Enfield's future is being decided now

The local chapter of SURJ, which discusses and seeks solutions to Enfield's social justice and economic issues, will update the status of the town's Plan of Conservation and Development at its meeting on Wednesday.

This plan will set the direction of the town for the next decade, and it is controversial because of the direction it sets on the future of housing. This backgrounder explains some key issues and includes comments from the town's recent public hearing. The public is always invited to SURJ meetings.

SURJ MEETING WEDNESDAY

Enfield Chapter

15 March 2023

6:30-8:00 p.m.

Via Zoom link below:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82068793924...

Meeting ID: 820 6879 3924

Passcode: 664288

Enfield POCD Housing Backgrounder

Enfield is in the final stages of updating its Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). This document will set Enfield's development direction for the next decade. The most controversial area is multifamily and affordable housing. The POCD draft argues for increasing both.

The POCD recognizes that many of Enfield's homeowners and renters are paying more than 30% of their income on housing. It also sees a need for more multifamily housing to satisfy demand from single people and couples. The Town Council and PZC may oppose increasing affordable and multifamily housing recommendations.

The full document is posted on the PZC site.

Opponents view any affordable housing development as a negative. For instance, the Felician Sisters proposed a project including housing for people with a minimum income of $40,000 to $80,000. Because of special financing, it would have limited their rent to 30%. It would have created stable housing options for young people and a chance to start a family. This town and our society need more children. But well-organized opposition prompted the PZC to reject it.

A significant reason is a false belief that people receiving affordable housing benefits are considered a burden. It doesn't matter if they are working and earning a good income but can't buy a home. It's worth noting that affordable housing also includes people who buy houses under the state's CHFA mortgage program.

The opponents of the POCD draft plan are many of the same forces who opposed the Felician Sisters' plan. Their new goal is to codify their opposition to multifamily and affordable housing in the POCD.

Enfield has lost 6% of its population in the last ten years, and more people today live in one and two-person households. Our housing mix has yet to keep up with the changing demographics or the needs of our tax base.

The Town Council recently held a hearing on the POCD. What follows are some excerpts from that hearing. The first part is commentary at the hearing from Don Poland, managing director of planning and strategy, Gorman+York, an East Hartford-based consulting firm hired by the town to prepare the planning report. He has a Ph.D. in geography from University College London.

The second part includes some comments from speakers, primarily raised in opposition to plan elements.

The comments that appear in "quotes" are from Dr. Poland. Otherwise, the housing aspects are paraphrased for clarity and brevity.

Enfield's affordable housing makeup

The table on top shows that in 2021 the amount of affordable housing in Enfield was 12.4%.

These numbers change. If someone with a CHFA mortgage, for instance, sells their house and the buyer isn't using CHFA, this number declines.

U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) "defines affordability as if you're paying more than 30% of your household income on housing, then housing is unaffordable."

47% of renters pay more than 30% of income on rent

In Enfield (bottom right of chart), 23.6% of Enfield households with a mortgage pay more than 30% of income, and 47.5% of renters pay more than 30% of income. In total, 27.6% of Enfield households may more than 30% of their income on housing.

"Why is the renter number so high? Or why is there a need for housing? One of the biggest things is changes in demographics. And hopefully, these numbers shock you," Poland said.

" The fact is that 29.2% of all households are single persons and 36.7% are two persons, so 67% of your households are just one or two persons," Poland said. For renters, 40.4% of renters are one person, and 28.7% are two person or about 70%.

"Let me put this in perspective, in 1960 America only 13% of households were single persons today, 28% of households are single persons. We've changed, and single persons and two-person households need different housing than families," Poland said.

Single and two person households want alternatives

"The single person household the two person household wants alternatives to the three plus bedroom, single family detached house," Poland said.

A shift away from single family: If you go back to the early 2000s, only about 20% of housing per year constructed in Connecticut Beach was multifamily. Today it's running around 47%.

Multi-family housing increases the town's tax revenue

The top right chart shows multifamily developments in four communities and the tax revenue paid. The bottom square shows the decline in the assessed value of Enfield Square Mall.

"When commercial values depreciate the burden of the grand list shifts to the residential side. So you the residents are paying higher taxes to make up for the depreciation in value and then Enfield Square," Poland said.

"Do you want to reposition that mall? Demolish part of it, add 584 housing units to it and gain back a million dollars in revenue," Poland said.

Public comment in response to POCD

What follows is a sampling of public comment and is not exhaustive. Comments were edited for clarity and brevity and offered to support a sampling of views. The full hearing is archived on YouTube. It starts at just after 15 minutes.

Resident 1:

We are attempting to increase housing by extension, the labor pool to hopefully bring in new jobs. Hope is traditionally not a very good strategy to get the outcome that you want.

The concept of supply-side economics is being applied to human labor at the local level with an influx of labor through this policy, and its offshoot, modern monetary theory, is being applied to the currency at the macro level, which is printing money.

How will you reconcile reducing the value of labor in an inflationary environment when the citizens of this town are already strained so heavily?

Resident 2:

This was not a citizen-driven plan. When I read parts of the new plan, especially the housing section, I thought there was a typo when the acreage size for multifamily housing was changed from the current 60 acres down to five acres. I thought they must mean 50 acres. No, they meant five acres. [See page 11 appendix chart.]

How many residential parcels are over five acres in Enfield? We need this information before we've made such a big change.

Resident 3:

Putting multifamily units in the business zones is a good thing for both the businesses and the potential residents. Putting multifamily units in the industrial zone is a bad thing.

Reducing the multifamily minimum lot size from the current zoning regulation of 60 acres to five acres would be a mistake. How many five to 59-acre lots privately owned are in Enfield that would now qualify for putting in multifamily units?

My main question is basically how much do you want to increase the population? [See appendix for population projections.]

Keep in mind we already have 12% [percentage of town that is considered affordable housing] I don't want to take the burden of every town and put it into Enfield.

Resident 4: a multifamily owner, speaking about parking requirements, in part.

… 1.75 parking spaces for a unit doesn't work. I've got tons of one-bedroom units where I need two parking spaces [Desegregate Connecticut discusses parking requirements]

Resident 5:

I'm pleased to see the emphasis on affordable housing in the plan. The increase in affordable housing is important to the town in that we need places where we can house our elderly, who we have many of, and also [provide] startup places of residence for our young people leaving town. They go to Windsor Locks, and they go to Springfield and other places like that to get apartments in areas where they could live independently on their own.

Resident 6:

Opposition to accessory dwelling units. [ADUs] should not be in the plan of Conservation and Development at all. These units would become a huge issue to sewer system, water schools, roads … [See Desegregate Connecticut discussion on ADUs]

Resident 7:

The current plan is a green light to huge apartment building complexes anywhere in town there are five acres. Why are we steering citizens of this town to becoming renters and instead of encouraging private home ownership?

Appendix

The charts below are from the POCD and its drafts.