It is by now self-evident that Connecticut needs to allow more housing to be built. While the new housing bill (HB 5002) aims to address this important goal, it ultimately misses the mark. It gets a few key aspects wrong—and for that matter, so do some of its critics.
I want to highlight three major problems with the Towns Take the Lead (also known as Fair Share) portion of the bill. The framework could be workable if these issues are corrected. Gov. Ned Lamont should veto the bill and call for a special session.
One: The builder’s remedy, 8-30g, remains intact
Localities should be offered immediate safe harbor from 8-30g zoning overrides upon adopting any Fair Share zoning scheme. It is illogical to have two parallel, contradictory housing policies: one (Fair Share) requiring new zoning to allow additional housing, and the other (8-30g) allowing developers to override that very zoning and build wherever they choose.
Take my town, Ridgefield, for example. There is broad community support for preserving the character of our historic Main Street, which serves as a kind of linear park. Ridgefield can add housing by rezoning commercial areas for mixed use, establishing a TOD in Branchville, and allowing “missing middle” housing types—while still protecting Main Street. But under HB 5002, developers could still use 8-30g to build large apartment buildings right on Main Street, undermining local planning and good-faith efforts.
Two: The needs assessment ignores market-rate, for-sale housing
The bill’s needs assessment failed to include market-rate, for-sale homes targeting middle income households. These homes are essential for a healthy housing market—and the private sector can build them without direct or cross subsidies. Instead, the bill focuses solely on subsidized housing. Yet, both the recent CBIA housing report and the ECONorthwest Fair Share report highlight the urgent need for housing types like for-sale: small-lot single-family homes, cottage courts, and infill townhomes.
The reality is that we cannot subsidize our way to housing abundance. Direct housing project subsidies are limited (the state is broke) and developer set-asides function as a tax on new development (remember, when you tax something you get less of it). There is no free lunch. The most effective path is to housing affordability is to increase the supply of market-rate housing and allow the resulting “vacancy chain” to benefit lower-income households. Of course, subsidized housing still has a place and should be built when funds are available, and we also need to make better use of Housing Choice Vouchers.
Three: The allocation formula ignores real-world planning considerations
The bill’s allocation method seems to be based on social engineering goals rather than traditional planning metrics — such as access to transportation, water and sewer capacity, proximity to job centers, institutions, and brownfields. While equity should be considered, the traditional factors determine where development is most feasible and cost effective.
Criticism of the bill misses the mark, too
Opponents argue that zoning should be left entirely to local governments. I agree that localities are best positioned to write zoning codes. But we must acknowledge that restrictive local zoning is a root cause of Connecticut’s housing affordability crisis and the state has an obligation to see that the zoning power it delegates to localities is used to advance the general welfare of the entire state.
Other criticisms, such as opposition to as-of-right development, are also misplaced. As-of- right simply means a project doesn’t require a zone change or a discretionary special permit. It doesn’t mean there wasn’t a public hearing when the zoning code was adopted, or that hearings can’t happen during site plan review.
For example, Kingston, NY created a three-track site plan process under its award-winning form-based code—simple, minor, and major. Large projects go through full planning commission site-plan review and can include a public hearing, despite being as-of-right.
As for the parking reform provisions in the bill — they’re a step in the right direction. You can debate the details, but the overall policy makes sense.
The state must act — and act wisely
It is imperative that the state do all it can to ensure adequate housing is built. Connecticut has a significant debt burden. We need more taxpayers to help pay the bills. A graying, shrinking population is a sure path to economic decline.
The best way forward is for the state to establish regional housing targets — for all types of housing, for all income levels, and in all communities, as other states have already done. The Councils of Governments should allocate these targets to individual towns.
Localities that meet their reasonable housing targets, through local control, should be granted immediate safe harbor from 8-30g. Communities that don’t will have to deal with the builder’s remedy, perhaps an enhanced one that makes small projects economically feasible.
Unfortunately, the current version of HB 5002 falls short. In fact, it may even be counterproductive.
—
Tim Vilinskis is a member of the Ridgefield Affordable Housing Committee and a homebuilder