Correspondence from Lado to Ellis and Tegeler Re: Ruth Price Analysis on Subsidized Income in Hartford and Kit Collier Analysis

    Ron, 

June 11,1991 

Please note Phil's question regarding more $ for 
Ruth Price. Please let me know how to proceed. 

Thanks, 

Marianne 

 



  

coni®cticut civil AYA 
liberties union foundation 

32 grand street : 
hartford, connecticut 06106 
telephone: 247-9823 

  

  

  

  

  

May 20, 1993 

Ms. Marianne Lado 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street 

y New York, Ny 10013 

Dear Marianne, 

Enclosed is a bill from Ruth Price in the amount of 
$1,069.75 for work done to date, as previously agreed to. Also 
enclosed is a COPY of Ruth's draft report. 

report, Ruth would appre our budget permits, p next lawyers!’ meeting, 

permits. If she is deposed, we will seek payment by the state at 
her regular rates. 

. 
See you soon,   

  

Sincerely, 
77, 

V7 /d8 
Philip D, Tegeler 
Staff Attorney 

PDT/dmt 

Enclosures 

CC: Ruth Price 
Martha Stone  



  

  

RUTH G. PRICE & ASSOCIATES 

196 Glengarry Road 

Fairfield, CT 06432 

(203) 371-4896     
  

INVOICE 

TO: Philip Tegeler 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

6 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

FROM: Ruth G. Price 

RE: Housing Location Analysis for Sheff v. O'Neill 

DATE: May 17, 1991 
  

Preparation of the report: Analysis of the Location of Subsidized Low and Moderate 
Income in the Capitol Area of Hartford, Connecticut $ 800.00 

Expenses: Trip to Boston for meeting with Yale Rabin $ 71.75 
6 Trips to CCLUF in Hartford @ $33.00 per $ 198.00 
trip $1,069.75 

 



  

RUTH G. PRICE 

Ruth G. Price & Associates 

196 Glengarry Road 

Fairfield, CT 06432 

(203) 371-4896 

  

      

INVOICE 

TO: Philip Tegeler 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

6 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

FROM: Ruth G. Price 

RE: Housing Location Analysis for Sheff v. O'Neill 

DATE: May 17, 1991 
  

Additional work associated with Analysis of the Location of Subsidized Low and Moderate 
Income in the Capitol Area of Hartford, Connecticut 

8 Hours @ $50.00 $400.00 

 



  

® Ni ATTORNEY 
DRAFT WORK PRODUCT 

  

SHEFF v. O'NEILL 

ANALYSIS OF THE LOCATION OF SUBSIDIZED LOW AND MODERATE 
INCOME IN THE CAPITOL AREA OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 

A General Picture of the Capitol Area 

The Capitol Areal, like many metropolitan areas in the Northeast, is characterized 
by affluent suburbs and a poor central city with a growing minority racial and ethnic 
population and an increasing number of low income households. According to the 
1980 census?, the Capitol Area had a total population of nearly 600,000 persons 
living in approximately 215,000 households®. Hartford had a population of 136,392, 
less than a quarter of the population of the entire area. Approximately 93,000 Black 
and Hispanic and 72,000 elderly residents lived in the Capitol Area. Most Blacks 
and Hispanics - 79 percent - lived in the City of Hartford. In contrast, elderly 
residents (65 years of age or over) were relatively evenly distributed among the 
municipalities in the Capitol Area: 11 percent of Hartford's population and 12 
percent of the population of the 21 suburban communities were 65 years of age or 
over. The 1990 census is expected to reveal similar statistics, but with more 
population in the suburbs, less population in Hartford, and an increased minority 
population in the region, concentrated primarily in Hartford*- 

The 1980 census reported that: 

  

1 The Capitol Area comprises the following municipalities referenced in Sheff v, O'Neill and 
addressed in this analysis: Hartford, Bloomfield, Avon, Canton, East Granby, East Hartford, East 
Windsor, Ellington, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby, Manchester, Newington, Rocky Hill, Simsbury, 
South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, West Hartford, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor Locks. 

2 Details of the 1990 census have not yet been published. The lastest available detailed data is from 
the 1980 census. Preliminary data available from the 1990 census indicates similar trends, with more 
concentrations of poor and minority families living in Hartford. 

3 A small percentage, approximately three percent, of the population in the Capitol Area lives in 
group quarters that include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages, correctional facilitaies, 
rooming houses, barracks, and shelters. 

4 Connecticut Department of Housing (DOH), Connecticut Housing 2000: A Report on 
Demographic Change, January 1991, p. 7. 

  

RUTH PRICE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CCLU FOUNDATION 

 



"Draft: Sheff v. O'Neill Housing Analysis 
Page 2 

5/3/91 

  

Approximately 82,000, or 38 percent, of the 215,000 households in the 

Capitol Area had incomes that were considered "low" and "very low" 

The Capitol Area also had nearly 37,000 inadequate housing unitsS. 

Hartford contained a little more than half of these inadequate 
housing units - 53 percent - with the balance in the suburban 

municipalities. 

Seventy-one percent of the heads of households living in these 

inadequate housing units were under 62 years of age. Hartford had 57 

percent of the inadequate housing units occupied by these non-elderly 

households, and the suburbs had 43 percent. 

Hartford, with less than a quarter of the population of the Capitol 

Area, also had more than its share of inadequate housing units with 

heads of households over 62 years of age: Hartford had 44 percent of 

them, the suburbs had 56 percent. 

Low income families occupy approximately 17,000 subsidized rental housing units in 

the Capitol Area’. The State of Connecticut? subsidized 71 percent of these units®. 
  

5 Low income households, as defined by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

are those than have incomes that are 80 percent or less of the area's median income. Very low income 

households have incomes that are 50 percent or less of the area's median income. 

6 Inadequate housing units, as described in the 1980 census, have one or more of the following 

characteristics: lack complete plumbing for the exclusive use of the occupying household; are 

overcrowded, with overcrowding being defined as 1.01 or more persons per room; have a gross rent 
which is 30 percent or more of the occupants’ household income. 

7 Subsidized housing for the purpose of this analysis means rental housing units built with government 

subsidies and affordable to low and very low income households as defined by the U.S Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. Data pertaining to the number of subsidized rental housing units 

for low and very low income households in the Capitol Area come from the following sources: Capitol 

Region Council of Governments, "An Assessment of Housing Needs in the Capitol Region"; 

Documents from the Connecticut Department of Housing and the Connecticut Housing Finance 

Authority; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Looking for Affordable 

Apartments in Connecticut"; and the Housing Education Resource Center, "Housing Opportunities: 

Lower Income Rental Housing in the Capitol Region." 

8 The Department of Community Affairs administered state housing subsidies until 1979 when this 

department became the Department of Housing. The Connecticut Housing Finance Authority has 

provided revenue bonds for low and moderate income housing since 1969. The Connecticut Housing 
Authority is the designated public housing authority for the State of Connecticut and provides and 
administers special subsidies for municipalities. 

9 Some of these housing developments also received financing from federal and local governments. 

RUTH PRICE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CCLU FOUNDATION 

 



  

Draft: Sheff v. O'Neill Housing Analysis 

Page 3 

5/3/91 

The remaining subsidized rental housing units were subsidized solely by the federal 

government!?. Nearly 60 percent of the subsidized rental housing units were 

designed for families; the remaining 40 percent were designed for elderly persons! 

Low Income, Racial, and Subsidized Housing Concentrations in the Capitol Area 

These regional statistics do not reveal the extent of racial and economic disparities 

within the Capitol Area. The statistics that follow demonstrate that poverty is not 

equally distributed across the Capitol Area; although it has less than one quarter of 

the area's population, Hartford bears the burden of housing and educating a 
majority of the area's poor and minority families. 

Figure 1 shows that most of the Capitol Area's Black and Hispanic population - 79 

percent - is concentrated in Hartford. Black and Hispanic persons comprise over 

half of Hartford's population, whereas these groups constitute only eight percent of 

the population of the 21 suburban municipalities in the Capitol Area. 

INSERT FIGURE 1 

Income increases of the Black and Hispanic population during the 1980's did not 

keep pace with the income increases of the White non-Hispanic population!2, 

As shown in Figure 2, 64 percent of Hartford's households had low and very low 

incomes, more than double the proportion found in the 21 suburban communities 

combined. 

INSERT FIGURE 2 

During the 1980's, poverty rates were highest for families comprising children under 

18 living with one parent!3. These and other families with incomes below the 

  

10 Developments with federal financing are generally low income rental housing developed, owned, 

and managed by local housing authorities. 

11 The elderly housing category also includes a small number of supported housing types such as 

congregate housing and housing for various types of disabled persons in group homes. 

12 DOH, p. 33. 

13 Ibid. p. 28. 

RUTH PRICE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CCLU FOUNDATION 

 



  

FIGURE 1: 

Population - 

Thousands 

  
136392 
  

Hartford 

54% 

459302 
  

  
Suburbs 

  8% 

RACIAL COMPOSITION OF POPULATION IN THE 
CAPITOL AREA 

  

  

[J White 

HM Black & Hispanic 

  

  

 



  

FIGURE 2: INCOME COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE 
CAPITOL AREA 

180 - 

160 - 

140 + 

120 + 

LJ
 

Thousands of 100 

Households gg 1 

60 4 51026 

163727 
  

    

  
Hartford 

  

  

O Other 

MW Low & Very Low Income         
730% 

Suburbs 

 



  

Draft: Sheff v. O'Neill Housing Analysis 
Page 4 

5/3/91 

poverty level have had an extremely difficult time finding and affording rental 
housing in the Capitol Areal4. 

In 1985, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Hartford ranked fourth highest 
among cities with populations over 100,000 for proportion of residents living in 
poverty?S, 

This pattern of racial and economic segregation has been reinforced over the years. 

(INSERT MINORITY POVERTY DATA) 

Poor and minority families living in Hartford lack housing opportunities outside the 
city largely because of the small numbers of subsidized housing units in the 
surrounding suburbs. Thus, an imbalance in the supply and type of affordable 
family housing within a metropolitan region results mainly from the following public 
policy decisions and actions that the State has made: 

1. Location of State-assisted publicly and private housing. 

2. State transportation policies that have increased "white flight" from 

Hartford and exacerbated racial and economic residential segregation 
in the Hartford region. 

3. Failure to promote or enforce affirmative marketing requirements 

for State-funded suburban housing developments. 

4. State statutes that allow suburban veto power over development of 
new subsidized housing. 

5 State policy that limits the use of federal rental subsidies to the 

municipality where the certificates were issued thereby preventing 

holders of urban rental certificates in the city from seeking housing in 
the suburbs. 

6. State policy that permits suburban public housing authorities to use 

residency preferences that limit access of low income minority 

residents to suburban housing opportunities and suburban schools. 

7. State policy that permits and encourages exclusionary zoning and 

other land use practices that prohibit the development of subsidized 

housing for low and moderate income housing. 

  

14 pid. 

15 Ibid, p. 27. 

RUTH PRICE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CCLU FOUNDATION 

 



  

Draft: Sheff v. O'Neill Housing Analysis 
Page 5 

5/3/91 

This analysis relates to the first of these seven policies, the location of State-assisted 
public and private housing. 

Because the private housing market is unable to produce sufficient housing without 
some form of subsidy, the scarce supply of affordable housing is tied largely to state 
and local housing policies affecting allocation of housing subsidies. Local efforts, 
coupled with a variety of federal and state housing subsidies, determine, first, 
whether a municipality has any subsidized housing, and second, the typelé, amount, 
and location of such housing: 

Whether local officials decide to make land available for subsidized 
housing, 

Whether local officials apply to state and federal housing agencies for 
such housing, 

State and federal officials’ decisions to approve applications for either 
family or elderly housing developments, and 

The number of units and the amount of subsidy. 

The lack of affordable and appropriate housing stock - especially units with two or 
more bedrooms - in suburban communities obviously restricts social and economic 
mobility of low and moderate income families with school age children, and ; 
particularly minority families in the metropolitan area. These families remain in 
central city areas where either subsidized housing or older housing stock is available 
at reasonable prices. Trapped in areas where poverty, over-crowding, crime, 
substance abuse, and other urban problems abound, they can not take advantage of 
less stressed school districts and may be forced to travel great distances for 
employment opportunities. According to a report issued by the Connecticut 
Department of Housing in January 1991, Connecticut's major cities, such as 
Hartford, will increasingly be forced to struggle with the problem of providing 
affordably priced rental units!?. This trend will continue to reinforce the segregated 
pattern of housing in the Capitol Area. 

Subsidized Housing in the Capitol Area 

From the late 1940's to the early 1980's, the City of Hartford, through its local 
housing authority, received financing from the federal government for low rent 
public housing. Suburban communities sought and received very little of this kind of 
  

16 Types of housing include housing for family, housing for elderly households, congregate elderly 
facilities, group homes with supporting social service programs for mentally or disabled groups, etc. 

17 DOH, p. 34. 

RUTH PRICE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CCLU FOUNDATION 

 



  

Draft: Sheff v. O'Neill Housing Analysis 
Page 6 

5/3/91 

financing. In the 1950's, the State of Connecticut began to subsidize housing with its 
own housing and community development programs and in combination with 
federal housing and community development programs. A detailed analysis of the 
number, location, and type of subsidized housing in the Capitol Area reveals the 
effects of decisions by the state in allocating housing subsidies between Hartford 
and the suburbs. 

As shown in Figure 3, Hartford has 9,389 subsidized housing units, of which 8,050, 
or 86 percent, are family units and 1,339, or 14 percent, are elderly units. 

INSERT FIGURE 3 

Of the 8,050 family units, 5,044, or 63 percent, are subsidized by the state or by the 
state and federal governments; these are owned and managed by various private and 
non-profit organizations. The remaining 3,006 units are low rent public housing 
units financed by the federal government and owned and managed by the Hartford 
Housing Authority. 

Figure 3 also shows that the 21 suburbs in the Capitol Area have a total of 7,008 
subsidized units, with two and one-half times as many elderly units as family units. 

Most of the suburban family units (91 percent) are distributed among the larger 
suburbs of Bloomfield, East Hartford, Farmington, Glastonbury, Manchester, 
Vernon, and Wethersfield. Since the State did not require affirmative fair 
marketing policies until 1988, these suburban subsidized family units were not 
necessarily available and accessible to low income families from Hartford. In 
addition, low income families will lose any possibilty of access to over 500 units of 
suburban subsidized units in Bloomfield, East Hartford, Vernon, and West Hartford 
because owners of these properties will have the opportunity to convert these 
properties to another use. In the next two years, owners can pre-pay federal 
subsidized mortgages on these properties, and no longer have the obligation to 
provide affordable rents to low income tenants. The State has not intervened to 
correct this problem, thereby exacerbating the lack of housing opportunities in these 
suburbs. 

Figure 4 shows that, whereas the suburbs had 15.6 units of elderly and family 
subsidized housing per 1,000 population, Hartford had 72.3 units - nearly five times 
as many. 

INSERT FIGURE 4 

The disproportionate number of subsidized housing units in Hartford arises from 
the allocation of funding for these units by both the state and federal governments. 
The federal government subsidized a large number of public housing units in 
Hartford beginning in the 1940's. The state reinforced the pattern set by federal 

RUTH PRICE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CCLU FOUNDATION 

 



  

FIGURE 3. SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS IN THE CAPITOL 
AREA 

T 8050 

5119 
  

5 OF ederal (no state) 
No. of Units A 

= State, State with Federal     2073 
  

  

  

  

Famil Elde Family Elderly 
TFO SUBURBS 

 



  

FIGURE 4: SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING UNITS IN THE 
CAPITOL AREA PER 1,000 POPULATION 

80 + 

70 + 

60 + 

50 + 

Units per 1,000 40 + 

30 + 

  

723 
  

   
   

Hartford 

  

  

[J Federal (no state) 

  

® State, State with Federal 

  

  

Suburbs 

  

 



  

Draft: Sheff v. O'Neill Housing Analysis 
Page 7 
5/3/91 

funding and allocated housing subsidies for nearly three and one-half times as many 

rental units per 1,000 population in Hartford as in the 21 suburban communities 
combined. 

State and federal agencies allocated funds for elderly units much more evenly 

between the City of Hartford and its suburbs than they did family units. As shown in 

Figure 5, the City of Hartford has 86.3 units of elderly housing units per 1,000 
elderly population and the suburbs have 93.1 units. 

INSERT FIGURE 5 

The distribution of subsidized family housing between Hartford and the suburbs is 

in sharp contrast to the even distribution of subsidized elderly housing units within 

the Capitol Area. As shown in Figure 6, the City of Hartford has 58.9 units of 

subsidized family rental units per 1,000 population, whereas the suburbs have a 

scant 4.5. 

INSERT FIGURE 6 

As shown in Figure 7, the distribution of subsidized family housing between 

Hartford and the suburbs is also imbalanced even in terms of the ratio between 

subsidized family units and low income households. Hartford has 245.1 units per 

1,000 low and very low income households - five times as many as the suburbs, 

which have 42.2 units per 1,000 low and very low income households. 

INSERT FIGURE 7 

Housing Needs 

Indicators of need that, in principle, might account for the state's allocation of 

housing subsidies for family rental units include: 

Total population, 

Black and Hispanic population, 

Number of low income households, and 

Number of inadequate non-elderly housing units. 

State and federal subsidies allocated to Hartford have permitted the city to respond 

to the need for family housing units by providing .54 subsidized family units per 

inadequate family housing unit, as shown in Figure 8. The 21 suburbs provide only 

.25 subsidized family units per inadequate family housing unit. Not only has 

subsidized housing in the suburbs been unresponsive to needs brought about by the 

region's inadequate housing, it has not responded to housing needs within the 

suburbs themselves. The inadequate opportunities in suburban municipalities may 
force low income families to seek housing that they can afford in Hartford. Any in- 

RUTH PRICE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CCLU FOUNDATION 

 



  

FIGURE §: SUBSIDIZED ELDERLY RENTAL UNITS PER 1,000 

ELDERLY POPULATION IN THE CAPITOL AREA 

Units per 1,000 

100 
90 + 
80 1 
70 1 
60 + 

50 + 

  

86.4 93.1 
  

  

Hartford 

  

Suburbs 

  

  

CJ Federal (no state) 

BM State, State with Federal 

  

  

 



  

FIGURE 6: SUBSIDIZED FAMILY RENTAL UNITS PER 1,000 

POPULATION IN THE CAPITOL AREA 

60 + 

50 + 

40 4 

Units per 1,000 30 + 

20 + 

58.9 
  

  

  

  

Hartford 

  

4.5 

Suburbs 

  

  

CJ Federal (no state) 

B State, State with Federal 

  

  

 



  

FIGURE 7: SUBSIDIZED FAMILY UNITS PER 1,000 LOW AND 

VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CAPITOL AREA 

250 + 

200 + 

150 + 

Units per 1,000 

100 + 

  

245.1 
  

  

  

Hartford 

  

42.2 

  

  

[J Federal (no state) 

BM State, State with Federal 
  

  

Suburbs 

  

 



Draft: Sheff v. O'Neill Housing Analysis 

Page 8 

5/3/91 

migration of poor suburban families places additional burdens on Hartford's 

educational and housing resources. 

INSERT FIGURE 8 

An analysis of indicators of housing needs for the Capitol Area reveals that in 

allocating units between Hartford and the suburbs, the state responded less to 

population, number of low income households, and inadequate non-elderly housing 

than to the size of the Black and Hispanic population. 

Figure 9 compares these indicators for state and federal funded subsidized housing, 

while Figure 10 compares theses indicators for state funded subsidized housing. In 

both cases, the allocation of subsidized units between Hartford and the suburbs 

corresponds more closely to racial composition than to any other indicator. While 

Hartford has 23 percent of the total population of the Capitol Area, 40 percent of 

the low income households, and 57 percent of the inadequate housing units, the city 

has 80 percent of the state subsidized family housing units in the area and 73 

percent of the housing units subsidized by the state and federal governments. The 

only indicator that corresponds to this allocation is minority population: Hartford 

has 79 percent of the Black and Hispanic population in the area. 

INSERT FIGURES 9 AND 10 

(INSERT LONGITUDINAL DATA HERE) 

Conclusions 

Less than a quarter of the Capitol Area's population lives in the City of Hartford, 

but more than three-quarters of the poor and minority population are concentrated 

within the city limits. The Capitol Area's elderly population is evenly distributed 

among Hartford and its suburbs. The state's policies affecting the allocation of 

subsidized housing in the Capitol Area have reinforced and perpetuated the pattern 

of segregation of Black and Hispanic families in the City of Hartford. State housing 

subsidies provided insufficient numbers of housing units suitable for families in the 

Capitol Area's suburban municipalities. Lack of affordable and appropriate housing 

stock - units with two or more bedrooms - has restricted housing and educational 

opportunities outside of Hartford for poor and minority families with school age 

children. 

Federal housing programs in the 1940's and 1950's started the pattern of 

concentrating most of the subsidized family housing units in Hartford. The state 

replicated the pattern by allocating most of its housing resources in suburban 

communities for elderly units instead of family units. By doing so, the state 

responded less to demographic patterns and housing need than to locations of the 

Black and Hispanic population. 

RUTH PRICE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CCLU FOUNDATION  



Draft: Sheff v. O'Neill Housing Analysis 
Page 9 

5/3/91 

Thus, the state, in its decisions affecting subsidized housing, strongly perpetuated 

the current locational patterns of Black and Hispanic populations, reinforcing the 
patterns of racial, economic, and educational segregation in the Capitol Area. 

RUTH PRICE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CCLU FOUNDATION  



  

FIGURE 8. SUBSIDIZED FAMILY UNITS PER 

INADEQUATE FAMILY HOUSING UNITS IN THE CAPITOL 

AREA 

0.6 1 0.54 
  

  

[J Federal (no state) 

  

  

MB State, State with Federal       

  

  

Hartford Suburbs 

 



  

FIGURE 9. SUBSIDIZED FAMILY HOUSING IN THE 

CAPITOL AREA VS. INDICATORS OF NEED 

595694 92882 81980 26025 
    

     | P% 

    
Percent               

Subsid. Total Low Inc. Inadeq. Black & 
Fam. Units Popul. Hsehlds. Housing Units Hisp. Popul. 

  

  

  

[J Suburbs 

] Hartford 

   



  

Percent 

  

FIGURE 10: STATE SUBSIDIZED FAMILY HOUSING IN THE 

CAPITOL AREA VS. INDICATORS OF NEED 

  
  

6802 59694 92882 81890 26025 
100% - 
90% + 
80% + | 7%     

    
        

       

Subsid. Total Low Inc. Inadeq. Black & 

Fam. Units Popul. Hshlds. Housing Units Hisp. Popul. 

  

  

[J Suburbs 

= Hartford 

   



  

APPENDIX 1 

HOUSING AND POPULATION DATA SUMMARY FOR 

HARTFORD AND SUBURBS IN THE CAPITOL AREA 

  

DATA 

ITEM SOURCE HARTFORD SUBURBS TOTAL 

Total Population 3 136,392 459,302 595,694 

Black & Hispanic 1 73,249 19,633 92,882 
Over 65 1 15,499 56,583 72,082 

Total Subsidized Housing Units 2 9,878 7,008 16,886 
State-assisted (or State and Federal) 2 6,272 6,079 12,35] 
Federal-assisted (no state) 2 3,606 1,113 4,719 

Total Subsidized Family Units 2 8,050 2073 10,123 
State-assisted (or State and Federal) 2 5,044 1,758 6,802 
Federal-assisted (no state) 2 3,006 315 3,321 

Total Assisted Elderly Units 2 1,339 5,119 6,458 

State-assisted (or State and Federal) 2 851 4,321 5.172 
Federal-assisted (no state) 2 488 798 1,286 

Total Households i) 51,026 163,727 214,753 
Low and very Low Income Households 1 32,842 49,038 81,880 

Total Inadequate Housing Units 1 19,578 17,226 36,804 
Head of Households (under 62) 1 14,796 11,229 26,025 
Head of Households (over 62) 1 4,782 5,997 10,779 

DATA SOURCES 

1. Capitol Region Council of Governments, "An Assessment of Housing Needs in the Capitol Region" 
2. Connecticut Department of Housing, "Family Housing Projects Owned by Housing Authorities"; "Complete List of 

Congregate, Elderly, Moderate Rental & Low Income State-financed Housing Projects"1987; Private Developers”, 1988; 
"1989 Catalog of Publicly Assisted Rental Housing". 

3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Looking for Affordable Apartments in Connecticut, 1989; 
"HUD Projects in Connecticut, 1986";"Local Housing Authorities under Management in Connecticut". 

4. Housing Education Resource Center, Housing Opportunities: Lower Income Rental Housing in the Capitol Region". 
5. Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, "1990 Annual Report". 

 



  

APPENDIX II 

SUMMARY 

LOCATION OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN THE CAPITOL AREA 

MUNICIPALITY NO. OF NO. OF 

STATE PROJECTS FEDERAL PROJECTS 

Hartford 

Avon 

Bloomfield 

Canton 

East Hartford 

East Windsor 

Ellington 

Farmington 

Glastonbury 

Granby 

Manchester 

Newington 

Rocky Hill 

Simsbury 

South Windsor 

Suffield 

Vernon 

West Hartford 

Wethersfield 

Windsor 

Windsor Locks 

TOTALS 

CAPITOL AREA TOTALS 

TOTAL UNITS IN CAPITOL AREA 

22 75 

0 1 

5 8 

0 1 

7 14 

2 2 

1 0 

4 4 

6 3 

1 1 

3 5 

2 5 

1 0 

1 1 

1 0 

3 1 

7 8 

4 4 

6 5 

3 0 

1 2 

60 65 

16,886 

NO. OF ELDERLY OR 

GROUP HOME UNITS 

1,828 

NO. OF 

FAMILY UNITS 

8,050 

 



    

APPENDIX III 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

                              

4/28/91 LOCATION OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN THE CAPITOL AREA 

FUNDING SOURCES 
PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT | MGMT. | CHA FMHA 2+ % | YR 
NAME NO. NO. DOH| CHFA | HUD| E/GH| F |#E/GH| #F |BDRMS | MIN. | OCC. 

HARTFORD 

54-58 Maple Ave. 528-5406 1 6 6 
234-236 Ashley St. 524-0734 1 57 55 
131 Washington St. 522-1263 1 18 2 
435 Farmington Ave. 236-6167 1 1 i 12 4 
95 Vine Street CT26-0028-004 [064-MRD-077 | 522-1263 1 1 1 31 31 1982 
Adams Street Conn 3-10 275-8400 1 1 3 3| 100.0{ 1973 
Asylum West Apts CT26-HO37-07 |01735182 289-4901 1 1 1 60 30 
Bacon Congreg. Hsg 064-C-006 724-4212 1 1 32 0 1984 
Barbour Garden Apts. 01755009 527-4647 1 1 85 67 

_|Barbour-Kensington 01744158 522-1263 1 1 36 5 
Bedford Street Apts. 01744106 527-0659 1 1 91 51 
Bellevue Square Conn 3-3 275-8400 1 1 309 281] 994) 1942 
Bellevue Square Conn 3-3A 275-8400 1 1 156 142 1943 
Better Housing CT26-E000-008 | 236-5961 1 1 44 13 
Betty Knox Apts. Conn 3-11 275-8400 1 1 199 Of 789 1973 
Billings Forge 01735113 247-1471 1 1 1 20 12 
Bushnell Congr Hsng 017EHO0S58 549-4877 1 1 60 0 
Capitol Towers 01744022 522-1151 1 1 144 8 
Casa Nueva 064-MD-075 |CT26-HO37-05 | 247-8634 1 1 1 79 68 1980 
Casas Verde Sur 064-MRD-081 |CT26-0028-018 | 232-4578 1 1 1 39 39 1982 
Cerebral Palsy Hsing 017EHO011 233-1278 1 1 12 0 
Chappelle Gardens 01744130 233-1278 1 1 188 179 
Charter Oak Square 728-3232 1 1 214 
Charter Oak Terrace Conn 34 275-8400 1 1 948 826| 96.8| 1942 
Chester Bowles Park 064-MR-017 275-8400 1 1 410 294| 995| 1950 
Clay Hill CT26-A005-001 |064-MRD-083L | 289-1517 1 1 1 156 146 1984 
Colt Gardens CT26-E000-014 | 342-2611 1 1 89 0 
Congress St. Apts. 278-6092 1 29 29 
Cornerstone Apts. 236-0666 1 1 7 7 
Dorothy Street CT26-HO45-02 | 278-5890 1 1 1 48 0 
Dutch Point Colony Conn 3-2 275-8400 1 1 186 158] 94.5] 1941 
Earle St. Apts. 01755041 233-3485 1 1 6 6 
Enfield-Magnolia 064-MRD-102 | 232-4578 1 1 20 1987 
First Village 293-2776 1 1 40 0 
Fox Manor CT26-HO37-07 | 278-5176 1 1 1 90 0 
Harriet B. Stowe Vill. Conn 3-5 275-8400 1 1 598 538) 99.4| 1953 
Horace Bushnell II 01744105 549-4877 1 1 40 11 
Immanuel House 01744002 525-4228 1 1 204 0 
Infill CT26-E000-15 | 522-1263 1 1 $2 
Intown West 01735131 236-6061 1 1 1 117 54 
Jackson Center 01744108 527-0659 1 1 12 4d 44 
Kent Apartments Conn 3-7 275-8400 1 1 39 Of 9235{ 1970 
La Casa Elderly 522-7296 1 1 40 0 
Laurelwood I 01732022 246-2267 1 1 136 22 
Leased Housing Conn 3-9 275-8400 1 1 349 
Leased Housing Conn 3-12 275-8400 1 1 150 
Lower Garden St. 01744154 522-1263 1 1 51 39 
M. L. King Apts. 01735016 527-0659 1 1 112 112 
Main & Nelson Sts. 01744155 522-1263 1 1 56 48 
Main & Pavillion Sts. 01744156 522-1263 1 1 72 42     

Alll1 

 



  

APPENDIX III 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    
  

           
    

              

FUNDING SOURCES 
PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT | MGMT. | CHA FMHA 2+ % YR. 
NAME NO. NO. DOH| CHFA | HUD| E/GH| F |#E/GH| #F |BDRMS | MIN. | OCC. 

Martin Street 522-1263 1 1 67 61 
Mary Mahoney Vill Conn 3-6 275-8400 1 1 50 0| 100.0] 1963 
McKinley Park 01700034 522-0953 1 1 166 148 
Mnsfld-Edgewd-Vine 01744157 522-1263 1 1 60 35 
Mt. Olive CT26-E000-003 [01755019 522-1263 1 1 47 42 
Neiton Court Conn 3-1 275-8400 1 1 156 120 975] 1943 
Nuestra Casa 522-7296 1 1 40 0 
Percival Smith Towers Conn 3-8 275-8400 1 1 200 0 567] 1972 
Plaza Terrace 01755092 677-7864 1 1 14 14 
Rev. Wright Homes 01735002 522-1263 1 1 48 23 
Rice Heights 064-MR-003 CT26-HO45-00 | 275-8400 1 1 1 288 256] 94.4| 1949 
Rice Heights Ext. 064-MR-003A |CT26-HO45-00 | 275-8400 1 1 1 100 100 97.7] 1951 
Scattered Site I Conn 3-15 275-8400 1 1 134 107] 97.8 
Scattered Site II Conn 3-16 275-8400 1 1 91 91] 983 
Scattered Site III Conn 3-17 275-8400 1 1 38 38| 100.0 
Second Village 293-2776 1 1 42 0 
Sheldon Oak Coop 01735018 527-0659 1 1 90 90 
Shepherd Park CT26-HO37-06 |CT26-HO37-0S | 523-9159 1 1 1 373 66 
Sigourney Square 01738048 527-0659 1 1 1 1 42 0 
South Marshall 522-1263 1 1 48 48 
South Arsenal I 01744180 278-4460 1 1 274 134 
St. Christopher Apts. 01744076 278-3018 1 1 100 8 
Ten Marshall House 01744013 522-1419 1 1 115 0 
The Greens 522-1263 1 1 160 143 
Townhouse Apts. 01755002 527-0659 1 1 36 30 
Tuscan Brthrhd I 017EH116 525-7983 1 1 120 0 
Tuscan Brthrhd II 01744021 527-0659 1 1 204 0 
Tuscn Brthrhd Homes 01735058 525-7983 1 1 50 0 
Underwood Apts. 01732024 951-2267 1 1 139 25 
Upper Grdn St. Apts. 01744107 522-1263 1 1 1 98 82 
Vine Associates 01735071 522-1263 1 1 68 27 
Ward /Wolcott Place 064-MRD-084 |CT26-HO45-04 | 236-6061 1 1 1 18 12 1983 
Westbrook Village 064-MR-030 275-8400 1 1 360 2721 98.5| 1951 
Zion Park CT26-0029-008 084-MRD-085 |2 1 1 46 46       

AIII 2 

 



  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

APPENDIX III 

FUNDING SOURCES 
PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT | MGMT. | CHA FMHA 2+ % | YR 
NAME NO. NO. DOH| CHFA | HUD| E/GH #E/GH| #F [BDRMS | MIN. | OCC. 

SUBURBS 

AVON 

Avon Elderly Housing 1 1 39 0 
1 Whispering Pines 

TOTAL AVON 1 39 0 

BLOOMFIELD 

E. Wintonbury Hills 01744201 528-2111 1 1 111 111 
E. Wintonbury Ave. 

East Wintonbury 2424708 1 1 i 111 
40 Barry Circle 

Federation Homes 017EH041 233-1278 1 1 100 0 
160 Woodenbury Ave. 

Scattered Sites Conn 45-1 247-2318 1 1 17 17 1981 

Wintonbury II 233-1278 1 1 84 0 
Bestor Lane 

Wintonbury Park 01744012 233-1278 1 1 46 0 
Mountain Ave. 

Wintonbury Park II 01744177 233-1278 1 1 1 84 0 
14 Jeffrey Lane 

Woodside Village CT26-HO37-0S | 233-1278 1 1 1 176 0 
2-24 Dorothy Drive 

Bloomfield Total 3 2 8 5 490| 239 239 

CANTON 

Maple Glen 023-E-109L CT26-HO45-01 | 693-6464 1 1 40 0 
121 Dowd Ave. 

Canton Total 
1 40 0 

EAST HARTFORD 

Daley Crt-Hutt Hghts 043-E-006 569-4920 1 1 60 0 1962 
70 Canon Road 

E. Hartford Estates CT26M000006 [01744027 569-0663 1 396 396 
70 Plain Drive 

Elms Village Conn 13-5 569-4920 1 1 85 0 1967 
Elms Village Drive 

Hartford East CT26-HO37-02 | 289-6511 1 1 1 120 0 
886 Main Street 

Heritge Gdns/Hglnds Conn 13-6 569-4920 1 1 100 0 1970 
163 School Street 

Hocknum Park CONN 13-1 569-4920 1 102 88 1953 
Mill Road 

                                

AIIl3 

  

 



  

APPENDIX III 
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    
  

: FUNDING SOURCES 

PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT | MGMT. | CHA FMHA 2+ YR. 

NAME NO. NO. DOH| CHFA | HUD| E/GH #E/GH| #F [BDRMS OCC. 

King Court 043-MR-023 569-4920 1 80 80 1950 
Off Ensign St. 

Meadow Hill Apts. Conn 134 569-4920 1 1 120 0 1966 
101 Connecticut Blvd. 

Miller Gardens Conn 13-7 569-4920 1 1 85 0 1976 
452 Main St. 

Rochambeau Apts. Conn 13-3 5694920 1 1 50 0 1964 
68 Silver Lane 

Shea Gardens Conn 13-2 569-4920 1 1 50 0 1962 

Mill Road, Holmes, & 

E. Hamilton Sts. 

St. Elizabeth Manor CT26-T83-101 [017EH120 569-1822 1 1 60 0 

Applegate Lane 

St. Mary's Elderly CT260024002 [01735111 528-5859 1 1 1 55 0 
1451 Main St. 

Veteran's Terrace CT26-HO45-01 |043-MR-023A | 569-4920 1 1 102 102 1951 
Veteran's Terrace CT26-HO45-01 |043-MR-058 569-4920 1 1 48 48 1957 
452 Main St. 

Willow Arms CT26HO2706 | 569-7367 1 1 1 96 0 

442-444 Main St. 

East Hartford Total 4 3 14 11 881 728 714 

EAST WINDSOR 

Park Hill/ Park Hill Ext. |047-E-089 047-E-051 623-8467 2 2 84 0 1971 
Park Hill/Windsorville Rds. 1974 

Warehouse Point 623-2161 1 

235 Main St. (Rear) 1 40 0 0 1975 
East Windsor Total 2 0 2 2 124 0 0 

ELLINGTON 

Snipsic Village 1 1 42 0 
? 

Ellington Total 1 0 0 1 42 0 0 

FARMINGTON 

Farmington Ct. CT26002002 052-MRD-076 | 247-2318 1 1 1 18 18 18 1981 
Bart Lane, Unionville 

Maple Village 052-E-09%4 239-2539 1 1 40 0 1975 
Perry St., Unionville 

New Horizons CT26T811021 1 62 38 
Westview Terrace 

Westerleigh 017EH098 239-2539 1 1 1 40 0 

300 Plainville Ave, Unionville 
                                

Alll 4 

 



APPENDIX III 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

                              

FUNDING SOURCES 

PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT | MGMT. | CHA FMHA 2+ % | YR 

NAME NO. NO. DOH| CHFA | HUD| E/GH #E/GH| #F |BDRMS | MIN. | OCC. 
Tunxis Apts. 017-55059 673-2264 1 1 12 20 20 
Mill & Platner Sts., Unionville 

Farmington Totals 4 0 4 4 110 100 76 

GLASTONBURY 

Center Village 054-E-062 633-3549 1 1 50 0 1975 
Salmon Brook & New London Tpke. 

Still Hill 054-C-016 1 1 10 0 1989 
634 Main St. 

Glastonbury Grp Hme 017EHO076 242-227 1 1 12 0 
854 Mott Hill Rd. 

Hale Farms 054-AH-16 1 3 2 
Hebron Ave. 

Knox Lane 054-E-149 633-3549 1 ] 40 0 1882 
39 Knox Lane 

Naubuc Green CT26HO39030 | 659-0809 1 1 1 110 0 
193 Welles Street 

Village Green 054-E039 633-3549 1 1 50 0 1971 
39 Knox Lane 

Welles Village CT26P0O04000 |Conn 40-1 633-3549 1 199 169 1983 
Risley Rd. 

Glastonbury Totals 6 0 3 6 272) 202 171 

GRANBY 

Granby Group Homes 017EHO0SS 242-2274 1 1 18 0 
Juniper Dr./N. Church 

Stoney Hill 653-6303 1 1 30 0 
Salmon Brook 

Granby Totals 1 0 1 2 48 0 0 

MANCHESTER 

? 643-2163 1 1 20 0 
208 N. Elm St. 

March Community Res. 077-MRD-082 | 646-4446 1 1 8 1982 
2 

Mayfair Gardens Conn 26-3 643-2163 1 1 76 0 1970 
N. Main St. 

Oakland Heights 077-MRD-088 | 646-8295 1 1 105 85 1984 
Oakland St. 

Scattered Sites Conn 26-5 1 14 12 

Spencer Village 077-E-100 1 1 40 0 1978 
Spencer Village 077-E-151 1 1 40 0 1982 
Pascal St. 
  

AIIlS 

  

 



  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

APPENDIX III 

FUNDING SOURCES 

PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT | MGMT. | CHA FMHA 2+ YR 

NAME NO. NO. DOH| CHFA | HUD| E/GH #EBE/GH| #F |BDRMS OCC. 

Squire Village 01744148 646-1280 1 374 0 

48 Spencer St. 

Westhill Gardens Conn 26-1 643-2163 1 1 100 0 1962 

Westhill Gardens Add. Conn 26-2 643-2163 1 1 100 0 1966 

Bluefield Dr. 

Manchester Totals S 5 7 758) 119 97 

NEWINGTON 1 1 40 0 

Cedar Village 094-E-B154 1 1 40 0 1976 

312-316 Cedar St. 

Edmund Keleher 247-2318 1 1 1 75 0 

241 West Hill Rd. 094-E-104 

Market Square 01738026 521-8396 1 1 28 0 

65 Constance Leigh Dr. CT26-HO37-070 

Meadowbrook Apts. 017EHO038 242-2274 1 1 9 0 

? 

Newington Grp Home 1 1 26 0 

98 Cedar St. 

New Meadow Village 01744178 246-7213 1 114 98 
p 

Southfield Apartments 

Willard Avenue 

Newington Totals 2 4 5 178| 114 98 

ROCKY HILL 119-E-89 563-7868 1 1 30 0 

Murphy Housing 0 1977 

School Street 

Rocky Hill Seniors 119-E-113 1 1 40 

Willow Rd. 

Rocky Hill Totals 1 0 0 1 40 0 0 

SIMSBURY 1 0 1971 

Murphy Apartments 128-E-054 658-1147 1 1 70 0 1975 

1600 Hopemeadow 

Willow Arms 01744165 2894901 1 81 53 

55 Elm Street 

Simsbury Totals 1 0 1 1 70| 81 53 

SOUTH WINDSOR 0 

Wapping Mews 132-E-078 644-3082 1 1 30 0 1974 

50 Elm St. 

Flax Hill 132-E-194 644-3082 1 1 40 

30 Foster St. 

South Windsor Totals 2 0 0 0 70{ 0 0 
  

                                

AIIL 6 

  

 



APPENDIX III 

  

FUNDING SOURCES 
  

  

CHA FMHA 
  

DOH CHFA HUD E/GH 
  

  Laurel Court 
  Bridge St. 
  

  Maple Court 
  Bridge St. 
  

  
Park Place 
  45 Bridge St. 
  

  Broder Place 139-E-180 
  125 Bridge St. 
  Suffield Totals 
  

  VERNON 
  Briar Knoll 
  ? 
  

  
Court Towers 
  
21 Court Street 
  

  Dobbs Crossing 01735130 873-1713 
  1170 Hartford Tpke. 
  

  
Florence Mill CT26-HO37-03 
  121 Main St. 
  

  Francis Pitkat Congr 
  ? 
  

  

Franklin Park East 
  
Franklin Park East 
  

  Franklin Park West 
  
114 Franklin Park West 
  

  

Grove Court 
  55 Grove St. 
  

  
Grove Court Ext 
  ? 
  

  Ledgecrest 
  Brooklyn St. 
  

  
Rose Commons 
  550 Hartford Tpke. 
  

  
Sacred Heart Retrmnt 
  ? 
  

  Vernon Group Homes 017EH110 242-2274 
  Warren & Valley Falls 
  

                  
                 



APPENDIX III 

  

  

FUNDING SOURCES 
  

  PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT MGMT. CHA FMHA % YR. 
  NAME NO. NO. DOH| CHFA HUD E/GH #E/GH #F BDRMS OCC. 
  Welles Country Vill. 017EH001 646-8782 1 1 100 
  Welles Rd. 

  

  Westview 146-MRD-106 875-0000 50 1986 
  55 West St. 

  

  Windemere Court 871-0886 
  29 Windemere Ave. 

  Vernon Totals 
12 613 130 

  

  WEST HARTFORD 

  Elm Grove 155-E-118 236-2921 40 1979 
  Grave St. 

  

  Federation Square CT26-HO37-05 232-6345 
  Starkel Rd. 

  

  Fellowship Housing 071-44801 236-5961 
  10-54 Starkel Rd. 

  

  Piper Brook 01744150 236-5961 96 20 
  107-127 Hillcrest Ave. 

  

  Plant School Conn 39-1 100 
  75% Farmington Ave. 

  

  Stz Mary Home 
100 

  291 Steele Rd. 

  West Hartford Totals 
427 

  

  WESTHERSFIELD 

  Adams Sr. Citzns Apts. 159-E-058 529-2267 31 1972 
  55 Lancaster Rd. 

  

  Executive Square CT26-HO37-09 529-7595 240 
  100 Executive Square 

  

  First Church Village CT26-HO37-00 247-2318 75 
  117 Wells Rd. 

  

  Harry R. Fuller 159-E-181 529-2267 32 1987 
  31 Butler St. 

  

  Highvue 159-MR-001 529-2267 
1948 

  Lancaster Rd. 

  

  James Devlin Court 159-E-079 529-2267 50 1983 
  60 Lancaster Rd. 

    
  Lasher Court 233-1278 12 
  333 Maple St. 

  

  Nathan Hale Sen Ctr 017EH119 522-6474 41 
  Bertin Turnpike 

  

                                    

AIII8 

 



  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

APPENDIX III 

FUNDING SOURCES 

PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT | MGMT. | CHA FMHA 2+ % YR 
NAME NO. NO. DOH| CHFA | HUD| E/GH #E/GH| #F |BDRMS | MIN. | OCC. 

Westfield Heights 529-2267 1 1 10 130 110 
Lancaster Rd. 

Cerebral Palsy Hsg. CT26T781004 1 12 0 
333 Maple St. 

Wethersfield Totals 5 1 5 8 491| 170 138 

WINDSOR 

Milbrook Village 164-E-043 688-3675 1 1 60 0 1970 
35 Mack St. 

Shad Run Terrace 164-E-119 688-3675 1 1 30 0 1980 
Henry St. 164-E-178 1 1 22 1986 
Windsor Totals 3 3 112] 0 0 

WINDSOR LOCKS 

Chestnut Hill Apts CONN 32-1 627-1455 1 16 16 1974 
50 Chestnut St. 

Oak Grove Terrace Conn 32-2 627-1455 1 1 60 0 
Grove Street 

South West Terr Apts. 165-E-182 627-1455 1 1 40 0 1987 
130 Southwest Dr. 

Windsor Locks Totals 1 0 2 2 100| 16 16                                 

AIIlY9 

 



  

TO: Sheff Lawyers 

FROM: Phil regelerf] 

RE: Kit Collier 

DATE: May 15, 1991 

The revised version of Kit Collier's 1ll5-page manuscript, "A 
Connecticut Dichotomy: Town and State in History, Law and Myth,” 
is now available. Portions of this manuscript will be useful to 
us. Kit eventually plans to publish the manuscript as an article 
or as part of a book, and he has circulated it to several 
readers. A copy of the introduction is attached. 

Attachment 

 



  

A CONNECTICUT DICHOTOMY: 

TOWN AND STATE IN HISTORY, LAW AND MYTH 

Introduction 
  

Central to the image of New England -- in the eyes not only 

of New Englanders themselves, but of Americans, generally, and 

for all I know, the world -- is the independent town. "The 

township," proclaimed Alexis de Tocqueville, "seems to come 

directly from the hand of God," and "forms the common center of 

interests and affections of [New England] citizens." After | 

describing the constitutionally limited sphere of town activity, 

the French observer then went on to express the central myth: "I 

believe that not a man is to be found who would acknowledge that 

the state has any right to interfere in their town affairs."! 

But in Massachusetts and Connecticut the colony/state government 

was a constant regulator of town affairs and had been since the 

1630s. The constitutional and legal history of the relations 

between perifery and center, village and commonwealth, was always 

one of agent and principal.? Thus in 1864 the Connecticut 

Supreme Court declared that town powers "instead of being 

inherent or reserved, have been delegated and controlled by the 

supreme legislative power of the state from its earliest 

organization. "? 

 



and all social Problems cross town bounds. Matters of   waste disposal, land use and zoning, mass transportation, segregated housing and Schools, environmental protection and many 

intervention! And every time 2a town discovers anew the limits of its range of independent activity, some one is sure to protest 

    

the myth of New England town autonomy. But Specters do not die, especially when riven with stakes. So Popular perception and 

 



  

3 

© legal determination travel often parallel but frequently 

colliding paths into the 21st century. 

Among the public, even those whose rational beings recognize 

the juridical "truth" have hearts committed to the idea of town 

autonomy. This prevailing dichotomy -- it is more than mere 

ambivalence -- was nicely summed up by a delegate to the abortive 

Connecticut Constitutional Convention of 1902. ". . . towns of 

Connecticut are not . . . independent units . . . each having 

sovereign rights itself," he admitted. "The modern historian has 

proved that to his satisfaction, and the Supreme Court has 

announced such to be the law. But, Sir, ’As a man thinkith, in 

his heart so is he.’" And from the time of the settlement of 

Connecticut’s l17th-century towns "this State and the United 

States in which we live, have believed that our towns were 

integral units and independent bodies, . . . . I suppose we must 

admit we are not little states in ourselves. But the towns 

believed that they were . . . and to this day we ourselves feel 

that the towns are miniature commonwealths."’ 

This dichotomy separated historical facts and constitutional 

and legal "truths" from the observed conduct of everyday life and 

governance in Connecticut towns until the recent past. 

Historically the Connecticut towns had never been independent; 

itil from their inception in 1634 they were continuously subject 

to superior government. But so remote from the colony and state 

government were most of them that few individuals had any 

concrete relations with that body at all. And by the mid-19th 

 



  

4 

century the General Assembly was so apt to let towns go their own 

way that intrusion from that quarter usually came as a surprise 

to the insular farmer. Thus, when the state supreme court spoke 

on the issue over the course of the 19th century, Connecticut 

citizens heard and understood their words, but didn’t really . 

believe them. 

This essay surveys the historical reality of the 

relationship between the towns and the colony/state government; 

describes court determinations about that relationship; analyzes 

the historiography of it; and attempts to articulate the popular 

perception of town status and account for the prevalence of that 

perception to the present moment. 

The Constitutional Status of Towns 

in Connecticut, 1635-1818 

  

The Massachusetts Background 

The history of Connecticut in America starts, of course, in 

Massachusetts. Thé pattern of colony-town relationships 

established at the Bay shaped those of the off-shoot colony on 

the River. The earliest settlements at both places were 

dispersed, a situation not anticipated in the Massachusetts Bay 

Charter of 1629. The Bay Company was faced with organizing and 

controlling distant communities as soon as John Winthrop’s large 

contingent decided to settle elsewhere than in Salem.® That 

little community was immediately subsumed under the Company’s