We need a “grand bargain” to resolve the affordable housing issue in Connecticut. Both the state and localities have compelling interests that need to be reconciled.
The state has an obligation to see that the zoning power it delegates to localities is used to create decent housing opportunities for all its citizens. The rationale for regional planning and state oversight is strong. It is folly to believe 169 individual zoning plans will effectively advance the general welfare of the entire state.
Localities, however, are best positioned to draft zoning codes. They possess local knowledge and the ability to hold community meetings and design charrettes that will allow them to find ways to build much needed new housing while respecting the fabric of their community.
The state must develop a long-overdue comprehensive housing plan and establish objective, enforceable regional housing goals that encompass all types of housing, for all income levels, and across all communities. Localities, in turn, will implement these new goals through their local control processes. In exchange, they will receive an ongoing 8-30g moratorium, contingent on good faith compliance and performance. We must also recognize that many of the communities currently exempt from 8-30g have restrictive zoning that has frozen out large areas from any redevelopment possibilities. These are precisely the areas we want to grow for a variety of reasons and it is very important their zoning is not an obstacle to new market-rate development.
There is no question 8-30g has built needed housing that would not have been built otherwise. However, due to its structural flaws, it will never fully address the state’s housing crisis. After all, 36 years after its creation, Connecticut has the most constrained housing market in the country, with some of the lowest levels of active for-sale housing inventory nationwide.
Housing goals should prioritize the production of all types of housing, not just below-market-rate, while also recognizing the private sector will be responsible for building the vast majority of it. Increasing production of new market-rate housing is critical to growing our taxpayer base. Connecticut is the most indebted state in the country. We need to make it easy for taxpaying households to move to Connecticut from the New York metro area to help pay the bills. The biggest threat to your home value is not more people living in town, but Connecticut’s economic decline.
Additionally, we must acknowledge that “It is not realistic to expect the market to build housing that rents or sells for less than the cost of construction.” This fact is supported by both experience and economic research. If the state wants to provide below-market-rate units as a housing benefit – which it should – then it needs to provide the funding, and towns will only be obligated to make room in their zoning plan. Care must be taken to avoid imposing what is essentially a tax on new development by requiring excessive developer set-asides.
The advantage of requiring all communities – even those currently exempted from 8-30g – to plan for additional housing capacity is that “many hands will make light work.” Connecticut will never see Sun Belt-style growth, and by ensuring all communities contribute, the impact of new development on any single locality will be minimal.
By adopting a combination of light-touch “Missing Middle” housing (see Vermont, Oregon, Washington, Cambridge MA, and others), and mixed-use redevelopment of both transit nodes and strip commercial, localities should have no problem increasing their housing capacity through local control. Massachusetts appears to be heading in this direction, following in the footsteps of California, Oregon, and Washington. This approach is even reflected in a combination of several current legislative proposals:
- SB1252 (Priority Housing Development Zones)
- HB6831 (Transit Orientated Communities)
- HB7113 (Light Touch Density)
- HB6944 (Towns Take the Lead)
While 8-30g has played a role in expanding affordable housing, its limitations and unintended consequences highlight the need for comprehensive reform. A more effective approach would balance state planning and oversight with local implementation, ensuring that all communities contribute to meeting housing needs in a way that respects local character while promoting housing abundance. By setting clear regional housing goals, legalizing “Missing Middle” housing, facilitating transportation orientated and mixed-use development, and addressing barriers to market-rate development in urban centers, Connecticut can create a more equitable and sustainable housing policy.
The state must move beyond the outdated framework of 8-30g and embrace a comprehensive forward-thinking strategy that fosters growth, dynamism, affordability, and prosperity for all residents.
Tim Vilinskis lives in Ridgefield.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
