If Not Now, When: The Power of Narratives in Community Planning
by V.V. Janney
In October 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission in Essex, Connecticut, rejected a multi-family housing plan proposed by Greylock Properties (GP). Essex is severely segregated, with 91% of the population identifying as white. The population of Black residents in Essex is 1%, making up 0.01% of Connecticut's Black population. Furthermore, over 30% of the residents in Essex are housing cost-burdened, with 12% severely burdened. The lack of housing built in Essex causes an increase in housing burdens and costs. GP's proposal hoped to relieve housing burdens and shortages by building 262 homes on 131 acres of land. However, current zoning policies would only allow for the construction of 62 homes on the same land. The proposal also included setting aside 20% of the units for affordable housing, focusing on building the town's “affordable housing stock."
​
GP petitioned to change the regulations in the Rural Residence District, which is currently zoned for single-family homes with a minimum lot size of 1.8 acres. This zoning district severely limits the production of housing in Essex. Rejecting the proposal on the basis of preserving single-family zoning will only further segregation and housing cost burdens. Legalizing the capacity to add more housing in areas with great livability and access to jobs, services, and good schools is essential, especially amid a severe housing shortage.
On the zoning map for Essex, most of the land is zoned for single-family housing, with a large minimum lot size represented in yellow.
Source: Essex Commission of Zoning and Planning
Essex needs more housing to support the current population and the population growth. According to the Essex Planning and Zoning Board, the town needs over 1,000 affordable housing units, but between 2010 and 2020, Essex only built 36 units. In October, the commission voted 6-1 against the proposal after "unusually packed town hall meetings" with residents "plead[ing]" to preserve the "small town" character. One commissioner who voted against the proposal suggested, "the commission draft its own regulations to promote multi-family housing in a way that fits what locals want." But what does this look like when most residents do not want multi-family housing? This question led the only commissioner who voted in favor of the proposal to ask, "If not now, when?"
​
Multi-family housing has several benefits, such as decreasing rents and costs over time, higher affordability than a single-family home, and several environmental benefits, such as reducing energy and water consumption. Conversely, single-family zoning is directly linked to putting strains on the housing market by limiting supply, is less environmentally friendly, and is historically linked to racial segregation. In Connecticut, people in districts zoned for single-family housing are more likely to be white and have higher incomes, such as Essex. This finding led the Urban Institute to conclude that "strict zoning regulations … are associated with inadequate access to affordable housing and with the segregation of people by income, race, and ethnicity." Legalizing multi-family housing is necessary to address Essex's housing shortage and severe segregation.
​
The local opposition was riddled with the NIMBYism narrative perpetuated both by residents and commissioners. NIMBY stands for "Not in My Backyard" and represents entrenched local opposition to infrastructure developments (usually against multi-family housing) and advocating for strict land use regulations. The residents in Essex who flooded town hall meetings and put signs up in their yards were advocating to "save rural Essex." They feared increased density and disruptions in their neighborhood's "character," which they believe is protected by single-family zoning. The narrative of "rural Essex'' is central to rejecting multi-family housing. The planning commission did not reject GP's proposal because multi-family housing is unneeded, inefficient, unproductive, or that it has severe negative impacts. It was rejected because of an exclusionary narrative that was not challenged thoroughly.
One of the signs used to express the NIMBY narrative against multi-family housing development.
Source: CT Examiner
Redden et al. use a narrative framework to show how narratives have potent impacts on planning documents and constantly shape and reproduce what actions are prioritized and acted upon. Commissioners leaned on the "rural Essex" narrative in their reasoning for rejecting the proposal, citing they were worried about "increased density" and keeping Essex a “small town.” However, a land use official claimed the plan would not lead to a "major increase in housing density" that residents and commissioners feared so vehemently. Sixty-five percent of housing was built before the zoning change that increased the minimum lot requirement, meaning many units are built on lots smaller than current regulations allow. This demonstrates that the narrative of the single-family "rural" town was stronger than the actual details of the proposal, reinforcing Redden's finding on the durability of narratives within the planning process.
​
In order to dismantle harmful narratives, Goetz et al’s "whiteness framework" would be productive. The whiteness framework is a strategy for planners to understand the role of whiteness and white affluence in planning interventions. Goetz et al. specifically argues to disrupt the durability of whiteness by examining and rejecting the exclusionary tactics of "single-family zoning" and "NIMBYism." This is particularly important in the context of Essex, where solid public opposition has limited the ability to mitigate housing burdens and segregation. Under the whiteness framework, the NIMBY narrative would not have the power to limit much-needed change. If city planners in Essex acknowledge the harmful narrative of preserving single-family homes, privileged residents would not have the opportunity to use their narratives to further their advantage. However, instead of challenging single-family zoning and the NIMBYism, the commission voted to form a committee to explore "other options of affordability regulations." What Essex needs right now is not a commission; it is more housing.
​
Limiting the development of multi-family housing by rejecting GP's proposal will worsen housing cost burdens on low and middle-income people and exacerbate segregation. As Essex continues to get more expensive, it is time to take ambitious steps connected with direct action. The Planning and Zoning Commission has committed to increasing housing affordability in the town. If Essex wants to increase affordable housing, they must legalize building it.
​
--
​
Bibliography
​
Brey, Jared. "Single-Family Zoning Linked with Income and Race Segregation." Governing. Last modified June 9, 2023. Accessed March 21, 2024. https://www.governing.com/housing/single-family-zoning-linked-with-income-and-race-segregation.
Crowley, Brenden. "Essex Rejects Multifamily Housing Plan, Votes to Explore Other Affordable Options." In Housing, Planning, and Development. Previously published in CT Examiner (CT), October 5, 2023.
DataHaven. Essex 2021 Equity Profile. Essex, CT: Data Haven, 2021.
Freemark, Yonah, Lydia Lo, and Sara C. Bronin. Bringing Zoning into Focus. N.p.: The Urban Institute, 2023.
Goetz, Edward Rashad A. Williams & Anthony Damiano G., Rashad A. Williams, and Anthony Damiano. "Whiteness and Urban Planning." Journal of the American Planning Association 86, no. 2 (2020): 142-56.
Summerfield. "The Benefits of Multifamily Housing for Local Communities." Summerfield Property Management. Last modified April 20, 2023. Accessed March 21, 2024. https://www.summerfieldmanagement.com/benefits-of-multifamily-housing/.
Town of Essex Planning and Zoning Commission. "Draft Minutes." Conference session at Regular Meeting, Essex, CT, September 6, 2022.
Town of Essex Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Essex Affordable Housing Plan, A. (Conn. June 2022).
Redden, Tyeshia, Laura Dedenbach, Kristin Larsen, and Kathryn Frank Frank. "Gainesville's Forgotten Neighborhood." Journal of the American Planning Association 88, no. 3 (2022): 392-404.