To the Editor:
I understand the concerns expressed by more than a few Wiltonians about the development across from the Wilton Post Office at 12 Godfrey Pl.
For some, that’s a knock on Connecticut state statute Section 8-30g on affordable housing under which that development was constructed.
Section 8–30g came into existence because towns, especially more wealthy towns like ours, were not allowing affordable housing to grow significantly within their borders. Section 8–30g provides a safety valve when towns take that approach. In the case of 12 Godfrey Pl., that development was originally proposed on a smaller scale but faced opposition, causing that proposal to be withdrawn by the developer. The development was then transformed into its present scale, using Section 8-30g as the lever to accomplish that result.
In fact, there are moratoria on the application of Section 8-30g available to towns that demonstrate an intentionality in actually providing affordable housing. Wilton has enjoyed such a moratorium in the past based on our town’s efforts to expand affordable housing, with much of that effort directed towards senior-citizen affordable housing.
There are lots of ways in which Wilton can expand the number of units that are available on affordable terms. I’ve suggested an option that involves working with our state for the state to turn over land that was originally planned for expansion of Route 7 to become “Super 7” to Danbury — a plan that was successfully blocked by our town years ago. This land is along the corridor that our town’s excellent POCD has identified as suitable for congregate housing.
Why can’t we begin negotiation with the state to turn some of that land not already being used for other purposes (including athletic fields and town-storage purposes) and thus lying idle — to use for affordable housing? There are examples across our state of affordable units built on a much smaller scale than 12 Godfrey Pl. — for example, as one-and-two-story attached homes — that can work quite well for affordable housing purposes. Let the state put its own resources into what it’s advocating, in the form of this land, to work together with Wilton to develop more affordable housing.
Providing more affordable housing is a bipartisan issue in which a wide portion of our community recognizes the need to provide more affordable housing but reacts negatively when the failure to take those steps results in developments like the large 12 Godfrey Pl. structure. Now is the time to think creatively about how we expand our affordable housing to show our seriousness, not just in good intentions but in actual performance, to develop additional affordable housing. The result can help to justify a moratorium on application of Section 8–30g that could prevent another structure of that size from being part of the Wilton landscape.
As a final note, Section 8–30g’s provisions require housing affordability on a much more significant scale than the discounts from full rental rates that Wilton’s own affordable housing standards require for a developer to refer to its units as affordable. Thus, for some “Wilton affordable housing” developments, the affordable price takes a $4,000/month full rental rate down to $2,700-$3,099/month. By contrast, under Section 8–30g, the state-set rate per month ranges from caps of $1,376 to $2,201/month depending on income level, family size and unit size.
I urge us to recognize that it’s action, and not just words, that count if we are truly to have a range of affordable housing available in our community.
Steve Hudspeth