Homelessness in Connecticut is a challenging issue and deserves to be taken seriously — especially if, as reports suggest, the problem is growing. But activists’ recent claims that our state needs 94,000 units of affordable housing to address it simply don’t withstand scrutiny.
According to the state’s January 23, 2024, Point-In-Time data, 3,400 individuals reported being unhoused. Activists’ 94,000 number — nearly 30 times greater than the documented unhoused population — points less to a dearth of shelter than to the flawed logic driving Connecticut’s housing policies.
If Connecticut is truly committed to addressing the challenges associated with homelessness and housing, it needs clear-eyed, realistic policies, not inflated numbers and hidden agendas. The first step is understanding that poorly designed laws, unnecessarily onerous building codes and inflated construction costs are prime contributors to the affordability issues that activists decry.
Local homeless organizations insist there is only one solution: demand that municipalities provide more “affordable housing” throughout our state. But this approach, as highlighted by Yankee Institute’s (YI) recent study Getting a Handle on Affordable Housing, is deeply flawed.
Connecticut’s infamous 8-30g statute — which mandates that 10% of housing in every town be “affordable” — does more harm than good. The real catch is that, under the law, not all truly affordable (i.e., accessible to those of modest means) housing is even considered “affordable” for purposes of the statute’s quota. Only government-subsidized housing or units built after 1990 count.
This narrow definition excludes older homes or private rental units that meet affordability criteria without government intervention. As a result, towns are pressured to meet arbitrary quotas that fail to address actual housing needs. This drives up the cost of housing, and limits flexibility.
When municipalities are hyper-focused on building housing to meet 8-30g quotas, they overlook the broader range of existing affordable housing options. This short-sightedness reduces the overall housing supply by ignoring alternatives. As a result, the housing market can’t keep up with demand, driving up prices. With fewer naturally affordable homes available, people are forced to compete for a limited number of options, exacerbating the affordability “crisis.”
Rather than solving the problem, 8-30g is pushing misguided policies that ignore practical, market-based solutions to affordability.
Instead of doubling down on this failed statute — which neither increases housing supply nor makes homes more affordable — Connecticut should embrace the commonsense recommendations laid out in YI’s study.
Among them, the state should broaden its definition of “affordable housing” to include naturally occurring affordable units — like in-law apartments, mobile homes and buildings constructed prior to 1990 — not just government-subsidized projects. This will allow towns to get creative with housing solutions, rather than fixating on a narrow, government-mandated quota.
Right now, the government effectively discourages municipalities from allowing the types of housing that would actually expand the housing stock available to those of modest means. Permitting such housing, ironically, makes it more difficult for towns to meet 8-30g’s 10% quota.
Furthermore, the state needs to recognize its role in driving up construction costs. Connecticut’s outdated labor policies, needlessly restrictive building codes and government-imposed wage mandates increase the expense of building new homes.
In particular, Connecticut’s prevailing wage laws are inflating the cost of homebuilding, especially in public housing projects intended for low-income families. By forcing developers to pay well above market rates, the state is reducing the number of homes that can be built, disproportionately affecting the very people these programs are supposed to help. These are just a few of the commonsense reforms laid out in the YI study.
Ultimately, any comprehensive look at 8-30g should include a better understanding of the rationale for the statute’s 10% requirement. Is it to ensure that town employees can afford to live where they work? Is it to diversify our municipalities? Or is there some other reason? Only if a law’s motivation is clearly articulated can citizens evaluate whether it is working as planned or whether there is a better way to effectuate the legislation’s intent.
In the end, no government mandate can offer the dignity and economic security that a good job provides. The best housing program is a strong state economy. By creating a business environment conducive to business growth and entrepreneurship, Connecticut can address the true root causes of housing insecurity, rather than merely treating the symptoms through heavy-handed government overreach.
Carol Platt Liebau, is the president of Yankee Institute, a Connecticut-based free-market policy organization.