. The 5.70 percent increase between 2002 and 2003 was the fifth highest in the nation, according to the report.  In the Bridgeport area, the "housing wage" is $17.31 per hour, according to the Connecticut Housing Coalition, which provided the local news release about the report. CHC reported fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $900 a month.

While the Bridgeport figure showed the largest jump since the last survey, it was hardly the most expensive in the state.  The Stamford-Norwalk area is tops. The fair-market rate for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,493; residents need to earn $28.71 to afford that rent, according to the study. New London-Norwich is cheapest, with a fair-market rent of $797 and a necessary hourly wage of $15.33.

Miklos said rising taxes in Bridgeport, plus more expensive housing in lower Fairfield County, probably contributed to the jump in the area's housing wage.  The majority of landlords, said Miklos, need to raise their rents to cover their taxes.  Also, according to Miklos, residents driven north by the higher cost of rents in the Stamford area can push up costs around Bridgeport, because they are willing to pay more than existing residents.

"Anytime we create housing in Bridgeport, that's a good thing," said Miklos when asked if she thought the Downtown North project, which would eventually add between 400 and 500 rental units, would ease the costs. While she said those units would be one-bedroom apartments, Miklos thinks that might encourage some single people     living in two-bedroom apartments to move and make room for more families.

Jenkins, who wants to stay in Bridgeport to be near family, said she would like to move to a two-bedroom apartment.  She goes through spurts of activity when she looks, but said that whenever she has the money to pay first and last month's rent plus security, another expense will arise.  Jenkins said she is particular about the neighborhoods in which she will look. Not only does she want someplace safe, but she also wants to be near a good school, because her daughter starts kindergarten next year.

She and her mother are considering moving in together in order to save money and afford a better place, said Jenkins.  "Things will get better but for now I'm just making do with what I have."

A state agency charged with creating affordable housing is being accused of promoting segregation by the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, which argues that the agency finances too many low-income apartments in already poor and largely minority neighborhoods.

In a state lawsuit, the CCLU argues that the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, which administers a federal tax credit program to encourage the construction of low-income apartments, approves too many proposals in "racially concentrated neighborhoods" that are already overburdened with poverty.  Concern over segregated neighborhoods is paramount, lawyers say, in light of the state's obligation to desegregate the Hartford schools through a new settlement in the Sheff vs. O'Neill case.

But the CCLU case could become less relevant. The federal tax credit plan, which has prodded corporations to invest in hundreds of low-income rental apartments in Hartford since 1987, could become less appealing to corporate investors if a tax cut plan proposed by President Bush in January is approved in its current form.  Philip D. Tegeler, CCLU's legal director, said the case has merit regardless of what happens to the federal tax credit plan and he is going forward with the lawsuit filed in December. He is less concerned about the future of the tax credit program than with how the state has managed it, he said.

According to the lawsuit, CHFA has approved proposals for low-income apartments with little regard for the neighborhoods.  "It's one of the reasons why we have segregated schools in this state," Tegeler said. "It's another example of a government agency that has been supporting the system, but has not taken serious efforts to address the problem of segregation. Our case says they have an obligation to do that under state law."  Carol DeRosa, a housing authority spokeswoman, declined comment.

The plaintiff in the case is, essentially, Hartford's Asylum Hill neighborhood, where, over the protests of residents, the housing authority approved corporate tax credits valued at $260,786 in 2001, to build 21 apartments on Huntington Street. The approval came one year after the agency approved $435,867 worth of tax credits to build 45 apartments on the same street. Together, the suit says, the two projects "represent a substantial additional concentration of low-income families."

The lawsuit's plaintiffs are the Asylum Hill Problem Solving Revitalization Association, a local civic group, and Adrienne Brown, described as "a low-income African American resident" of Asylum Hill.  According to the suit, filed in Hartford Superior Court, the housing authority has no rules that restrict how many low-income developments they can approve in racially concentrated, high-poverty areas. As a result, the suit says, the housing agency has contributed to school overcrowding, school segregation and lower home ownership rates in the Asylum Hill neighborhood.

The lawsuit cites the latest census, which estimates that almost 90 percent of Asylum Hill residents are black or Latino and 40.9 percent of the residents are below the federal poverty level.  Asylum Hill had a 47 percent increase in poverty in the 1990s, adding 1,200 people who are below the poverty line.  That mounting concentration of poverty damages neighborhoods, the state civil liberties group says. The organization says the housing agency needs to allocate low-income tax credits in a way that helps to dilute poverty, instead of concentrating it.

"This kind of low-income tax credit never turns up in Avon or Canton or West Hartford or any of the suburbs," said Bernie Michel, chairman of the Asylum Hill Neighborhood Revitalization Zone. "What we're trying to do in Asylum Hill is to promote diversity."

The low-income tax credit has been responsible for creating 1.5 million apartments nationwide - virtually all low-income housing built - since 1986. Locally, the housing agency administers it by considering competing proposals for apartment projects from developers, then deciding which projects are most deserving of the federal tax credits.  Developers who get the credits sell them to corporations, which use them to offset their federal taxes. As a byproduct, those corporations help pay for housing projects that might not otherwise be built.

President Bush's proposal, as written, is basically a disincentive for corporations to invest in low-income housing. The plan would eliminate taxes on investment dividends, meaning shareholders would not have to pay a tax on their earnings if the company had already paid taxes on the corporate level. Under the plan, if a company takes advantage of the housing tax credit, the tax reduction would not be passed on to the shareholder, said Tony Lyons, vice president of the New Haven office of the National
Equity Fund.

If the Bush tax plan is approved, Lyons said corporations would pay much less for each credit, and as a result, fewer housing projects would be built.  Before filing suit, Hartford neighborhood leaders sought a moratorium on state assistance for low-income housing in poor Hartford neighborhoods and new policies to reduce the concentration of poverty. Tegeler said the housing agency refused to negotiate for a moratorium. 

The housing crisis that now faces Southeastern Connecticut is an echo of the housing difficulties the region grappled with in the late 1980s. Now, as then, the region faces
rising home prices, high rents and limited availability.

But there are two important differences.

The region then had 11,000 more manufacturing jobs. They paid high wages that enabled people to better afford higher housing costs. Southeastern Connecticut has
added plenty of jobs since, but most are service jobs that pay far less than manufacturing employment. A result: People are spending a staggering amount of money – for some, up to 70 percent of their take-home pay — to pay for shelter.

The state of Connecticut in the late 1980s spent tens of millions of dollars on housing programs. The state government today spends only 10 percent of what it did on housing a little over a decade ago, housing developers say.

The challenge is daunting.

The area will require the development of an additional 5,100 housing units by 2005 to keep up with demand, according to a recent analysis of conducted by the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments.

That means the area will need in the next three years as many units as were built in 10 years in the 1990s.

There's little choice about this. Without more affordable housing, people will suffer and the economy will stall.

The news isn't all bad. The area is much more prepared to act regionally today than it was 15 years ago. The fact that the Council of Governments took a leadership role in putting together a housing study is an encouraging sign. The study has helped lay the groundwork for creating solutions.

But it can't be done solely by COG.

Several issues must be addressed.

The state must take a more active role. Timothy Coppage, deputy commissioner for the Department of Economic and Community Development promised that if the region
comes up with an approach for developing more affordable housing, the state will do everything it can to help.  The region should hold the department to that promise. And given the need, Connecticut should also make a greater commitment to housing programs statewide.

The legislature should back off plans to take money from the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority to plug the deficit. The legislature is seeking $85 million over two years from CHFA.

Last year, the CFHA made $40 million from lending low-interest mortgages to Connecticut residents and other programs it runs and it put that money back into housing
programs. But that won't happen if the legislature takes the money to balance the budget.

Suburbs must share the burden. New London City Manager Richard Brown was right on target when he said, at a recent Day forum on housing, “There's no mechanism for sharing the responsibility or the burden. Until we have that, we rely upon the kindness of our neighbors.”

The cities have already done plenty. Each town should have a plan on how to offer affordable housing not simply because it is the right thing to do, but so that town
employees can afford to live close to work and children can someday raise their families in their own hometowns.

There should be a form of one-stop shopping both for interested citizens who want to know whether or not they qualify for a Connecticut housing program that could help them pay for an apartment or a home. Norwich City Councilor Jacqueline Plowden was eloquent about the maddening amount of time she had to spend to research options that existed to help her when she struggled to keep a roof over her head.

Having state programs is only half the battle; the other half is putting out coherent, accessible information that lets people know help exists. There are excellent CFHA
programs for Connecticut residents, but word hasn't gotten out to enough people who qualify.

Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort Casino are both concerned about this issue, as well they should be. As the employers who have provided jobs to 24,000 people, many of whom are hardpressed to pay for housing, it is in the casinos' best interest to make available housing programs to help their employees.

State and local governments need to make it easier for developers to get permits to build affordable housing. It now takes as long as five years to get necessary permission through all the layers of state and local governments to build new housing units. No wonder there's a housing crunch; what developer would want to go through such a gauntlet?

In a larger sense, the problem of paying for housing is entangled with a whole host of other issues: The lack of mass transportation in Connecticut; restrictive zoning laws in the suburbs; the loss of manufacturing jobs; for parents, the lack of affordable child care that makes it even more difficult to pay high rents. It will take a great commitment of time and energy to solve the affordable housing problem. But the region has made a promising start. 

April 5, 2002 - 2002-R-0415 - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX COMPARISON

 By: Judith Lohman, Chief Analyst

You asked for a comparison of the annual property taxes that would be paid on a hypothetical $ 300,000 home in New  Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford and some of their wealthier suburbs based on 2001-02 mill rates. The mill rates used in this report are published by the Office of Policy and Management.

The tables below show the requested comparisons for the three cities and some of their suburbs. The tables assume that the $ 300,000 house is assessed at 70% of market value, or $ 210,000.

                                                Table 1: New Haven and Suburbs

                                             Hypothetical Tax on $ 300,000 House

Town                                      Mill Rate                                     Hypothetical Tax
 

New Haven                             34. 95                                            $ 7,340
 

Woodbridge                            31. 90                                            6,699
 

Guilford                                    31. 75                                             6,668
 

Durham                                    29. 70                                            6,237
 

Branford                                    27. 92                                            5,863
 

Madison                                    26. 26                                            5,515
 

Clinton                                        26. 09                                            5,479

                                                Table 2: Bridgeport and Suburbs

                                             Hypothetical Tax on $ 300,000 House

Town                                                     Mill Rate                                      Hypothetical Tax
 

Bridgeport                                                65. 00                                        $ 13,650
 

Easton                                                       28. 20                                        5,922
 

Wilton                                                        28. 11                                        5,903
 

Redding                                                    27. 00                                        5,670
 

Trumbull                                                    24. 00                                        5,040
 

Weston                                                        22. 42                                        4,708
 

Westport                                                    17. 20                                        3,612

                                                 Table 3: Hartford and Suburbs

                                             Hypothetical Tax on $ 300,000 House

Town                                                Mill Rate                                            Hypothetical Tax
 

Hartford                                            48. 00                                                $ 10,080
 

Simsbury                                            36. 30                                                7,623
 

West Hartford                                    35. 69                                                7,495
 

Glastonbury                                        34. 60                                                7,266
 

Wethersfield                                        32. 34                                                6,791
 

Avon                                                    25. 90                                                5,439
 

Farmington                                        25. 00                                                5,250
 

     JL: ro

Hartford — Roman Catholic Bishop Peter Rosazza got the idea for the church's most far-reaching project in recent years by looking out the window.  Rosazza, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Hartford, said the disparity between cities and suburbs in Connecticut is an issue the church cannot ignore.

From the window of his New Haven office, he sees the reality of life in one of the state's poorest cities and wonders what can be done. It's a question of politics as much as theology, but Rosazza sees it as part of the church's mission.  “That's the idea of the church: not only to stay in the sanctuary and have nice services, but to (ask) how can the lives of human beings be improved?” he said.  The Connecticut Catholic Conference is leading an effort to educate the public about the economic and quality-of-life disparities between cities and suburbs.

The CenterEdge Project, chaired by Rosazza, has recruited business leaders, environmental activists and civil liberties groups to study the effects of Connecticut's
long-term pattern of development — one that has seen unchecked growth on the fringe of metropolitan areas while core cities lost jobs and people.  A Minnesota firm has produced a series of economic and demographic maps of the state for the CenterEdge project. They show that child poverty has spread into the suburbs north and east of Hartford, and that crime rates in some suburbs are rising while declining in cities.

 “The same basic forces that are acting on Hartford and New Haven are also acting on East Hartford, Hamden and Stratford right now,” said Myron Orfield, a Minnesota state senator and authority on sprawl hired by the project.  Orfield, who has studied the problem all over the country, said Connecticut is one of the few states that is not actively addressing the issue. Massachusetts is debating regional revenue sharing, while Pennsylvania recently approved major land-use reforms, he said.

“Almost every place in the country but Connecticut is doing something,” he said.

From his perch at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, state Rep. Jefferson Davis sees similar disparities and reaches similar conclusions.  Davis, D-Pomfret, is House chairman of the Planning and Development Committee and has long been the legislature's leading advocate of regionalism. Last spring, after years of failure, he successfully sponsored a bill addressing the glaring disparities between the state's poverty-stricken cities and their wealthy suburbs.  The “municipal fiscal disparities” law identifies cities that — in comparison with the surrounding towns — have high property tax rates, low household incomes and grand lists, and declining populations.  These cities, which Davis bluntly calls “disaster areas,” qualify for special help from the state and region.  Three cities met the law's strict criteria: Hartford, Bridgeport and Waterbury.

The list was unsurprising in all but one respect: New Haven was not included. While many credit the existence of Yale University for boosting the Elm City, Davis said the real reason was more mundane: The suburbs surrounding New Haven are less well-off, comparatively, than those surrounding the state's other major cities.  With financially strapped West Haven, East Haven and Meriden in the city's regional planning area, New Haven's woes are less glaring than those of Hartford, Bridgeport and
Waterbury.

The new law does not promise any extra money to the qualifying cities. But Davis said he hopes it at least starts a dialogue about what has gone wrong in urban centers and what can be done about it.  One major stumbling block: Connecticut's fanatical adherence to the principle of home rule. There is no county government in Connecticut and only loosely affiliated regional organizations.

While there are 17 regional school districts in Connecticut, nearly everything that isn't administered by the state is run at the town level, from elections to property taxes — and there are 169 towns in Connecticut, a confoundingly large number for the third-smallest state in the union.  Home rule, like Social Security on the national level, has long been thought of as the “third rail” of Connecticut politics — touch it and die. But Davis and others say that mindset is outdated.

 “We in politics define all issues by political boundaries that are archaic,” Davis said. “We live and compete in metropolitan areas — at the national and international level. How Hartford fares affects me out in Pomfret, Marlborough — everywhere in the region. If your cities are dead, that limits the economic development of the of the whole region."

Orfield agrees.

“It's positive from a social standpoint and a business standpoint for everybody to start to think about how we can work together for a common future, rather than have 169 little boxes at war with each other,” he said.

Economic and racial segregation

In his book “Cities Without Suburbs,” former Albuquerque Mayor David Rusk argues that for Connecticut and other states, helping inner cities is not just a matter of altruism but survival.

Once a city reaches a certain level of economic and racial segregation, it no longer becomes a place to invest or create jobs — and no amount of state aid is going to turn it
around, Rusk writes. That “urban pathology” soon spreads into the suburbs, he argues.  Rusk's 1993 book identified Hartford and Bridgeport as dangerously close to the point of no return.  Since then, urban problems have only gotten worse, even as the state poured hundreds of millions of dollars into its major cities. Hartford's population declined more than 13 percent between 1990 and 2000 — one of the worst drops in the nation for cities with more 100,000 people. New Haven and New Britain each lost more than 5 percent of their population.

Loss of population is part of a dangerous spiral of rising property taxes and middle class flight, experts say. Those who are left behind are typically the poor, resulting in cities with a higher burden of social service needs and a shrinking tax base to meet them. Davis, who credits Rusk's book as an impetus, pushed the municipal disparities bill
during last year's state takeover of Waterbury's finances — an event that prompted some lawmakers to worry whether their city was next. Many told Davis they consider the law an “early warning system” to avoid another Waterbury — a label Davis rejects.

“There's nothing early about the warning,” he said. “The crisis is here.”

Regional revenue sharing

A comprehensive plan to reduce poverty and help cities would have to include regional revenue sharing and a reduction in the state's dependence on property taxes, advocates for the poor say.  “One Connecticut,” a coalition dedicated to bridging the gap between suburbs and cities, is also pushing for a state version of the federal earned-income tax credit for the working poor.

An earned-income credit based on 20 percent of the federal law would pump in nearly $5 million to low-income residents in Hartford, and nearly $7 million to the area, coalition members say. New Haven and Bridgeport would receive similar benefits.  Those dollars would be funneled back into the community, creating what advocates call a
cycle of hope instead of despair.  With no increase in state spending, “we can help those who are working hard to make ends meet: the working poor,” said Shelley Geballe, co-director of Connecticut Voices of Children.

Mary McAtee, executive director of the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness and a member of One Connecticut, said curbing poverty starts with the idea that it is
possible.  “We assume poverty is inevitable, and that people are poor because they are not working hard enough, and I frankly disagree with that,” she said. “If we decide that poverty is not an inevitable condition we would certainly change public policy in ways that would help people earn.” 

The Roman Catholic Church, one of the state's most influential institutions, is pursuing a public dialogue that ultimately may bump up against another central aspect of
Connecticut life: the political sanctity of city and town.

Hoping to make the state's future development an issue of social justice, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford is cobbling together a unique coalition that ranges from business groups to environmental and civil liberties organizations.

The goal of the CenterEdge Project is to educate people about the social and economic disparities created by the state's long-term pattern of development, one that has
seen unchecked growth on the fringe of metropolitan areas, while core cities lost jobs and people.  The CenterEdge Project has hired a Minnesota firm to produce a detailed series of economic and demographic maps of the state's 169 towns. They show disturbing regional trends, including the spread of child poverty into suburbs to the north and east of Hartford, and rising crime rates in some suburbs even as crime declined in the cities.

With more than 1.3 million Roman Catholics, about 41 percent of the state's population, Connecticut is one of the nation's most Catholic states. A message from the church's pulpits that suburban sprawl contributes to the problems of the cities would carry some weight.  Whether that will happen in 2002 remains unclear. Bishop Peter A. Rosazza, honorary chairman of the CenterEdge Project, says he's not sure yet whether the effort will limit itself to education, or move into lobbying for change.

But Rosazza says finding a way to reduce the disparity between cities and suburbs is a social justice issue the church cannot ignore.

Looking out of the window of his office in New Haven, he says, he sees the disparity and wonders what can be done about it. "That's at the basis of it: How can we create an environment for a healthier Connecticut, not only the `environment' in the technical term for that, but also a peaceful one where people's needs are met?" Rosazza says.

In states from Pennsylvania to Minnesota, politicians have responded to the debate of regional vs. local land-use control by forming anti-sprawl coalitions. These coalitions
unite urban interests with inner-ring suburbs facing traditionally urban problems.  No one has been able to do that in Connecticut. But the involvement of the Catholic Church at the center of a diverse coalition has buoyed advocates of regionalism.

"There are a lot of Catholics in Connecticut," said Richard Porth, executive director of the Capitol Region Council of Governments, one member of the coalition. "There are a
lot of Catholics in leadership positions in this state."

Hartford Sprawl

The West is thought to be the land of automobile-oriented sprawl. But the Hartford-New Britain-Middletown metropolitan area spread out relative to its population growth faster during the 1980s and 1990s than the metro areas of Los Angeles, Denver and Las Vegas, according to a new study by the Brookings Institution, a private research group that studies public policy. The difference is that those Western regions are adding people rapidly; Greater Hartford is simply spreading out.

Between 1982 and 1997, the amount of urbanized land in the Hartford metro area increased by 20 percent, while population density dropped by 11 percent, the Brookings
report found.  The CenterEdge Project plans to make the case that Connecticut's suburban pattern of development is impoverishing the cities while it eats away at the rural
character of the state.  The project has secured $35,000 in grants to hire Myron Orfield, a Minnesota state senator and authority on sprawl, to map out the way urban pathologies are spreading into adjacent suburbs.

Orfield's firm, Metropolitan Area Research Corp., has produced a series of maps that suggest historically urban problems, such as poverty, crime and weak tax bases, are
spreading into some suburbs. (The maps are available on the Internet at http://www.oua-adh.org/centerEdge_project.htm.)

Orfield's maps show:

                    During the mid to late 1990s, when crime was dropping in
                    Hartford and cities across the country, serious crime was
                    increasing in East Hartford and several other suburbs.

                    Child poverty is going suburban, too. School districts
                    along I-91 north of Hartford as far as Windsor Locks, and
                    along I-84 and I-384 east of Hartford as far as Bolton and
                    Coventry, are seeing increases in the percentage of
                    students eligible for subsidized lunches.

                    Some suburbs bordering Hartford are losing ground,
                    compared with the rest of the region, in their ability to
                    provide services as their social needs increase and their
                    tax bases don't keep pace.

Orfield says some Hartford suburbs are following a pattern found across the country. As jobs and wealth move to the outer fringe of a metropolitan region, and poorer people move from the city in search of a better life, older suburbs have an increasingly tough time paying for the services they must provide.

"The same basic forces that are acting on Hartford are acting on East Hartford, Manchester, Bloomfield and Windsor," Orfield said. "The same factors are fully operative in this band of suburbs next to Hartford. It's the same."

The CenterEdge Project is asking educational and arts organizations to submit proposals that could range from a TV documentary to an interactive website to spread the
message about Orfield's findings.

Religious Regionalism

Churches have played a key role in regional efforts to reduce the disparities around a number of depressed cities. In Detroit, an interfaith organization of 64 congregations
called MOSES (Metropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength) pushed for creation of a regional transportation authority now being considered by the Michigan legislature.  In Cleveland, Roman Catholic Bishop Anthony Pilla issued a public challenge to suburban sprawl, saying it damaged the environment, weakened the social fabric of communities and ran contrary to social justice. A regional diocesan land-use committee promoted development that was "economically, environmentally, socially, and morally responsible."

Churches "bring a strong suburban membership to the table," Orfield said. "They bring the moral issue to the table, too, which nobody else really can. ... They ask: `How
moral is it for black middle-class homeowners to be steered to certain suburbs?' There are a lot of questions that nobody can answer, and they can ask them in a way that nobody else can."

During his decade as a pastor in Hartford, and in his more recent years living and working in New Haven, Rosazza said he could not ignore the evidence before his eyes of the cities growing poorer and emptier while open land was consumed on the edge of the region.

"It at least adds to the question of pollution, contamination of water," Rosazza said. "When [developing suburbs] start asking for infrastructure, sewers and those things, who pays for that? It's the state, and it seems to me resources could be better used in Hartford, New Haven or Bridgeport, rather than out there."

Rosazza said he would not oppose having the CenterEdge Project enter the political debate if coalition members choose to do that.  In addition to the Office of Urban Affairs for the Archdiocese of Hartford, the CenterEdge coalition includes the MetroHartford Economic Growth Council , the Connecticut Citizens Action Group, the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, the Capitol Region Council of Governments, the Bridgeport Regional Business Council and the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union.

By JENNIFER LOVEN
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Oct. 2) - A one-bedroom apartment is cheaper in Arkansas than in any other state. Yet even there, the income from a minimum-wage job is too little to afford a roof over a family's head, an advocacy group's analysis of government statistics says.

The average U.S. worker must earn at least $11.28 an hour to afford the rent on a modest one-bedroom apartment, or $13.87 an hour for two bedrooms, according to the annual ``Out of Reach'' report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, released Tuesday.

That's less than the nation's $16.97-an-hour median paycheck in 2000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But it is far more than the minimum wage, set by federal law at $5.15 an hour but slightly higher in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Last year, 2.7 million Americans worked for the hourly minimum wage - about 2 percent of all workers, not counting those with annual salaries at the same level.

The study is based on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's determinations of ``fair market rents'' in 3,779 states, metropolitan areas and counties or New England towns. The coalition established a ``housing wage'' for each jurisdiction by calculating the earnings a person would need to pay no more than 30 percent for those rents, widely viewed as low for most markets.

HUD considers housing affordable when it costs 30 percent or less of gross income. Almost a third of American households pay more, a recent report by Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies found.

The coalition analysis concluded that the gap between a minimum-wage salary and the cost of housing is widening almost everywhere. The Washington-based advocacy group issues the report to challenge the idea that the minimum wage is adequate to cover living expenses.

Bob Hull sees that every day in his work with a nonprofit housing assistance group in South Dakota, another of the more-affordable states. Many of his clients spend as much as two-thirds of their income from two or more jobs for a place to live, he said.

``It just doesn't stretch,'' said Hull, executive director of the Northeastern South Dakota Community Action Program in Sisseton, S.D. ``So something has to give, like maybe health insurance, maybe they are driving an old car that costs a lot in repairs or maybe they have to go without medicine. ... I really don't know how they do it.''

Average two-bedroom apartments were most expensive in California and the mid-Atlantic region of the East Coast, while those in Puerto Rico and much of the South were cheapest, the report showed.

A minimum-wage worker in some parts of Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arkansas would come closest to affording a one-bedroom unit. In Arkansas, the worker would need to earn $6.99 an hour.

Parts of the nation face a continuing shortage of affordable housing. HUD has documented a shortage of rentals available to the poorest Americans that is most acute in the West and Northeast.

Part of the problem is fewer affordable housing units being developed. Another factor is the recent economic boom that sent rents through the roof.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., chairman of the Senate housing subcommittee, said the report shows the impact of years of declining federal funding for affordable housing. He pledged to seek a role for low-income housing in the economic stimulus plan being now formulated by the White House and Congress.

AP-NY-10-02-01 1628EDT

sHB 5434 (as amended by House "A")*

AN ACT CONCERNING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE APPEALS PROCEDURE

SUMMARY:

This bill makes several changes to the affordable housing appeals procedure law. It extends, from three to four years, the length of an
appeals procedure moratorium a town can obtain. It also extends, by one year, any moratorium in effect on the bill's effective date
(October 1, 2002). By law, a town qualifies for a moratorium by obtaining a certification from the economic and community development
commissioner showing it meets a specific threshold of affordable housing units created since 1990.

The bill also adds deed-restricted mobile manufactured homes and accessory ("in-law") apartments to the list of affordable housing units
that count toward a town earning an exemption from the appeals procedure. The deed restriction must (1) be recorded on the land record;
(2) last 10 years; and (3) require the units to be sold or rented at prices so that individuals or families, whose income is at most 80% of the
median income, will pay no more than 30% of their income. It requires the commissioner to produce model deed restrictions that satisfy
these appeals procedure requirements.

Finally, the bill eliminates the owner-occupied requirement for local-option property tax credits triggered by an affordable housing deed
restriction.

*House Amendment "A" adds deed-restricted mobile homes and accessory apartments to the list of affordable housing units that count
toward a town earning an appeals procedure exemption. It also requires the commissioner to produce model deed restrictions that satisfy
the appeals procedure restriction requirements and permits towns to waive deed restriction filing fees.

It also restores the exemption for affordable housing proposals from open space, parks, and playground zoning requirements. This leaves
current law unchanged. The original bill made such housing proposals subject to these local requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2002

MOBILE HOMES AND ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

To count toward an appeals procedure exemption, mobile homes must be located in a mobile home park, and accessory apartments must
be "legally approved," presumably through local zoning procedures.

The bill defines an "accessory apartment" as a separate living unit that:

1. is attached to the primary unit of a house that has the external appearance of a single-family residence,

2. has a full kitchen,

3. has square footage no greater than 30% of the house footage;

4. has an internal doorway connecting the two units,

5. is not billed separately from the primary unit for utilities, and

6. complies with building code and health and safety regulations.

DEED RESTRICTION CHANGES

Removes Owner-Occupied Requirement for Local Tax Credits

The bill eliminates the owner-occupied requirement for local-option property tax credits triggered by an affordable housing deed
restriction. Under current law, a town may adopt an ordinance providing such credits to owner-occupants of single-family or multi-family
dwellings who place long-term affordable housing deed restrictions on the dwellings. By law, the deed restrictions must be covenants or
restrictions filed on the land record requiring the dwellings to be sold or rented only to people whose income is 80% or less of the area or
state median income, whichever is less. The restriction must last 40 years and cannot be revoked by the owner or subsequent owner until it
expires.

Binding and Recorded Restrictions

The bill specifies that in order to count toward the procedure exemption, deed restrictions to keep units affordable must be binding and
recorded on the land record.

Fee Waiver

The bill permits towns to waive any fee that would otherwise be required to file an affordability deed restriction on the town land records.

BACKGROUND

Appeals Procedure

Under the procedure, a town bears the burden of proving certain facts in court if a developer appeals its decision rejecting a proposed
affordable housing development. (Normally, developers bear this burden in land-use appeals. ) The procedure applies to towns with less
than 10% of their housing stock in affordable housing, as defined by law. Currently, the procedure applies to 137 towns, with the
remaining 32 towns exempt (because they have at least 10% of their housing stock certified as affordable).

Procedure Moratorium

A town qualifies for a moratorium each time it adds certain types of affordable housing units that equal 2% of the total number of housing
units it had as of the last 10-year census or 75 unit-equivalent points, whichever is greater. A unit-equivalent point is the value the law
assigns to types of units. The lower the income level of the unit's tenant or buyer, the more points are awarded for that unit. For example,
family units restricted for tenants with incomes at or below 80% of median income are awarded one and one-half points each. When the
income level is restricted to 60% and 40% median, the units are awarded two and two and one-half points each, respectively.

Legislative History

The House referred the bill (File 261) to the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee on April 10, and the committee reported it
favorably on April 17.

COMMITTEE ACTION

Select Committee on Housing

Joint Favorable Substitute Change of Reference

 Yea         10
 Nay          2
 

Planning and Development Committee

Joint Favorable Report

 Yea         17
 Nay          0
 

Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

Joint Favorable Report

 Yea         45
 Nay           0

                   Resident Requests Reopening Of Avalon Decision

                    By Michael C. Juliano mjuliano@bcnnew.com

                    A week after the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of AvalonBay Communities'
                    application for a 189-unit condominium complex on Hollow Tree Ridge Road's former D'Addario
                    property, Darienite and environmental engineer Dot Kelly has submitted to P&Z a letter
                    requesting another hearing on "Condition BB, contending P&Z had approved the application after
                    receiving false information on the property.

                    Drafted in December 1998, "Condition BB states "In evaluating this application, the Planning and Zoning Commission
                    has relied on information provided by the applicant. If such information subsequently proves to be false, deceptive,
                    incomplete and/or inaccurate, this permit shall be modified, suspended or revoked by the Commission. As part of her
                    request, Ms. Kelly said she is requesting another hearing because "the Connecticut DEP Remediation Staff has provided
                    information indicating that AvalonBay's pond sediment testing and the freshwater compliance levels were incomplete
                   and/or inaccurate.

                    Furthermore, Ms. Kelly told P&Z, "Based on my description of the information in AvalonBay's sediment sampling report,
                    the DEP sediment specialist, Traci Iott, reported that the bottom sediment samples did not meet the minimum solids
                    content required for sediment samples and therefore should have been reported on a dry-weight basis.

                    In addition, the appropriate screening values for bottom samples taken from the top six inches of sediment would be
                    based on aquatic life receptors, Ms. Kelly said. The screening values she would use for lead are the threshold effect
                    level, of 35.8 parts per million dry weight, and the probable effect level of 128 parts per million dry weight. As a
                    reminder, when corrected for dry weight, all six of the bottom sediment samples were above the 128 parts per million
                    probable environmental concentration screening level and therefore, were obviously above the 35.8 parts per million
                    threshold environmental concentration screening level.

                    Furthermore, Ms. Kelly said that Ms. Iott reported that sediment sampling is done to evaluate two conditions: human
                    exposure and aquatic receptors. The location and depth of the sediment samples taken at the pond were proper for
                    aquatic life receptors. The Connecticut remediation program recommends testing for human health exposure of
                    sediments in water bodies at shallow depths typically less than 2 feet of water by taking core samples to a depth of two
                    feet in the sediment. For this type of sampling, the direct exposure criteria are used as the compliance standard (which
                    is 500 parts per million for lead. According to Ms. Kelly, Ms. Iott also questioned the surface water standard that had
                    been used at the pond. According to Ms. Iott, the freshwater aquatic life criteria for lead is 1.2 parts per million, not the
                   8.1 parts per million level listed in the quarterly monitoring report of July 2002. In the July report, the outlet from the
                    pond was 18 parts per billion while the inlet was "non-detect. Using the freshwater aquatic life criteria, the outlet was
                    more than 10 times above the water quality standard. This leads one to suspect that the pond has a continuing source
                    of toxic lead contamination. Surprisingly, no analysis of the pond water itself has been reported, Ms. Kelly said.

                    In a letter written Wednesday to P&Z Director Jeremy Ginsberg as a preface to the Oct. 8 letter, Ms. Kelly wrote:
                    "Yesterday I spoke with John England of the DEP waste permits branch and Doug Zimmerman head of the DEP
                    remediation branch for this part of the state. As you could see from the memo I submitted requesting that P&Z hold a
                    hearing to take action on Condition BB, I copied both John England and Doug Zimmerman on the September 24, 2002
                    letter describing information learned from DEP after the hearing had closed. Mr. England confirmed that Traci Iott was a
                    sediment specialist for DEP, that they had spoken last week and that he offered to have her review any of the
                    documents in his possession regarding the site.

                    He also commented that he had not spoken to any consultants related to this project in regards to sediment sampling
                    or sediment standards. (I asked him this to find out if either Carver Glezen or Bob Lamonica were referring to him
                    when t hey stated in the public hearing that they had spoken with "DEP in reference to the sediment information in my
                    letter for the September 4 hearing.) Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that Ms. Iott was the sediment specialist and any
                    recommendations she made he supported. He did say that the remediation branch would give guidance to the Darien
                    P&Z on specific issues, (perhaps like proper sediment testing or whether they recommend testing for buried [oil]
                    drums.) However, if a wholesale review of the testing done to date was desired, he recommended that the project
                    enter into the "voluntary remediation program which the legislature created 10 years ago for this type of purpose.

                    "The Planning and Zoning Commission looked at the October 8 letter at the meeting last night and wondered who these
                    people at DEP are and if what I was sayinhg was true, Ms. Kelly said over the phone yesterday.

                    According to Zoning Enforcement Officer David Keating, the commission has asked either him and Mr. Ginsberg to
                    determine DEP's official stance on the proper testing method for contaminants, at the request of Ms. Kelly, even though
                    AvalonBay and the Town's licensed environmental professionals, Triton Environmental Consultants' Carver Glezen and
                    Robert Lamonica respectively, have deemed their testing methods and the results to be satisfactory. Neither AvalonBay
                    spokesperson Lee Feldman nor AvalonBay Vice President Mark Forlenza returned phone messages placed yesterday
                    morning seeking comment. In other business, P&Z discussed Penelope Glassmeyer Properties' plan to redevelop Grove
                    Street in to a commercial residential Grove Street Plaza, which may include a restaurant, stores, apartments, a plaza
                    and shared municipal parking.

                    "We gave Ms. Glassmeyer feedback concerning the parking situation, which needs to be resolved, Mr. Ginsberg said
                    yesterday. Mr. Ginsberg said he suggested that Ms. Glassmeyer apply for a variance, construct a rear
                    municipal-customer parking area or create a rear building line. "The commission was not in favor of a joint parking
                    agreement with the town, he said, "but the commission looked favorable upon the project as a whole are looking
                    forward to redevelopment of the property.

                   In further business, the commission discussed its proposal to redistrict Noroton Bay.

                    "We voted 4-2 to proceed with discussions, Mr. Ginsberg said. "We're trying to hash out what changes need to be
                    made. Within the last year, Noroton Bay residents have gone back and forth with P&Z over proposed changes, which
                    involve setback requirements and so forth.

"Poor government can't be fixed by spending money or by shifting the tax burden around," First Selectman Jim Lash said during the meeting in Town Hall.  He joined several other officials from Greenwich in protesting a recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Tax Burdens and Smart Growth Incentives. The report recommended reducing dependence on local property tax revenues and replacing it with increased state aid to municipalities.  Reliance on the property tax, the report said, forces local officials to encourage development to grow grand lists and increase tax revenue.

Greenwich officials said local government is well-run and efficient in its use of property tax revenues.  Greater reliance on other state revenues such as the income tax would reward poorly run local governments.  State Rep. Lew Wallace, D-Danbury, co-chairman of the legislature's Planning and Development Committee, attended the public hearing to listen to reaction to the report as part of the committee's effort to elicit comments on the report.

The Blue Ribbon report was issued in October, after over a year of study on the effect of the property tax and ways to encourage "smart growth." Several of the report's recommendations may eventually be proposed as state bills, Wallace said.  Those include providing training to local tax and land use decision-makers, creating an integrated view of state development trends by linking geographic information system databases and creating a split-rate property tax, which would tax land separate from buildings so development could be encouraged in some areas and discouraged in others, Wallace said.

Other proposals, especially the one Greenwich officials opposed, are unlikely to be addressed by the legislature in the short-term, he said.  "People are focused on the extremes that are not likely to happen," Wallace said.  Several elected officials from Greenwich said an increase in state aid to cities would only reward areas that have squandered their resources.

Lash used Bridgeport as an example of a city that, with its coastal location, has many resources but an ineffective government.  State Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, used Hartford as his example.  "Education is immensely well funded in Hartford and it is deplorable," he said.  "The police department has had many arrests and I mean, in the police department."

The report says the urban centers have the infrastructure to support further development and should be encouraged to do so. The problem, however, is that they have lost many of their middle-class residents to the suburbs, resulting in sprawl, according to the report. But Greenwich officials said shifting the tax burden won't solve that problem.

"Today, Connecticut cities do not attract and retain a healthy middle class," Nickerson said. "No amount of tax shifting will bring a different result."  Janet Lockton, a former state representative of the 149th District in Greenwich, said rather than shifting tax burdens, the state should offer incentives to encourage middle-class residents and businesses to move to the cities.

Some of her proposals were to waive payment of income tax for residents living in the most dire urban areas and the reduction of corporate taxes for business that       moved there. Those measures would then increase the property tax coffers of those areas.  "A healthy community is a vital community that can pay its taxes," Lockton said.

"We've got to make more people move into Bridgeport and our inner cities." 

Several housing authorities in lower Fairfield County think a proposed change in rent standards set by the federal government won't be fair.

Fair market rents, published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, represent the average rent for an apartment and utilities in an area. The amounts would change Oct. 1.

HUD wants to lump the entire county together, instead of separating cities by housing markets -- areas with similar housing characteristics that compete for renters and buyers.

Now that counties will be considered one housing market, average rent standards will decrease in areas with higher-priced housing and increase in areas with lower-priced housing, meeting at the same median price.

For example, according to posted rates, the average rent for a one bedroom is $800 in Bridgeport and $1,200 in Stamford.

HUD's new fair market rent for a one bedroom would be $950, causing the average estimated rates to increase for Bridgeport and decrease for Stamford.

The changes would come at the same time as a proposed $1.2 billion cut to HUD's Section 8 voucher program.

The estimates would affect tenants in the Section 8 and moderate-rent programs by altering eligibility requirements, which depend on the income of each tenant.

The new rents also would decrease the amount of money landlords could collect because Section 8 landlords can't charge more than amounts set by HUD.

"The concern is that landlords would choose to no longer participate in the program and have hundreds of families without housing or families that have to move from their choice communities," said Candace Mayer, deputy director for the Norwalk Housing Authority. "It would be shocking if everyone still chose to participate in the program."

In a collective letter to HUD, Stamford, Norwalk and Greenwich housing authorities asked that the state not be redistricted and the rates be frozen until the impact can be reviewed.

This is the first time HUD is calculating the rates using 2000 Census data and new Office of Management and Budget geographical definitions. HUD establishes new fair market rent benchmarks every 10 years based on the Census.

HUD spokeswoman Kristine Foye said Connecticut is behind other states in adopting the county model.

"They're trying to bring New England more in line with the rest of the country," she said. "Here in New England, nine additional surveys will be done to check accuracy of the proposed fair market rents." The surveys will have some bearing on the change but how much is not known yet.

Fair market rents, or the amount HUD says it will give Section 8 landlords for rent subsidies, will be $787 for an efficiency apartment; $950 for a one bedroom; $1,100 for a two-bedroom; $1,316 for a three-bedroom; and $1,725 for a four-bedroom.

About 1,000 families in Stamford and 770 in Norwalk rely on the affected programs. Greenwich housing officials did not return calls last week.

Stamford housing officials said they aren't sure what the impact will be until they do more research.

"We are strategizing with other housing authorities," said Richard Fox, Stamford housing director. "It's premature to even talk about this."

Mayer said that, for some tenants paying the existing affordable housing estimate, 30 percent of their income, is already a hardship.

The changes immediately would affect tenants who decide to move. Those who don't move would be affected during their annual recertification period, Mayer said.

Mayer said some tenants may move out of housing complexes in Stamford, Norwalk and Greenwich to areas such as Bridgeport, which would see an increase in amounts to help cover inflated costs created by the new standards. Bridgeport's fair market rates would increase more than $300 for four-bedroom apartments, according to HUD data.

"It doesn't accurately reflect their market, either," Mayer said. "They certainly don't want to pay over the value of units in a fair market."

In housing authorities where budgets have stayed flat, fewer participants would be funded if the rents go up, she said.

HUD notes that areas with substantial increases in fair market rents may find they have insufficient funding for programs. It says those housing authorities can apply for an "exception" that would lower their fair market rents. So if a city such as Bridgeport applied for this program, it could maintain its rents at current levels.

The Norwalk Housing Authority, which oversees a relatively affluent market, is predicting that it will lose $3 million annually, that local landlords will leave the popular housing voucher program, and that tenants will be left homeless.  Under Section 8, tenants pay 30 percent of their gross income toward rent, and HUD pays the private landlord the difference up to the established "fair-market rent." In October, many of those fair-market rents could change dramatically, when counties rather than often-smaller housing markets are used to calculate them.

Under the redistricting, Greenwich, Norwalk and Stamford will be merged with other Fairfield County communities. The move is expected to drop fair-markets rent for those and other relatively affluent communities, while raising fair-market rents in poorer communities such as Bridgeport.  In Norwalk, the HUD fair-market rent for a one-bedroom apartment would drop from $1,225 to $950. That's a $275 loss in guaranteed income to the private landlord participating in the Section 8 program.
Candace E. Mayer, Norwalk Housing Authority deputy director, fears that landlords put in such circumstances will stop taking Section 8 tenants, and recapture their losses by renting to others who can pay $1,225 (see related story).

"It's up to the landlords whether they want to participate in the program. Will landlords continue to participate in the program with the lower rent standards?" Mayer asks. "It's hard to imagine that this will not lead to people being homeless." A HUD spokesman reminded that the redistricting comes at the request of the federal Office of Management and Budget, and remains a proposal, as the department continues to solicit input.  Still, HUD is scheduled to implement the redistricting in less than a month. On Oct. 1, fair-market rents are scheduled to be based on counties rather than "cities and towns sharing similar housing and market characteristics," according to the Norwalk Housing Authority.

"The Northeast really doesn't operate on counties," Mayer said.  Mayer said 770 Norwalk families participate in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and Moderate Rehabilitation Single-Room Occupancy programs. Most are in the Section 8 program; both programs use fair-market rents.  Under the redistricting, HUD fair-market rents for Norwalk would drop from $1,225 to $950 for a one-bedroom; from $1,493 to $1,100 for a two-bedroom; from $2,001 to 1,316 for a three-bedroom; and from $2,210 to $1,725 for four-bedroom apartments, if the city is merged with Fairfield County, Mayer said.

Norwalk Mayor Alex Knopp said state housing advocates expressed to him their concerns about the redistricting and its effects. Knopp described the Section 8 program as attractive to tenants and landlords alike because it works through fair-market rent availability.  "The change in the procedure of Section 8 is very disturbing because it means that by a stroke of the federal government's pen, Norwalk's supply of affordable rental housing undergoes a dramatic decrease," Knopp said. "That will make it much more difficult for low-income renters to find the right match between their Section 8 certificates and market rentals." Knopp said he and other mayors will continue to protest the redistricting by expressing their concerns about its impact on their communities.

The Norwalk, Greenwich and Stamford Housing authorities -- all anticipated losers in the redistricting -- meanwhile have written HUD and elected officials, asking them to maintain existing districts and explore options other than calculating fair-market rents county-by-county.

In the letter, the executive directors of the three agencies recommend applying for special appropriations to restore fair-market rents to 2004 levels, seeking support from elected officials and performing local rent studies.  The Council of Large Public Housing Agencies wants HUD to examine countywide fair-market rents, develop fair-market rents "using more appropriate jurisdictions and more appropriate housing cost and income data," or that failing, to adjust the new county-based fair-market rents as needed.

Kristine Foye, HUD New England spokeswoman, said the redistricting -- based on the 2000 Census -- is not yet finalized.  Foye acknowledged that some communities are concerned about losing HUD money as a result of redistricting. But she also noted that other municipalities would receive more dollars. And Foye reminded that the fair-market rents will be implemented only after hearing comment.  Foye said some new fair-market rent definitions will take effect Oct. 1, based on comments heard through Sept. 7. Additional changes might come after the extended public comment period ends in early November.

"It's just a proposal at this point," Foye said. "We're declining comment on specific areas until all the comments are in, until this is no longer a proposal, until it's set in stone." That said, Foye suggested that lower-income areas will fare well from the redistricting. She said fair-market rents for other cities, such as Bridgeport, would rise under the proposed redistricting.  In Bridgeport, fair-market rents would rise from $748 to $950 for a one-bedroom; from $900 of $1,100 for a two-bedroom; from $1,126 to $1,316 for a three-bedroom; and from $1,404 to $1,725 for four-bedroom apartments, said Patsy Michelle, Bridgeport Housing Authority Section 8 housing director.
Those additional dollars, in theory, would be an incentative for private landlords to participate in the housing voucher program. Michelle sees the redistricting benefiting and hurting Bridgeport. She welcomes the additional money to serve 2,750 Section 8 families in Bridgeport, but fears that applicants might not meet the higher guidelines, that HUD cannot deliver the extra dollars and that rental costs overall will rise.

"It's good to increase, but not so overboard as this to cause the program jeopardy. It could boost rents very high for my participants (and) also my non-participants," Michelle said.  Michelle said the Bridgeport Housing Authority is consulting with other housing agencies to "let HUD know our individual plights and concerns." Some view the redistricting as a politically driven overhaul of HUD by the Bush administration. They say the redistricting will shift money from cities to suburbs, and from the Northeast to the South and Southwest.

"In my HUD circles, I've heard some people grumbling about it. (They say) it's another way the feds and current administration are trying to squeeze the HUD budget," said Munro Johnson, Norwalk Redevelopment Agency block grant manager. The Redevelopment Agency administers HUD community development block grants on behalf of the city for low- and middle-income housing and community development projects. In that respect, the redistricting will affect housing rehabilitation.

"When we do a rehabilitation on a house, we use the fair-market rents as parameters. If a (landlord) comes to us for a loan to fix up a house, he has to rent out his units at fair-market rents," Johnson said. Lower fair-market rents "will be a disincentive to participate in our program."

U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th District, praises the effort to create conformity, but concludes that the redistricting is wrong for his district. He predicts it will cause "severe disruption" for his constituents, and has asked HUD to hold off on its implementation and to freeze current fair-market rents for a defined period of time.  In a letter Friday to Michael Liu, assistant secretary for public and Indian housing at HUD, Shays voiced his concerns.

"Although Stamford, Norwalk and Greenwich are in the same county as Bridgeport, these cities have vastly different economic situations that create wide disparities in housing costs," Shays wrote. "Such a realignment ... would lead to increasing concentrations of poverty, reversing years of efforts to the contrary, including Stamford's highly successful ongoing development of mixed-income housing projects."