I never expected to agree with the little socialist about anything, but Nick Abbot's right about our "accessory apartment" ordinance — it's too restrictive

From the department of stopped clocks, Abbot has an opinion piece in today’s GT that, stripped of its hysterical hyperbole, makes a valid point. While Abbot’s chief complaint seems to be that he’s not old enough to live in his own mom’s accessory apartment (my advice: go for it, Nick — I’m sure you’d qualify under the no-income category, but even if you don’t, the town enforcement officer is unlikely to notice your presence there, or care), the age and income restrictions serve to restrict the number of such units for no particularly good reason.

Apartments attached to single-family homes were fairly common in town when I was growing up in the 60s, and several of my teachers lived in them: it allowed them to stay in town and be a part of the community, it afforded homeowners a bit of extra income, and a good time was had by all. I’m not sure why Greenwich felt compelled to restrict the practice in later decades, but we could keep the current limitations on size, parking, etc., and just remove the age and income barriers without harm, in my opinion,

Anyway, here’s Young Nick:

For decades, Greenwich has allowed homeowners to build accessory apartments — also known as granny flats, in-law units, or secondary dwellings — on their property. This housing type offers a flexible, affordable housing option for renters and provides homeowners with extra income. I would know: I loved living in an accessory apartment after college, and my landlord loved the extra income.

Unfortunately, Greenwich attaches burdensome restrictions on accessory apartments, requiring homeowners to certify they will only be rented to elderly, disabled, or low-income tenants. This limitation may sound like a good idea, but it makes for terrible policy. It requires homeowners to place a deed restriction on their property, lowering its value. It further mandates that homeowners submit annual certifications to the town in perpetuity, an invasive headache. And it leads to absurd outcomes. For one, my parents could rent out an accessory apartment on our property to some people, but it is illegal for their own children to live in one. For two, if a homeowner’s elderly parent lives in one and passes away, the owner must rent it to a stranger or destroy the apartment. It’s no wonder fewer than 70 accessory apartments have been built in Greenwich in 35 years!