Connecticut is years into a crippling housing crisis, and the situation is only getting worse. Home prices are up nearly 10 percent just in the past year, even as a recent study found the state was the worst in the nation for renters. Meanwhile, action at the General Assembly to deal with the crisis has been slow and halting.
To face a problem of this magnitude — which hurts families and hinders our economy by making it harder for companies to fill open positions — it’s necessary to offer a solution equal to the challenge. To that end, our organization, Hartford-based civil rights nonprofit Open Communities Alliance, has in recent sessions recommended Fair Share Planning and Zoning. It is a proposal that builds on existing state zoning laws to allocate affordable housing needs to towns across the state and require that municipalities adjust their planning and zoning to allow for the needed housing to be built.
It’s a large-scale proposal, and it won’t be easy to pass. But while Connecticut has stood still, other states from Utah to Massachusetts to Florida have realized it’s time to act on zoning reform. In Connecticut, Fair Share is the only plan yet offered that meets the scale of the crisis, and OCA and its partners in the Growing Together CT coalition plan to fight hard for it in 2025.
What was not anticipated was the resistance that would arise from within the state government itself, premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal.
According to internal communications made public as the result of a Freedom of Information request from CT Mirror reporter Ginny Monk, the assessment from one high-level staffer in the state Department of Housing of Fair Share ranges from skepticism to outright hostility. It’s an attitude that only makes the task of solving a severe crisis that much more difficult.
[RELATED: CT DOH official opposed ‘fair share’ housing policy, emails show]
Confusion on complicated issues is common. But coming from people tasked with administering the state’s housing policy, it’s harder to accept.
At worst, the language used in the Housing Department’s internal communications is reminiscent of missives from the group CT 169 Strong, a statewide repository of bad-faith anti-housing arguments that have no connection to the crisis facing Connecticut. We expect to see a mix of nonsense and non sequiturs from staunch opponents, but not from career DOH officials.
The DOH comments include an assessment that the Fair Share policy “treats affordable housing like a punishment whose pain must be spread out amongst those who are the biggest transgressors.”
In reality, Fair Share, based on an active, successful program in New Jersey, treats affordable housing as a community asset and an obligation. Not coincidentally, state law also considers the duty of individual towns to provide affordable housing as an obligation.
The comments go on to say that Fair Share “does not affirmatively further fair housing.” It’s hard to know what to make of this statement other than to say that it’s wrong.
The state is obligated under federal law, passed in 1968 following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., to “affirmatively further fair housing” — that is, take intentional steps to counteract the long history of government-sponsored racial housing segregation. Much of the state’s funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development hinges on the state undertaking proactive measures. Fair Share is without question a way to do that.
Beyond these basic misstatements, DOH staff show a misunderstanding of how the allocation of Fair Share units would work under OCA’s proposal. As examples, Fair Share goals for affordability levels and units per bedroom are municipal-wide cumulative targets, not requirements for each development. And there is plenty of room in the Fair Share proposal for affordable homeownership.
Furthermore, staff communications say that passing such a plan would hurt the state’s relationship with individual towns, which need to be given “time” to respond to previous legislation.
We’re years into this crisis; it is past time for towns to take action, rather than make further promises that won’t be kept. Today, towns are working in a vacuum with no goals tied to the state’s overall need. And based on the Affordable Housing Plans mandated by a law passed in 2017 (and not yet submitted by all municipalities), most are not even contemplating meeting a portion of their region’s need for affordable housing as required by state law.
The overarching attitude on display is blanket hostility to the Fair Share framework. “(T)he inherent intent of this legislation is to authorize LITIGATION against our municipalities as a compliance mechanism; it provides ‘standing’ essentially to anyone with an axe to grind, and is self-serving by the drafters of this legislation, who have made it clear that their intent is to litigate this issue, up to the State Supreme Court, and potentially beyond,” the DOH communication says.
Besides being wrong (standing would be limited to developers of affordable housing and entitles assisting low-income households with housing needs), this is a bizarre complaint. The bill proposes that municipalities update their zoning to allow for a portion of each region’s housing need, and one of the potential tools of implementation would, in fact, be litigation. This is not self-serving; rather, in a nation that respects rule of law, its purpose is to turn the tide on a severe and growing housing crisis. All that would be gained would be homes for Connecticut families.
There are many legislators who understand what Fair Share is about, who worked hard to pass the bill in previous sessions and will likely do so again in 2025. Citizens all across the state have spoken up in its favor.
We look forward to working with the Department of Housing and the Lamont administration as partners in solving this crisis. At a minimum, we would like them to have a full understanding of the Fair Share proposal, and for the state to ensure the study detailing each town’s Fair Share requirement is ready in time for the 2025 session.
Erin Boggs is Executive Director and Hugh Bailey is Policy Director of Open Communities Alliance.