To the Editor:

In the late 1950s, Newtown adopted zoning in an attempt to slow the pace of residential growth that, it was feared, would send school costs soaring. It doubled down on this policy in 1969 and again in 2000, each time requiring even more acreage per home. With the benefit of hindsight, we know today that growth was not really slowed, but simply spread out over the landscape, with the result that the town must today expend considerable sums on bus contracts and road maintenance that grow both the town and education budgets. Meanwhile, farms and fields have become scarce, and few students even have the option of walking to school.

Despite this history, the idea that Newtown can somehow exercise its land use powers to control spending remains alluring, with letters in recent issues of The Bee calling for a moratorium on certain residential development to enable more planning on a fiscal basis, as though the last 70 years of planning choices had never happened and the town had not just concluded its decennial Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). The fact is that we already know what happens when demand increases but the housing supply doesn’t adequately respond, since we’ve all experienced it over the last five years: Housing values inflate relative to industrial and commercial values, resulting in property taxes shifting off of non-residential uses and onto homes when revaluation occurs. By attempting to prevent rising property taxes, we inadvertently guarantee them.

Rather than continuing to tighten the screws, we should rethink our approach to housing. For example, the Zoning Commission of Simsbury has just adopted zoning reforms that allow homes on lots of 8,000 square feet and that streamline its workforce housing regulations. We could also consider modifying our inflexible incentive housing and elderly housing zones, both of which require 10 acres of land for a single project. Reforms like these would be in accordance with our new POCD, which mentions “new or modified zoning districts that support the development of smaller, affordable homes ...”

Fears over the cost implications of new homes have been recently addressed by planner Donald Poland, who has challenged common assumptions about cost-to-revenue ratios of residential development in light of current demographic trends.

We’re fortunate to live in a town that is a desirable destination for so many, and we should embrace that rather than dreading it. The current approach is driving up costs for everyone, whether through rising taxes, soaring rents or out-of-reach prices, and is even forcing some of our neighbors to leave town. Rather than continuing down this path, we can follow the example of Simsbury and some other towns that are rethinking their approach to housing. Let’s get that conversation started.

Charlie Gardner

Sandy Hook