Quantcast
,

Letter to the Editor: Norwalk Needs Smart, Resident-First Growth

Affordable housing is often described as a “crisis,” and for good reason. As a local business owner and resident of Norwalk, I am deeply invested in this community. I believe it’s time we take a thoughtful pause to evaluate Norwalk’s role and responsibility in shaping a sustainable and inclusive future for all residents.  

Just today, I lost another valued employee, someone who grew up in Norwalk and wanted to stay, but sadly, he could not remain because he simply could not find a reasonably priced place to live here. He relocated to Central Connecticut, hoping to keep his job and commute, but between traffic, gas, and car expenses, he ultimately had to resign and take a job closer to home. Not long ago, another long-term employee, with 20 years of service, made the difficult decision to move to Florida because the cost of living in Fairfield County was no longer manageable.  

As a business owner, I work hard to ensure wages are competitive, and I strive to pay above the local standard of living. I recognize the economic realities our workforce residents face with rising housing  costs, inflation, and limited affordable options. Yet despite these efforts, the high cost of living in Norwalk and throughout Fairfield County continues to make it difficult for employees to both live and work in the same community.  

Affordable housing means different things to different people. It spans a wide spectrum—young professionals starting out, working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and individuals in need of transitional or supportive housing. It’s not just about quantity; it’s about meeting the needs of our current and future residents in a way that reflects the character and values of Norwalk.  

The State mandates that every city and town provide a minimum of 10% of its housing as “affordable.”  According to the most recent data, Norwalk currently provides approximately 14%. So, what is our goal—15%? 20%? 25%? More importantly, are we building the kind of housing that serves the people of Norwalk, or are we incentivizing development that primarily benefits outside interests?  

Norwalk’s current housing mix is approximately 51% homeowners and 49% renters. That balance is shifting. As we continue to approve large-scale rental developments, we must ask ourselves: are we supporting a path to homeownership for those who want it? Homeownership may not be for everyone,  but it should remain a viable option, especially for those who have grown up here and want to invest  long-term in their community.  

We must remember that ownership builds equity, stability, and civic engagement. It contributes to a strong tax base that supports our schools and essential services. My concern is that if we do not address  this imbalance, we are sending a message to young people that their future—homeownership, savings,  financial security–is out of reach here in Norwalk.  

So, how did we get here? Not long ago, Norwalk had a balanced supply of affordable apartments, starter homes, condos, and co-ops. This diversity supported a strong school system and well-funded city services. Unfortunately, changes to state policy that encouraged rapid growth through housing mandates,  transit-oriented development, and tax incentives for developers have led to a wave of construction that often fails to meet the true affordability needs of our residents. 

Developers today can access tax abatements, enterprise zone incentives, and property tax phase-ins,  often in exchange for designating only a small portion of units as “affordable”—units that are frequently priced well above what working families in Norwalk can reasonably afford.  

By shifting more zoning power to the state, we risk losing the ability to shape our own future. What’s  being built may align with state economic strategies, but it may not reflect the long-term needs of Norwalk  residents.  

We must take a balanced, resident-first approach. Let’s pause and evaluate the last 10 years of rapid development: rising property taxes, increasing traffic congestion, underfunded schools, and the departure of longtime residents who can no longer afford to stay.  

Let’s prioritize quality over quantity. Let’s build a city where young families can lay down roots, where seniors can age in place, and where workers can live in the same community they serve. Let’s make  room for growth, but smart growth that benefits Norwalkers first.  

We can do this together.  

Sincerely,  

Vinny Scicchitano  

Mayoral Candidate 

Editor’s Note: This letter has been lightly edited for grammar. It has not been fact-checked and reflects the views of the author.

Comments

6 responses to “Letter to the Editor: Norwalk Needs Smart, Resident-First Growth”

  1. David Muccigrosso

    Vinny, the reality is that the entire local zoning approach has failed. Local zoning power just means that nothing gets built, and it HAS meant that for several generations now.

    Another reality is that Norwalk is nearly 100% developed. There are vanishingly few greenfields left to build new subdivisions on!

    What this means is that the only way to increase supply is *density*.

    Now, where we happen to VEHEMENTLY AGREE is that it’s unacceptable for ownership to be out of reach for those who want it. These big apartment buildings don’t HAVE to be built exclusively for RENTING; they can just as easily be made or approved for OWNING.

    And short of those big buildings, “density” can also mean simply allowing homeowners to exercise their God-given property rights to turn their single-family home into a duplex — and to SELL one of those units to another owner. It wouldn’t dramatically change the character of the neighborhoods in which it happens — it’s not like overnight an entire SFH zone would magically turn into duplexes — and it would take DECADES to turn over an entire neighborhood. But it WOULD create smaller, more affordable entry-level units.

    Most of Norwalk’s single-family homes today were in fact built decades ago as entry-level housing. But locking them in amber is what forced their prices up. On the same plot of land, a 2,000 sqft home can easily be built up into a 2×1,500 sqft duplex, both at lower price points. THIS is the kind of growth we need.

    But local control is NOT the answer. Local control is just as bad as communism: busybodies telling people what they can do with their own #$%&* property. Republicans USED to stand for the free market, and at the local level, that means giving ALL property-owners a BY-RIGHT process to build the next increment of housing on their own %*# property: singles into duplexes, duplexes into triples, 3-stories into 4-stories, and so on. Legalize corner stores! Legalize home businesses! Republicans should be getting local government out of people’s way, not enabling local commissars and insiders to dictate what they can do.

  2. Dona Menton

    Excellent comments.
    Norwalkers understand that development is inevitable, and welcome reasonable, responsible development. Housing affordability is a top priority so families can continue to move here, stay and grow here. Offering opportunities for homeownership thereby creating pride of ownership is paramount. For too long, we have concentrated on more and more high-rise rental properties, bringing in many transient or short-term residents. How many of these people will or can transition to long-term ownership in town or instead will move out of Norwalk to more affordable places to live. Providing incentives for condos and home building may create a larger base of people looking to remain here long term, contribute to the communities they settle into and in so doing add to our tax base. A “thoughtful pause to evaluate Norwalk’s role and responsibility in shaping a sustainable and inclusive future for all residents” is most definitely needed. Thank you for starting a well needed, yet often silent conversation. Let’s develop Norwalk reasonably, responsibly and to the benefit of all residents.

    1. David Muccigrosso

      There’s no need for a “thoughtful pause”. The answers are staring us right there in the face: Gentle density, condos, and walkability. Period.

      The only thing pausing will do is make the crisis worse. We’ve “paused” housing for nearly 50 years in all but a small set of neighborhoods that get to experience the worst disruptions. Pausing has never worked. We need to stop this delusional thinking that it somehow will THIS time.

  3. John O’Neill

    Expanding on David’s Point — Shifting to Rental Based housing, especially for younger people will hurt their chances of building equity. The equity needed to springboard into the next chapter of home ownership. Shifting to Rental based housing certainly makes the wealthy developer richer. I thought Dems disliked concentrated wealth…
    It doesn’t seem that way in Norwalk.

    1. David Muccigrosso

      Unfortunately, even when the system is oriented towards the larger goal — reducing housing costs — and even setting aside the imperfect corruption and geographic concentration of disruptions… I completely agree that we are woefully un-aimed at promoting ownership.

      This is kind of a complex story, as well. Austin is a pretty wild success story: They removed as many restrictions on residential development as possible, and had a construction boom that utterly HALTED skyrocketing rents. This is a good thing! They’re currently on the back end of that market cycle, where developers voluntarily halted their pace because they had too much competition. But at least it’s a healthy market, right?

      Further complicating the picture is the concept of filtering. Yes, the current towers in SoNo are primarily oriented towards renting and not ownership. But if we look back a century ago at the currently protected historic buildings, many of those were built initially for rent as well! Those that weren’t, were often built for commercial or other mixed-use purposes and slowly converted to residential over time. Anyways, if the market isn’t intentionally incentivized towards condo construction, then the building ends up having to go through several cycles of rental ownership before they age to the point that they end up converting to some stable state situation like a condo board. A perfect example of this would be the Coachworks building or Haviland Arms.

      The same will eventually happen to Harbourside, the Platform, SoNo Central, and others. Which WOULD be a good thing, except you and I will be dead or pickled brains in jars by the time we might benefit from it.

      In my not-very-humble opinion, the only reasonable solution is to transition to ALWAYS allowing the next increment of construction, BY-RIGHT. Right now, the big developers are the only game in town because no one smaller can afford to navigate the hellish thicket of zoning and use regulations, even AFTER the recent re-zone. Making smaller projects more doable helps us put the finger on the scale for the little guys, so that they can get out there and do all of the incremental projects that will slowly build out the neighborhood and fill in all the insane gaps we have — vacant lots, mismatched uses, etc.

      These incremental projects are literally the EXACT kind of “gentle growth” that people like Vinny and yourself SAY that you want. It’s just that — and no offense here — your mindset has to change. We can’t *regulate* our way to making growth be gentle. The regulation — the zoning, the usage restrictions — is what made development harsh to begin with. The things that we love about Norwalk — Washington Street, Wall Street, the way West Main USED to be 50-60 years ago — weren’t built under our current regulatory regime. Why do you think that we haven’t been able to build anything like them SINCE we put that regime in place? It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not the developers alone. It’s not the landlords. It’s not the renters. It’s the regulations.

  4. Jo Bennett

    In my late 20s, when interest rates were high and real estate was attainable in Norwalk, I made the leap from renting to condo ownership. Interest rates went down while the condo appreciated, and I eventually bought a house with my husband. This is how it is supposed to work. If Norwalk looked like it does today, I never would have settled here. The developers aren’t doing anyone any favors, except for the candidates whose campaigns they generously underwrite.
    I seriously feel for young adults today. But at the end of the day, there are other places to live. Bryan Meek has made the great point that as a young adult, he lived outside Fairfield County, saving money until he could afford a house here.

Leave a Reply


Recent Comments

Secret Link