Is Connecticut poised to have the largest tax increase due to a new housing policy that the legislature may pass?
Background:
Two years ago housing legislation “Fair Share,” phase one (based on New Jersey’s heavy-handed Fair Share model which has spurred unending lawsuits) was passed by Connecticut legislators to “study” the idea and come up with housing allocations for each town. Now, a consulting company hired by the State has provided our 169 towns with three scenarios of unworkable housing allocations that would make every town into a sea of apartment buildings.
Non-profit governmental organization, Open Communities Alliance (OCA), has been promoting “Fair Share” legislation as the solution to Connecticut’s affordability issues, by mandating municipalities to create their fair share of “housing need” in the state.
If Fair Share allocations become a mandate, it will undermine local zoning control and threaten the health, safety, environment and fiscal viability of all of Connececiut’s municipalities. Land is inherently local and unique. Each town— urban, suburban, or rural — has been “assigned” hundreds, even thousands, of new housing units under three flawed scenarios, none of which respect the unique needs or infrastructure limitations of the 169 diverse municipalities in our State. This would be on top of the much-maligned 8-30g legislation which narrowly defines “Affordable Housing” (i.e. naturally occurring affordable housing and deed restricted affordable housing built prior to 1989 is not included) and the 10% threshold has proven to be a mathematical impossibility for many municipalities to achieve without the benefit of state subsidies that have been to date inequitably allocated by the state.
The Problem with “Fair Share” Scenarios
Scenario 1: Rolls forward an earlier OCA scheme, which was rejected in two prior sessions by the legislature for its burdensome allocations and onerous litigious enforcement. The roll forward further inflates “housing need” by factoring in rising “cost burdens” driven by Connecticut’s skyrocketing energy costs (public benefits surcharges added to electric bills) and local property taxes (state underfunding of education and mandates on municipalities). As CT169Strong predicted, this approach balloons allocations, ignoring important local realities and constraints.
Scenario 2: Uses the same OCA framework but includes allocations to high poverty cities like Hartford and Bridgeport and removes the 20% cap on affordable housing quotas on any municipality. While 141 of 169 municipalities are challenged in reaching the state’s 8-30g arbitrary 10% affordable threshold, fair share puts 8-30g on steroids: some municipalities will face allocations well over 20%! The result? Absurdly high allocations for smaller towns, setting unattainable goals that will financially destabilize communities and escalate local property taxes without improving affordability.
Scenario 3: Abandons OCA’s model, and replaces it with a formula based on regional affordability, regional housing production, and job access in the state. This method, favored by the city planner “technical experts” the study’s consultants were forced to use, is yet again unworkable for CT’s 169 municipalities. While this version highlights the state’s underinvestment in cities it also imposes massive development quotas on those very cities, again completely disregarding infrastructure limits and environmental concerns.
Why All Three Models Fail
All three scenarios share a fatal flaw: they ignore the unique infrastructure, natural resources, and zoning priorities and limitations of each town. Imposing such one-size-fits-all development mandates on municipalities without a comprehensive policy to address the lacking infrastructure funding, current high construction costs and support services needed to justify such exponential development statewide is doomed to failure. Such policy only benefits the lawyers, nonprofits, and developers eager to bypass local zoning processes through litigation and judicial determinations. Municipalities in CT (just like NJ with decades under Fair Share) will face unending litigation based on vague bill language, overburdened local services, adverse environmental impacts and higher property taxes—further burdening residents already struggling with the lack of affordability in Connecticut.
The Big Picture in a Rapidly A Changing World
Since “Fair Share” phase one was passed 2 years ago, the economic realities have shifted dramatically:
Runaway Inflation: Soaring costs for labor, materials, and land—now worsened by potential tariffs—make development costlier. High interest rates further limit affordability. Holding towns accountable for uneconomical private-sector development shortfalls is unfair and fuels parasitic lawsuits, not solutions.
Misguided Policies: Instead of vilifying local zoning, the state should cut red tape—allow out-of-state contractor licensing, expand apprenticeships, stop unbalanced, anti-landlord policies that reduce rental inventory, waive conveyance fees for affordable projects, reform housing vouchers and eliminate prevailing wage mandates. Subsidies for rent and electricity, funded through the state budget (not tacked onto electric bills), would reduce residents’ cost burdens faster than any over-regulated building project.
Flawed Metrics: Using “cost burdened” residents to justify housing quotas is illogical. It’s like telling someone struggling with car payments that they should now have a new, even pricier model. Flooding the market with housing won’t guarantee improved affordability for Connecticut residents—and it may just attract even more cost-burdened newcomers from other states. Stamford’s rapid multifamily development has failed to lower rental costs due to its proximity to the metro NY area.
A Better Way Forward
Connecticut’s affordable housing needs require practical, community-driven solutions, not developer-driven mandates. Let’s:
Protect Local Zoning: Empower towns to plan development that fits their infrastructure for safe and sustainable managed growth without adversely impacting the environment.
Lower Costs Directly: Fund energy and rental subsidies to allow renters to access more of the private sector rentals and ease their cost burdens.
Boost Jobs: Create a pro-business climate by ending anti-business state mandates and reducing energy costs to bring high-paying jobs back to Connecticut, lifting wages and affordability for all residents.
Collaborate, Don’t Dictate: Work with all 169 municipalities – cities, suburbs, and rural towns – to craft tailored solutions, not pit them against each other.
Time to Act
The “Fair Share” concept has reached the end of its useful life and belongs in the trash. It only serves developers and nonprofits interests, not Connecticut’s residents. Let’s reject these top down mandates and champion local zoning to build stronger, more affordable communities together. Check your town’s unworkable mandated fair share numbers here: Draft Fair Share Allocation Results and join the fight to keep zoning local with CT169Strong.org.
Kathryn Braun, Alexis Harrison, Barry Michelson, Jan Schaefer, Maria Weingarten
All five individuals are members of CT169Strong, a grassroots advocacy group dedicated to local control of zoning and finding solutions to Connecticut’s affordability crisis
