Moratorium Shenanigans

July 8, 2007

“I find it hard
to believe that
this is Mr. DiPace’s
real concern,
if you know what I mean.”

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post “Connect Dots,”:

I’m 60 years old and have live in Enfield for the past 30 years in a Starr colonial. My wife and I are tired of climbing stairs and so we are considering an active adult community and would like to stay in Town. We have been speaking to a lot of our neighbors and friends and they feel likewise.

I’ve also been reading the newspaper and following your blog and have concluded that you don’t have to go to Washington for shenanigans, there’s plenty of it right here in our own Town government.

I read in the Journal Inquirer recently that the PZC want to declare a moratorium on these active adult communities. Jose Giner is quoted as saying that there has only been four approved. I think that’s in the past five years.

Yet, the PZC Chairman, DiPace wants a moratorium because he’s worry about what to do if a developer comes in with an application for 300 units.

I have also read all of the comments on this blog on this issue and I find it hard to believe that this is Mr. DiPace’s real concern, if you know what I mean.

Let’s face it, like all kinds of housing, active adult communities are market driven. Right now, the real estate market is softer than it’s been in several years. So I don’t think anyone is going to come in with an application for 300 units of anything.

But four things are for sure: 1)as more and more of us get older (and there’s about 12,000 of us 55 or older in this Town), we want this kind of housing, 2) There’s little of it available in this Town (70 or so units as per previous comments), and 3) The economic benefit to the Town is huge, and 4) You don’t have to go to Washington for shenanigans, it’s right here, called the Moratorium Shenanigans!

Posted by Anonymous to The Cool Justice Report at 3:27 PM

  • Connect Dots
  • Advertisements

    39 Responses to “Moratorium Shenanigans”

    1. Anonymous Says:

      >> 1)as more and more of us get older (and there’s about 12,000 of us 55 or older in this Town), we want this kind of housing

      Maybe some of the 12,000 55+-ers can afford such, but when you look at the number of foreclosures in Enfield (and CT) over last year, doesn’t take a genius to see there are big problems in the current house market. Building new luxury 55+ condo housing ain’t that answer for Enfield.

      There are already too few “haves” and and way too many “have nots”. Taxes are never ending, thus not everyone wants to pay condo fees long after the mortgage is paid off.

      Give me a small Starr ranch, in an established neighborhood, anyday.

    2. Anonymous Says:

      Thank God for the old U.S. of A.

      And something called freedom of choice. You like chocolate, I like vanilla. God bless! I get upset when you want to take away my vanilla.

      Isn’t that what our country is about. The constitution doesn’t guaranty economic equality, but it does guaranty the means to get there. There will always be the have’s and the have nots. Let’s not take away our freedom of choice(s)!

      I would like the choice of age restricted living and I think the matter of the benefits to the Town have been substantially documented in previous comments.

      God Bless America!

    3. Anonymous Says:

      What about my freedom of choice to buy a house where I want? Why is all the new construction money going into 55+ communities?

      Why aren’t 55+ communities discriminatory? How is saying “55+ only” any different from saying “whites only”? Isn’t this agism? Why should the benefits of these communities be available to 55+ only?

      If these 55+ communities are so market driven, why do they all get money from the CT Housing Finance authority? Why do the taxpayers have to subsidize the construction of your house? Why shouldn’t the State of CT give me money to build a luxury mansion?

      If they’re really so market driven, why aren’t they being financed by banks?

      Last, whose going to buy your house when you die or move out? Just because the demand’s there today doesn’t mean it’s going to be there tomorrow. How do you know that what you want today will sell in 20 years? Or is this like Social Security- where one generation lives for today and leaves a mess for those behind them to clean up?

      Since these places are state financed, CT has to offer them to the “disabled” on SSI before anyone else can bid on them. The ambience of Thompsonville… coming soon to a 55+ community near you.

      The question no one has answered: where are people on fixed income gonna get the money to pay ever increasing taxes and condo fees?

    4. Anonymous Says:

      Oh my, oh my… how misinformed and do I detect a racial slurs?

      1) There is a specific exemption under the Federal Fair Housing Act for age restricted communities.

      2) Under the Federal Fair Housing Act, age restricted communities can not discrimiate based on race.

      3) Age restricted communities are not financed by the CT Housing Finance Authority.

      4) Age restricted communities are typically financed with conventional loans from banks.

      5) If you have good credit and income, you too can have your “luxury mansion” the same way as everyone else, paying interest. There’s no free lunch for these owners.

      6) If you don’t own one of these condos than I guess you don’t have to worry about who’s gona buy them 20 years from now. I wonder how Christopher Columbus would respond to that question?

      7) Do I hear a problem with the disabled too? Not in these communites because they have to follow the Federal Fair Housing Act which also prohibits discriminating against the disabled.

      8) And the clincher, the more taxes collected from these age restricted communities only improves your tax situation. Because….. tax revenues from these communities far exceed relative tax expenditures.

      So come on, be a sport.

    5. Anonymous Says:

      What racial slurs? Are you sure you aren’t writing your own biases into what I said. I’m not interested in people’s race. What I don’t like is the drug dealing, public urination, harassment, and vandalism that comes with living in a depressed neighborhood. You probably have never lived in a depressed neighborhood and wouldn’t know what it’s really like. It’s not about race. It’s about whether people follow the law and pick up after their own messes.

      If you weren’t so misinformed, you’d know that many of the people who engage in the criminal behavior are on SSI. There are a lot of people who game the system by pretending to be disabled, especially after Clinton’s welfare reform. Unfortunately, the resources for enforcement aren’t there.

      Why does the Federal Fair Housing act let communities discriminate on age but not race? Aren’t they both forms of segregation? One is allowed because developers bought off the pols?

      As to 3), why were the Taylor Road developers getting money from the Housing Finance Authority? Why were they collaborating with the Enfield Housing Authority?

      That leads me to 6. Today’s retirement paradise won’t necessarily be tomorrow’s retirement paradise. If YOUR retirement home becomes MY blight in 20 years, I’m gonna have a lot to say about it because YOUR blight will cause my property values to go down and bring the wrong kind of people to my community. Before you start point fingers again, I challenge you to name one blighted community or neighborhood that’s nice or has the right kind of people. The two go hand in hand.

      About 7, I don’t have a problem with the disabled. They shouldn’t be discriminated AGAINST. Neither should they get FAVORABLE treatment. Federal law gives them the “first right of refusal” on units that can’t be occupied by seniors. What bothers me is that they get their own private round of bidding before I can compete. Last time, I checked, that wasn’t the free market or supply and demand; it was price manipulation.

      Remember that property sticks around forever. Real esatate fads can’t be sent to the dumpster the way Tickle-Me-Elmo can when he becomes passe and no one will buy him used. Just because there’s demand now, doesn’t mean there will be demand tomorrow. Why shouldn’t we be able to convert them to regular use if we can’t find 55+ buyers down the pike?

    6. Anonymous Says:

      Anon 457 –

      You said –

      “6) If you don’t own one of these condos than I guess you don’t have to worry about who’s gona buy them 20 years from now.”

      I don’t own one of these houses but as a taxpayer I DO have to worry about it. When the folks start dying off and there is no market for them, what will become of the then vacant units? I’ll tell you what – they will become UNRESTRICTED single family dwellings adding to the amount taxpayers have to pay for schools, the most expensive part of any town’s budget.

      God forbid anyone looks AHEAD of the curve. Oh, and if you don’t beleive me…google it!

    7. Anonymous Says:

      FYI New project in the future with Frederick and (partner ???) The Village, it will be off Simon Road in Enfield. The plan is not going to be age restricted so the condo/houses can be bought by anyone. Using “Green” building which will make it a marketing plus.

    8. Anonymous Says:

      Its likely that when Starr went wild building Enfield houses in the 60s, he never envisioned an economy that would result in so many of foreclosures of his affordable housing. So what makes anyone think that 10-20 years from now the same won’t occur with these luxury units?? One can’t collect taxes from unoccupied units.

      Slapping up more condos for a growing number of retirees is about as smart as opening new schools cuz of a reported increase in births.
      Before long, rates decrease and the town is left with empty buildings/units. How many empty schools/converted schools does Enfield have now? Wanna guess at how many empty 55+ condos Enfield will have in the near future?

    9. Anonymous Says:

      >> FYI New project in the future with Frederick and (partner ???) The Village, it will be off Simon Road in Enfield

      Saw that real estate transaction recently. Where off Simon Rd? Anywhere near that proposed Scantic River park that never materialized cuz of the illegal toxic dumping?

      Ask the folks in those Simon Rd neighborhoods, near Scantic River, about health concerns of living near that mess. Plus, Parkman School is already one of the largest elementary schools in Town.

      Didn’t the Fredericks live off Simon Rd before they built their mini-development in historical section?

    10. Anonymous Says:

      >>> Using “Green” building which will make it a marketing plus.

      Yeah, building “green” is a biggie these days especially with state and federal incentives. But it still ain’t cheap. These aren’t gonna be in the price range of just any ol’buyer. No differently than buying a hybrid car.

      Plus, there are already condos across from Parkman School, and a condo-like PUD development at other end of Weymouth. Enfield just keeps shoehorning in all these condos around established neighborhoods.
      All these new condos effect existing roads, sewers, police coverage, etc.

      Frankly, I’d prefer to see Enfield open spaces preserved and natural wild life thrive, as opposed to condo wild life! That’s my say cuz yes, this is America! Gotta love it.

    11. Anonymous Says:

      >> as more and more of us get older (and there’s about 12,000 of us 55 or older in this Town), we want this kind of housing

      “We want, we want, we want”. C’mon.
      And what happens when these 12,000 can no longer stay in their luxury 55+ condos for a variety of health reasons. Does that mean taxpayers/ the town then have to build assisted living units cuz “we want” that kind of housing next??

      Perhaps ya should consider moving to Suffield where various upscale housing is already available.

    12. Anonymous Says:

      the writer above has confused active 55 housing with subsidized or low income housing.

      The aging rate only drops when the birth rate has steadily declined for decades. Everyone ages … think about your arguement – how old will you be in 20 years? Personally I’ll be 60 and guess what — there are people even younger than I am now. It appears you will always have a market – we haven’t even burned through the baby boomers yet.

      I’m not stating that you need tons of it but a moratorium at this point is kind of unnecessary.

    13. Anonymous Says:

      >>> the writer above has confused active 55 housing with subsidized or low income housing.

      >>> It appears you will always have a market – we haven’t even burned through the baby boomers yet.

      Let me guess. The writer(s) of a lot of this pro-condo biz, is likely a condo builder. No wonder they’re so against a moratorium. The average Enfield “joe” isn’t gonna care much one way, or another, but a builder will be heartbroken over such news.

    14. Anonymous Says:

      >> we haven’t even burned through the baby boomers yet.

      Ya got that 1/2 right. Following this philosophy and trend, the Town of Enfield will certainly “burn” the majority of baby boomers with their foolishness! Leave Enfield “as is”.
      The sprawling blue collar, bedroom community that most people moved here for.

    15. Anonymous Says:

      I have am a property owner in Enfield and have watched my taxes skyrocket. A number of people on the blog are complaining about the same thing.

      I could care lesss about age restricted, commercial or whatever. I just don’t want to see my taxes continue to go out of sight.

      That said, no question that age restricted produces far more revenue and expenses to the Town. The biggest part of the Town’s budget is for education. Now I am all for education. But those age restricted condos don’t have one school age kid. That means that 70% of those tax dollars will go to help stabilize or reduce my tax increases.

      With only 176 units approved to date and far less built, I agree that we should embrace this type of housing.

    16. Anonymous Says:

      >>the writer above has confused active 55 housing with subsidized or low income housing.

      What was the Taylor Road development? how is subsidized / low-income housing different from active 55 housing? They residents aren’t as active?

      >>The aging rate only drops when the birth rate has steadily declined for decades.

      Hello! Hello! Hello! Has anyone taken a look at the demographics? Birth rates dropped precipitously following the end of the baby boom and aren’t gonna be increasing any time soon. Doesn’t anyone know that this is a Ponzi scheme?

      >>Everyone ages … think about your arguement – how old will you be in 20 years? Personally I’ll be 60 and guess what — there are people even younger than I am now.

      Yeah- I’ll be 45 in 20 years and my parents will be in their 70s. That’s the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because I age or my parents age doesn’t mean that we’ll want to live in this kind of housing- or that it will accurately serve the needs of a society that will have undergone massive changes by then. I can tell you right now, my parents won’t want to move into housing that smacks of geezerdom. Ditto with me too.

      >>It appears you will always have a market – we haven’t even burned through the baby boomers yet.

      See above comments. This reminds me of the talk of “the new economy” ten years ago, used to justify overvalued tech stocks. The laws of economics are laws of economics. What goes up must come down. Same with 55+ housing. It’s bad enough we’re suffering because of the speculation bubble. We don’t need 55+ housing to compound the problem. Doubly so when it involves building on converting valuable I-1 industrial land to R-33 like the Taylor Road morons wanted to do.

      That’s why there are so many forclosures- the speculation boom. The fed tightened up on credit, and those with variable rate mortgages were priced out of the market because interest rates increased

      >>I’m not stating that you need tons of it but a moratorium at this point is kind of unnecessary.

      Enfield has been overrun with developers trying to build this stuff to circumvent the zoning regulations that limit density and make a quick buck. Many of the residents don’t know what they’re getting into because all they see is the sticker price, not the operational cost. Look no farther than the guy who posted earlier complaining about the taxes and condo fees at Autumn Fields. It’s not like he didn’t know about that moving in. If he didn’t budget for it, its his own fault, and he shouldn’t expect the town to bail him out with a tax freeze or with town trash collection on his private road. If he wants the town to collect his trash, he and all the other residents should have to take it out to the public road. Ultimately, the condo concept is built on the idea that the condo association can do infrastructure- roads, trash, maintenance, lawn, much better than the town, so there’s no need for government, meaning you can cheap out on building flimsy roads and not follow other standards. If you can’t afford it, sell and get out. You knew what you were gettig into when you bought it. This proves my point that folks can’t afford this.

    17. Anonymous Says:

      Yes it is by the old super fund site. And yes there were many health issues of people that lived on Celtic, Shannnon and Kelly etc two people with brain tummors several houses apart and cancer issues but I don’t know if any studies were ever done over there.

    18. Anonymous Says:

      >>> Yes it is by the old super fund site. And yes there were many health issues of people that lived on Celtic, Shannnon and Kelly etc two people with brain tummors several houses apart and cancer issues but I don’t know if any studies were ever done over there.

      Ya don’t know if any studies were ever done over there? Well, don’t ya think that someone should investigate before more new homes are built in that area? Granted its “buyer beware” but in this case, where there are already documented health issues, the Town should also be held responsible if they permit Villages LLC (Frederick & “who”) to construct new condos there. Does anyone know who the seller was? Enfield Press lists “Terra Pulchra LLC”. Like that info is very helpful.

      Not too far from this Simon Rd location, East Windsor is in process of constructing some 55+ condos along Scantic River. Enfield folks that really want a new 55+ unit should check them out.

    19. Anonymous Says:

      >>What was the Taylor Road development? how is subsidized / low-income housing different from active 55 housing? They residents aren’t as active?

      The Taylor Road development, if I am not mistaken, was rental units for seniors versus these 55 alive units that go for over $300,000.

      Now I admit, we need these affordable rental units in Enfield but not slapped in the middle of an Industrial Zone as was proposed – especially when Enfield has very limited flat Industrial land left.

      And that is where the real money is…virtually no use of services and a big addition to the tax roles.

    20. Anonymous Says:

      Let’s talk longevity of home ownership. Many of the original Starr homeowners still live in their affordable Starr housing. That’s roughly 45 years for many of these people. That’s a pretty good “use” of existing housing resources.

      How many years do you expect someone to live in an 55+ condo? The turnover rate of ownership will be far greater. And since they’re more expensive to buy in the 1st place, how can anyone be sure that 10 years from now people will still want or can afford these units?

      Starr homes were build for families to own for their lifetime. These 55+ units are merely trendy, transitional spaces. A place to live before many of the 55+ will retire to FL or Carolinas. Because many won’t be able afford to live in the 55+ units or even stay in CT once they actually retire (or get laid off from closing CT businesses).

      What will prevent 55+ units from being converted into plain ol’condos (ones with school age students) when there are no longer enough 55+ interested in purchasing these?

      Again, any new construction impacts the infrastructure of Enfield, and uses town resources. People in 55+ units travel town roads, and utilize town services (police, medical, water, sewer, electricity, etc.)

    21. Anonymous Says:

      >>> With only 176 units approved to date and far less built, I agree that we should embrace this type of housing.

      That’s 176 of the 55+ units. But how many condo complexes are there already in Enfield? How many currently have units up for sale? Travel by any condo complex, and there are plenty of For Sale signs up. As there are with traditional houses. Lots of For Sale signs up.

      Face it, times are tough. I wouldn’t be spec-ing high priced 55+ housing just because some builder(s) claims there is a market. The only one who’s making money on these right now, are the people selling off land, and the builders. The Town doesn’t get rich on the collected taxes. Town would need a lot of condos to offset the lose of Casual Corners, Lego, Hallmark jobs.

      And again, why is the Town so interested in reaping more money from the taxpaying homeowners (condos and houses). They should be looking to attract more businesses and industries to town. That’s where the brunt of tax dollars should be coming from. Halting the building of 55+ units isn’t going to “hurt” Enfield residents, ‘cept maybe for the proposing builder (if they happen to also be Enfield residents).

    22. Anonymous Says:

      The following was in today’s Courant:
      “Even in high-income Connecticut, home prices are out of the reach of many families. In all but 15 towns, “a family earning the median household income could not qualify for a mortgage to purchase the median sales price home in that same town.” So says a group of business and civic leaders who studied 2006 home prices and family incomes.”

      Is Enfield one of the 15 towns where the middle class can afford to buy a house? If not, why are we discussing building more high priced 55+ condos??

    23. Anonymous Says:

      interesting Courant piece, but this
      struck me even more. “Connecticut has lost a greater percentage of its 25- to 34-year-old population since 2000 than any other state, and experts say the high price of housing is a big reason.”

      If CT is losing more 25 – 34 year olds, than any other state, does anyone really believe they’re gonna move back here @ 55, just to buy a luxury condo unit in Enfield (or CT for that matter)??

    24. Anonymous Says:

      Terra Pulchra LLC is owned by Patrick Reily (Suffield) developer of Celtic, Shannon and Kelly Drive.

    25. Anonymous Says:

      �DIPACE PROPOSES A MORATORIUM ON ALL DEVELOPMENT IN ENFIELD, MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT CHANGES�, wouldn�t that be a shocking headline.

      DiPace has been having trouble sleeping lately. Keeps on having dreams and hearing his name called �Anthony, Anthony�. He wakes up, �What, am I in South Boston? Could today be Wednesday?� Then he realizes that it�s that darn compulsion to log on to the Cool Justice Blog to see what�s goin on in Town…what are they saying?

      – �Too few �haves� and way too many �have nots�, Got to get the support of those �have nots�
      – �Number of foreclosures in Enfield way up�, Hum, any in those age restricted communities? We can use that as a good excuse for a moratorium?
      – �Whites only�, don�t like that. Look what happened to Imas!
      -�CT Housing Finance Authority�, maybe I can get some of that funding
      -�What�s gonna happen 20 years from now�, heck, I can figure out what�s gonna happen tomorrow!
      -�Disables on SSI, ambience of T-ville�, There�s that potential Imas problem again!
      -�What I don�t like is the drug dealing, public urination, harassment, and vandalism that comes with living in a depressed neighborhood�, There must be a lot of that going on in those age restricted communities, after all, their all 55 and older over there, bladder control is the first thing to go!
      -�People who engage in the criminal behavior are on SSI�, I�m sure a lot of those folks in the age restricted communities are collecting. Here goes the police budget for all that potential crime!

      So, we stop development! Commercial…all these businesses coming in to Town are making a profit and it�s all going to the �haves�. Don�t we already have enough restaurants, department stores, drug stores and banks? And God knows, enough �haves�. What happens 20 years or sooner from now when they go out of business and there�s empty building? We need to study that! We�ll fix the �haves�. And the residential single family homes…these buyers have two and three kids, each costing the Town $7,000-$8,000 per student to educate. And the taxes from one single family house doesn�t even cover the cost to educate one kid. So taxes keep going up and soon (a lot sooner than 20 years), people wouldn�t be able to afford the taxes on all these thousands of houses in Town. And so we�ll start getting more of that drug dealing, public urination, harassment and vandalism problem. So, this will fix these folks with kids. Furthermore, we already have thousands of houses in Town. How can you stop age restricted housing with only 176 approved if you don�t stop single family housing when thousands exist and they�re the one�s being foreclosed!

      Now for a recommendation for Department changes. We change the Director of Economic Development to the Director of Greed Development with a directive to keep any company interested in making a profit out of Town. Another one for the �have nots�. Then will add two new positions: Director of Non-Profit Development to attract that under developed niche in Town, and Director of Land Confiscation who�s directive will be to take land for �open space preservation and wild life will thrive�. Another one for the �have nots� and that will fix the �haves�.

      Now an idea for Mr. DiPace…become an ordained minister. You can operate as a non-profit…and become an expert in yet another field.

      I think many have lost sight of the first blog on this issue of declaring a moratorium on age restricted housing…….That is, what is the real reason for the moratorium!!!!!!!!!!!

    26. Anonymous Says:

      >>> Yes it is by the old super fund site. And yes there were many health issues of people that lived on Celtic, Shannnon and Kelly etc two people with brain tummors several houses apart and cancer issues but I don’t know if any studies were ever done over there.

      >>> Terra Pulchra LLC is owned by Patrick Reily (Suffield) developer of Celtic, Shannon and Kelly Drive.

      So Fredericks bought what could be tainted property from same guy who developed Celtic, Shannon, Kelly houses? How bright a decision is that?

      These so-call “green condos” are likely to glow alright in the dark, and it won’t be from any solar panels. Remind me not to attend any open houses there. Scary.

    27. Anonymous Says:

      I can not beleive that some people are so ignorant. It’s a good thing their name is not included. What does the price of a unit in an over 55 active adult community have to do with the town allowing it’s construction or not. Buying Real Estate is between the seller and the buyer in a free market.If the developer’s prices are too high, buyers will not buy. the developer suffers not the town. Once a vacant parcel of land is approved, it’s value at the least quadruples. So the PZA can approve 20 projects; if the wost happens the town will keep collecting the higher taxes, without supplying a single service. What a windfall for the tax payers. Here is an examlple; Wahington assocites located at the corner of Brainard and Washington Rd, is owned by Petronella, and Trioano.The annual taxes before it was approved for 42 units was $4,620.00 a year. It is now $12,728.00 a year (That’s every year.) The price tag on it is $1,700,000.00 seventy percent of that is $1,190,000. their annual taxes should be $28,332.00 what a deal. As Abraham Lincoln once said, WE FIND THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT.

    28. Anonymous Says:

      WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR FACTS MR. DEPACE…I read an article in last week’s Journal Inquirer, that the chairman of the Enfield PZA is proposing a morotorium on building over age 55 communities in Enfield.I always knew he wasn’t the brightes star.I am over 55, and so are many of my friends,and getting tired of cutting lawns, and shoveling snow. I also would like to stay close to my children, and grandchildren,in my old age. So I researched a few facts. He claimed his reason was, there are too many existing, and too many proposed complexes. The facts are Enfield has 3 approved developments. Autmns fields has 3 units left to sell. Shaker heights about 10. Washington Rd. has 42 units for sale… At this time there is NOT one ( 1 ) application for an over 55 active adult community pending. The last application for 70 units was turned down by the PZA, for political reasons, so I hear.
      Where do you get your facts Mr. DePace?

    29. Anonymous Says:

      Autumn Fields was built 2-3 years ago and still has 3 condos left to sell!

      What does this tell you about the pent-up demand that some of the bloggers are talking about?

      It’s all a bunch of lies. If the condos currently there aren’t selling, why should we believe that more will sell.

      Also, people, get a grip.

      It’s not the fact that the condos are 55+ that make them a money maker for the town’s grand list. It’s the ability to squeeze more units onto the property that with regular residential that makes them possible.

      Unfortunately, they no longer build regular condos because of the problems with Pheasant Hill.

      Also, adding more children into the school system will not necessarily increase costs. Especially in school districts with room, it doesn’t make a difference because it’s all fixed costs. You should remember that from the budget hearing. Regardless of whether there are 16 kids in a class or 30, the teacher gets paid the same.

      What this shows is that “my demand” and “I want” does not prove the existence of significant aggregate demand to justify the construction. At best, demographics can prove the availability of a market, but the existence of a market is different from aggregate demand. If “you want one”, why haven’t you bought one of the dozens already on the market?

      Remember, vacant property produces zero taxes. Just because things are great now doesn’t mean they’ll be great in 20 years. If in 1950, you told someone that Thompsonville would be a ghetto in 1980, they’d look at you like you were from Mars. There is reasonable evidence to suggest that this will deteriorate in time.

      I guarantee you that the folks advocating for this are a bunch of developers who’ll find the rug pulled out from under them if they’re unmasked.

    30. Anonymous Says:

      Whether you are trying to develope a “regular” housing development or an “Active 55” development the concerns are the same: density and how it will impact the town.

      They are both purchased the same way. There is no town, state or federal funding involved.

      All you are saying is who can live there. Which is not against the law. Obviously.

      With an association of a 55 active community – which is like a condo — the town does not pay for the upkeep of the development ie the roads, infrastructure, or maintanence of the community — the developer/buyers do. And continue to do so until — for both types of development — the Town agrees to accept the maintance responsiblity of the roads and trash(which they vote on.)

      It goes to choice of where you want to live and buy like stated above.

      The town does not take on a tax burden if the units don’t sell — the developer does – they remain the owner. And when you use the word “condo” please do not mislead. Most units are single family homes – in some developments the “condo ” part means the owners don’t have to mow their lawns or shovel snow — they are single family homes – and they pay for that service with their association dues which they have made the choice to pay.

      Remember the question can be asked both ways — if you think the developers write the “pro” arguements –who is writing the “con”?

      ‘We want ” We want ” — doesn’t factor. Educate yourself.

    31. Anonymous Says:

      >>WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR FACTS MR. DEPACE…I read an article in last week’s Journal Inquirer, that the chairman of the Enfield PZA is proposing a morotorium on building over age 55 communities in Enfield.I always knew he wasn’t the brightes star.I am over 55, and so are many of my friends,and getting tired of cutting lawns, and shoveling snow. I also would like to stay close to my children, and grandchildren,in my old age.

      Why don’t you just hire someone to mow your lawn like the rest of us- some kid from the neighborhood might do it for $20-25 a week. That’s an awful lot cheaper than buying a new house becaue of it.

      How many of your children and grandchildren are sticking around Connecticut? I’m tired of the trips to North Carolina and Georgia to visit my grandkids. How long do you think our kids or grandkids will be sticking around if the only new residential construction is 55+ housing? The only way to reduce the cost is to increase supply by building more units for those that need them- under 55.

    32. Anonymous Says:

      Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, so why are you unmasked?

    33. Anonymous Says:

      >>I would like the choice of age restricted living and I think the matter of the benefits to the Town have been substantially documented in previous comments.

      I would like the choice of regular condos.

      (No one seems to care about the fact that there’s a moratorium on those too. So much for the supposedly disinterested 55+ people claiming to be looking out for the good of society. It’s all about “I want”… “me, me, me… I me mine, I me mine, I me mine”.)

      P&Z has decided from experience that condos are a bad idea. Developers are abusive and use them to stuff more housing onto a plot of land than they can with traditional zoning.

      Given the weak market for 55+, it seems that the same is true with “I’m alive… look at me… it’s all about me!” housing.

    34. Anonymous Says:

      >>What does the price of a unit in an over 55 active adult community have to do with the town allowing it’s construction or not. Buying Real Estate is between the seller and the buyer in a free market.If the developer’s prices are too high, buyers will not buy. the developer suffers not the town. Once a vacant parcel of land is approved, it’s value at the least quadruples. So the PZA can approve 20 projects; if the wost happens the town will keep collecting the higher taxes, without supplying a single service. What a windfall for the tax payers.

      The reason that price is an issue is this. If the unit sells for the advertised sticker price, the town collects the amount they’re able to. However, if sales are sluggish their ability to collect is diminished, especially once the developer starts discounting the sticker price, because it creates a precedent for a lower valuation on the property.

    35. Anonymous Says:

      Hey Tony, what’s up with this bocca grande? Dis stuff is all over my head. I’m glad you understand all this stuff and you’re an expert in so many areas. And what’s dis stuff about why you really want a moratorium. I know why…I don’t want all these old people urinating either.

      Have to admit, the guy had a pretty good idea about you becoming a minister. You got the perfect location for a chapel.

    36. Anonymous Says:

      >>>”Connecticut has lost a greater percentage of its 25- to 34-year-old population since 2000 than any other state, and experts say the high price of housing is a big reason.”

      >>>If CT is losing more 25 – 34 year olds, than any other state, does anyone really believe they’re gonna move back here @ 55, just to buy a luxury condo unit in Enfield (or CT for that matter)??

      All of my friends have left. It’s come to the point where employers are locating their entry level jobs at other states because it’s so unaffordable here. This kind of 55+ housing simply excludes us from the marketplace and keeps prices inflated

    37. Anonymous Says:

      Hey, I think all you people are asleep at the wheel and missing the point about CONNECTINC THE DOTS! Have you already forgotten about the Montessori School and the Felician Sisters?

      Well, wake up! The players are the same and the underlying reasons are the same! When are people in this Town going to wake up!

      Why did DiPace put the hammer down on the Montessori School and the Felician Sisters, because he had the best interest of the Town at heart. The people commenting on that blog knew who’s interest he was protecting.

      Wake up!

    38. Anonymous Says:

      Abbewood. Wonderful “single family homes” in a quiet complex. Anyone else notice the number of For Sale signs out posted on Abbe Rd the last couple of months? Same with Pheasant complex? Think there were 2 or 3 the last time I drove by. Neither are 55+ complexes, but the Abbewood condos are as nice & pricey as any 55+ unit. If there are units available in such complexes, what’s that say about housing needs?

      Just because there’s a vacant piece of property (like a former dump site) doesn’t mean ya run out and build something. Enfield ain’t “Field of Dreams” – building something doesn’t mean they’ll come!

    39. Anonymous Says:

      >> — if you think the developers write the “pro” arguements –who is writing the “con”?

      Will gladly admit to be “con” to building more 55+ units, and I’m not a builder. Am just an overtaxed, homeowner who doesn’t believe that Enfield needs more housing construction given the number of foreclosures of single family homes. Period.

      And you are?? Developer, builder, seller of property???

      >> ‘We want ” We want ” — doesn’t factor. Educate yourself.

      The “we want-ers” are definitely a factor in Enfield. A small group, will some political pull, have tried to force their way onto many unsuspecting residents. But thanx to this blog, folks are opening their eyes to what’s really going on.


    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: