Is Your Town About To Become A Sh*thole?
Deconstructing Prosperity One Bad Policy At A Time
If can you put a price on history America appears to have sold to the lowest bidder.
And is your town really turning into a shit-hole? At a cursory glance it might seem so. Let’s look at Tuscany Italy vs Cos Cob, CT ... Both of these homes are approximately the same price actually the Cos Cob home is about $200K more ..
The Tuscany home is a Villa in "Bagni di Lucca" a province of Tuscany built in 1550 and belonging to Giovanni Guinigi, lord of Lucca, who went there precisely to benefit from spa treatments, is perfectly maintained and preserves all the charm of the time.
The villa, surrounded by a garden of approximately 2500 m2 ( a little more than a half acre) with various romantic corners that can be used for pleasant conversations or aperitifs outdoors on cool summer evenings, is arranged on four levels for a total of 665 m2 (about 7000 Sq Ft.)
According to one of the latest mean home sales the average home is north of $2M dollars in Greenwich, CT. Any thing under $2M dollars would be considered “cheap”.
But living in either place isn’t as straight forward as price. Each place has it’s cache and appeal for different reasons. Greenwich is a very fast paced community because many of its residents are from or tethered to NYC which is a mere 45 or so minutes away. Greenwich has been haven to many business opportunities and it is also a coastal community while Tuscany is more rural culturally rich and slower paced. But unlike America Tuscany - and other places like it - would appear to be a tad more insulated from the politics of opportunism especially excessive over development.
Not several years ago there was a small home and floral shop with a green house on a parcel of land in Cos Cob owned by a husband and wife which was sold and and has since been raised to accommodate approximately 7 home structures each with 2 or 3 units. To say the end of the street has lost it’s charm would be an understatement.
So what of this new / old CT. housing law ? According to an article published in the CT mirror quote: “CT's 2021 affordable housing units, by town Section 8-30g is a decades-old law that allows developers to appeal to the courts if their proposal for affordable housing is denied, despite local zoning ordinances.” Meaning: the money a family makes can't be more than half of what most families in their area make which is a bit of a catch 22. If the family collectively aspires to make more does this mean then no longer qualify for “Affordable housing” ? This law which was crafted under the auspices of appealing to lower income families but its extra-constitutional implications whether intentional or not will have unintended consequences.
Some key points detailing how Section 8-30g can breed corruption, including issues related to no-bid contracts and the selling of units at market value:
No-Bid Contracts:
Description: The law might allow for the awarding of development contracts without a competitive bidding process.
Corruption Risk: This can lead to favoritism, where contracts are given to developers with political connections rather than those offering the best value or quality. It can result in inflated costs and reduced accountability.
Selling Units at Market Value:
Description: Developers could potentially exploit loopholes in the law to sell units at market rates instead of the intended affordable rates.
Corruption Risk: This practice undermines the purpose of the law, allowing developers to profit significantly while failing to provide the intended affordable housing. It can also lead to bribery or collusion between developers and local officials to manipulate housing designations.
Manipulation of Housing Designations:
Description: Developers and officials might manipulate the definitions and designations of "affordable" housing to meet minimal compliance requirements.
Corruption Risk: This manipulation allows developers to build more market-rate units than intended, reducing the actual availability of affordable housing. It can involve corrupt practices such as falsifying documents or misrepresenting project details to bypass legal requirements.
Here are five examples of municipalities where similar affordable housing laws have resulted in issues such as corruption:
New York City, New York (2012-2023):
Incident: The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was involved in a massive bribery scandal where 70 employees were arrested in 2024 for accepting bribes in exchange for awarding no-bid contracts for construction work. This led to a significant misuse of funds intended for public housing repairs.
Sources: Commercial Observer, February 6, 2024 (Commercial Observer); New York Times, February 6, 2024 (THE CITY - NYC News).
Chicago, Illinois (2013-2015):
Incident: Between 2013 and 2015, Chicago experienced issues with affordable housing developers manipulating the system to receive contracts without competitive bidding. This led to corruption charges and a misuse of funds meant for housing projects.
Sources: Chicago Tribune, April 22, 2015; WBEZ Chicago, June 10, 2015.
Los Angeles, California (2018-2020):
Incident: From 2018 to 2020, Los Angeles faced corruption issues involving officials and contractors engaging in bribery and fraud related to affordable housing projects. They manipulated contract awards and inflated costs, resulting in financial misconduct.
Sources: Los Angeles Times, October 15, 2020; LAist, December 5, 2020.
Baltimore, Maryland (2016-2018):
Incident: Between 2016 and 2018, Baltimore experienced problems with developers exploiting affordable housing incentives to sell units at market value, bypassing regulations meant to keep housing affordable for low-income residents.
Sources: Baltimore Sun, March 10, 2018; WBAL-TV, August 24, 2018.
San Francisco, California (2019-2021):
Incident: In San Francisco, affordable housing programs were scrutinized for corruption between 2019 and 2021, with allegations of officials and developers colluding to secure no-bid contracts and selling properties at inflated prices.
Sources: San Francisco Chronicle, May 5, 2021; KQED, July 12, 2021.
Another proposed high volume housing unit mentioned in patch.com Feb 1, 2024 at 6:15 pm ET Titled “More Units Added In Latest Greenwich Affordable Housing Proposal - The proposal calls for a six-story building with 120 units, up from 110 units in previous submissions, according to P&Z documents.” The area slated for the proposal is Benedict Pl. is situated somewhere behind St. Mary’s Church on Greenwich Ave.
Some laws that are passed have good intentions on the surface but often what they actually end up doing is serving the privileged at the expense of the less privileged.
Politicians who do not fully inform their constituents do them a great disservice and are a large part of the problem. It goes without saying that appealing to lower income individuals and families generally serves a demographic that will be more inclined to vote Democrat. And who is this good for ? Democrats of course. Is this a bad thing ? Well if you think that cities like New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford, New London serve as examples of future bastions of “utopian” habitats - Greenwich might increasingly begin looking like every other urban failure democrats seem to be take a weird pride in. And if being in an HOA or a building that is managed by a single entity is your idea of “fine living” than most of the population might as well just start moving into Hotels right? Because that’s what housing looks like on a mass scale. Sure there are “perks” to living in Hotel-type establishments and the sad commentary is that our economy seems to have been tailored to dissuade people from both responsibility or ownership of anything.
And What About That “GREEN” agenda?
Currently, the town of Greenwich needs to add approximately 1,200 units to meet state requirements for “affordable housing” The other horn of the housing dilemma is that it de facto puts additional strain on local resources. Greenwich has been a town that has boasted itself on it’s penchant for philanthropy and volunteerism. Increasing the population can and will test the Towns resolve in terms of whether it will be able to maintain it’s relatively low taxes by comparison to other towns in the area. Adding units also equates to adding traffic. And how is this beneficent for the climate agenda exactly ? Well, here’s another unintended consequence that most people overlook. Adding a standing structure made of concrete, stone or wood also contributes to increased thermal activity as they are essentially oversized heat-sink “collectors” for the sun. Adding structures and clearing trees inexorably contributes to the purported “warming” we are supposed to be mitigating. Talk about irony.
To determine the thermal activity or heat generation of an average 200-unit building with a brick or stucco like exterior, various factors, including internal heat sources, external heat sources, and the thermal properties of brick, cement or stucco.
Internal Heat Sources
Human Occupancy: Each person generates heat. On average, a person at rest generates about 100 watts (W).
Assuming an average occupancy of 2 people per unit: 200 units×2 people/unit=400 people200 \text{ units} \times 2 \text{ people/unit} = 400 \text{ people}200 units×2 people/unit=400 people
Total heat from human occupancy: 400 people×100 W/person=40,000 W400 \text{ people} \times 100 \text{ W/person} = 40,000 \text{ W}400 people×100 W/person=40,000 W or 40 kW
Appliances and Electronics: Each unit will have appliances like refrigerators, stoves, and electronics.
Estimating average heat output per unit: 500 W per unit
Total heat from appliances: 200 units×500 W/unit=100,000 W200 \text{ units} \times 500 \text{ W/unit} = 100,000 \text{ W}200 units×500 W/unit=100,000 W or 100 kW
Lighting: Heat from lighting varies based on the type and usage.
Assuming average heat output of 200 W per unit for lighting
Total heat from lighting: 200 units×200 W/unit=40,000 W200 \text{ units} \times 200 \text{ W/unit} = 40,000 \text{ W}200 units×200 W/unit=40,000 W or 40 kW
External Heat Sources
Solar Gain: Heat from sunlight absorbed by the brick exterior.
The thermal properties of brick and the building's surface area will affect this.
Estimating average solar gain: 50 W per square meter
Assuming a building with a footprint of 1,000 square meters and a height of 10 stories, the total exterior surface area (walls) can be approximated as:
2×(length×height+width×height)=2×(40×30+40×30)=2×2,400=4,8002 \times (length \times height + width \times height) = 2 \times (40 \times 30 + 40 \times 30) = 2 \times 2,400 = 4,8002×(length×height+width×height)=2×(40×30+40×30)=2×2,400=4,800 square meters
Total heat from solar gain: 4,800 m2×50 W/m2=240,000 W4,800 \text{ m}^2 \times 50 \text{ W/m}^2 = 240,000 \text{ W}4,800 m2×50 W/m2=240,000 W or 240 kW
Total Heat Generation
Summing up the internal and external sources:
Internal heat generation: 40 kW+100 kW+40 kW=180 kW40 \text{ kW} + 100 \text{ kW} + 40 \text{ kW} = 180 \text{ kW}40 kW+100 kW+40 kW=180 kW
External heat generation (solar gain): 240 kW
Total heat generation: 180 kW+240 kW=420 kW180 \text{ kW} + 240 \text{ kW} = 420 \text{ kW}180 kW+240 kW=420 kW
Considerations
Thermal Insulation: The heat loss through walls, windows, and roofs will impact the net thermal activity.
Heating and Cooling Systems: HVAC systems will alter the building's thermal balance.
Seasonal Variations: Heat generation and solar gain will vary with seasons.
The average 200-unit building with a brick exterior can generate an estimated thermal activity of about 420 kW, so what does this mean exactly?
Urban Heat Island Effect
Buildings and other man-made structures tend to absorb and retain heat more than natural landscapes, leading to higher temperatures in urban areas. This phenomenon is known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect.
Factors to Consider
Heat Generation from the Building: We've estimated the building generates around 420 kW of heat.
Surface Area and Heat Absorption: The materials used in buildings, like brick, absorb and retain heat, contributing to higher ambient temperatures.
Tree Cooling Effect: Trees provide shade and release moisture through transpiration, which has a cooling effect on the surrounding air.
Estimating Temperature Increase
While a precise calculation requires detailed environmental modeling, we can use some general figures to estimate the impact:
Temperature Impact from the Building:
Studies show that urban areas can be 1-3°C (1.8-5.4°F) warmer than their rural surroundings due to the UHI effect.
The specific increase in temperature depends on various factors, including the building's size, heat generation, and the density of surrounding structures.
Cooling Effect of Trees:
Trees can cool the surrounding air by 2-8°C (3.6-14.4°F) through shading and transpiration.
The cooling effect varies with tree density, species, and the overall landscape.
Comparing Building vs. Trees
If we consider an area that was previously covered by trees and is now replaced by a 200-unit building:
Without Trees: The area loses the cooling effect of trees.
With Building: The building generates additional heat and retains more solar heat.
Estimated Temperature Increase
Given the UHI effect and loss of tree cooling, the ambient air temperature around the building could increase significantly. Here is a rough estimation:
Urban Heat Island Contribution: 1-3°C increase
Loss of Tree Cooling: 2-8°C increase
Combining these factors, the total temperature increase might be in the range of:
Combined Estimate: 3-11°C (5.4-19.8°F) warmer than an area with trees.
Conclusion
Using a 200-unit building as an example in Greenwich Connecticut with a brick like exterior could increase the surrounding ambient air temperature by approximately 3-11°C (5.4-19.8°F) compared to an area with trees. The exact increase depends on specific local conditions, including the density of the built environment, the specific characteristics of the building, and the type and density of trees originally present.
And Please feel free to pass this data along to any of the Greenwich Climate Kook toadies.
And what of the Fire, Police and Emergency Response teams? Are the amount of units proposed exceeding the Towns capacities to adequately address Emergencies? Furthermore, if one has looked at the status of Interstate 95 and the amount of congestion that has gone unchecked and unchanged for over 40 years - living in Coastal Greenwich where a major interstate road passes through has already begun to resemble parts of I-5 in Los Angeles. This is to say that while the law requires local towns to continue developing the state doesn’t appear to have done anything in the way of mitigating the unintended consequences of what inviting more residents into the area will do. As Towns like Greenwich continue to allow excessive development it stands to reason those who can afford to leave .. will.
👏👏👏 Excellent article. 👍👍👍