Quantcast

Gov. Lamont: Housing solutions are local. Legislators beg to differ

October 28, 2024
–
Ginny Monk, CTMirror.org
Gov. Ned Lamont gives the keynote address at the Connecticut Housing Conference on Thursday, Oct. 24, 2024 in Hartford. Credit: Ginny Monk / CT Mirror

Gov. Ned Lamont on Thursday spoke about the state’s housing crisis and repeated calls for solutions to come through local control, while top Democrats in the legislature spoke about the need for state-level solutions and zoning reform.

The conversation at the second annual Connecticut Housing Conference in Hartford highlighted the differences between approaches from the state’s executive and legislative branches in addressing a severe shortage of housing, particularly affordable housing.

Connecticut lacks about 98,000 units of housing that are affordable and available to its lowest-income residents, and housing experts have long tied difficulties in building more housing to restrictive local zoning.

“We’re doing everything you can for rental support, eviction support, everything you can to allow you to stay in your home, or get a roof over your head,” Lamont said. “Housing is more than a roof over your head. It’s also a start. It gives you a chance to restart your life. And we have a lot more work to do there.”

Democrats said Thursday that they’re in agreement about the crisis. 

“The lack of affordable housing is holding our state back,” said Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk.

The departure from the governor’s position centers around the role of the state in zoning. It’s one of the more controversial political issues in Connecticut and one lawmakers have grappled with for the past several legislative sessions.

Most of Connecticut’s residential land is zoned for single-family housing only, meaning that to build apartments, developers have to go through a special hearing process with local planning and zoning commissions.

Advocates and lawmakers in past legislative sessions have sought ways to make the process easier and reduce building costs for developers.

Lamont has said he favors local control and wants to see solutions from towns. He mentioned the possibilities of remediating polluted properties such as former mills or repurposing abandoned commercial space to turn into housing.

“My deal with the towns is, I want you to take the lead on this,” Lamont said. “You show us where that housing is going to go, and we’ll give you relief. But you take the lead, show us where you want that housing to go.”

Under his leadership, the state has taken out millions in bonding to build more housing and encourage homeownership. House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, and Duff pointed to this as evidence of Lamont’s commitment to housing.

Rojas, who is one of the key leaders on housing issues in the legislature, has argued for higher-level statewide reforms that would push municipalities to change their zoning.

“I do think we need the towns to lead. We also need the state to lead because we actually delegate our authority to the towns to do what they do,” Rojas said “So we empower them to make zoning decisions. So that means the state also has a role to play in that, and that’s just where I happen to disagree with the governor.”

Duff said all of Connecticut shares the responsibility for building more affordable housing.

“This is not just an issue for the cities in Connecticut,” Duff said. “This is an issue for every single community across the state of Connecticut. So I think the governor and we have all the same goals. We may approach it a little differently, but I think at the end of the day, we’re all looking to build more housing, bring in more taxpayers and grow this economy.”

Many Democratic lawmakers agree with Lamont and have argued for keeping zoning control at the local level. It’s been difficult to garner the political will around the issue that’s needed to pass major reform, Rojas said.

“I think the issue has been the fact that there’s been a lack of vision,” Duff said.

Rojas said he’s worried about what the state will look like in 10 years if there’s not action soon. He pointed to economic and racial segregation that’s been in place for decades in Connecticut.

“The biggest political question is zoning reform,” Rojas said. “Anything we can do to reduce the regulatory burdens with developers, to actually get how to build more quickly, is going to save money and allow us to build more quickly.”

Lamont spoke about the economic benefits of building more housing because more workers will be able to afford to live in the state if housing is more affordable.

“This state cannot grow and prosper unless there’s a place for everybody to live,” Lamont said. “People will start moving out of the state, unless there’s a place for people to live. That starts with affordable housing, making sure that everybody gets that start.”

Duff and Rojas said they’re also looking at ways to maximize affordable housing through local housing authorities.

Lamont pointed to members of the legislature, including Duff and Rojas, saying they were “front and center” in the push to build more housing.

“Housing is priority No. 1 for this administration, and we work with our friends in the legislature,” Lamont said. “It’s the right thing to do.”

This article was reprinted with permission of the CTMirror.

More Stories

Comments

13 responses to “Gov. Lamont: Housing solutions are local. Legislators beg to differ”

  1. Sherisa Yocher

    Opinion: The reality is that this has been a problem for decades (as stated in the article due to economic and racial segregation) and people have been moving out of CT to find higher paying work for decades. A simple move to NYC or Boston has been the obvious way for Gen X and older Millennials to even have a chance to survive in today’s economy for the past two decades. CT already lost huge amounts of our best home grown talent due to the state government’s lack of foresight, vision, planning, and ability to take action in a timely manner. In addition to tax policies that caused some our best employers, like GE (General Electric), to pack up and move out of state in favor of a state/location with better tax rates for Corporations.

    1. Bryan Meek

      It will continue this way until an honest US Attorney does something about the corruption. Speaking of GE, recall just before they needed $150 million in incentives, Governor Malloy gave $300 million to a Maine startup called Jackson Labs. 10 plus years later they have yet to develop one mass marketed product. They were developing a cure for canine baldness during the Covid breakout and if theyve done anything meaningful since then I haven’t heard about it.

  2. Bryan Meek

    “I think the issue has been the fact that there’s been a lack of vision,” Duff said.

    State democrats have been in control over four decades and did nothing about Fairfield county’s two highways that were designed 30 to 50 years prior. Whenever they do it’s a bandaid.

    The demand for housing and prices would not be so disparate had they actually delivered the transportation system that we’ve paid for several times over now. Shorter commute times would allow people to spread out more.

    You don’t have to drive far to see how much land there is a few miles north…..but it has little relative value when it takes 2 hours to drive across the county at rush hour.

    Duffs vision has included things like $700 million busways from New Britain to Hartford and whatever else Hartford needs. I could go on forever here on his stupid decisions that have exacerbated this states problems, but the bottom line is team Duffs track record on the wealth gap and cost of living speaks for itself.

    1. David Muccigrosso

      >>Shorter commute times would allow people to spread out more.

      No, greater capacity induces more demand. As people spread out, their reliance on highways INCREASES, so the highways get more congested.

      We are literally already on the outskirts of the largest metropolitan area in the country. People ARE spread out. This is why our highways are congested.

      What reduces highway congestion — and all other congestion — is dense walkability. Replacing car trips with walking — like having a viable grocery store in your neighborhood, or a convenience store at the end of the block instead of 2 miles away — literally takes cars off the road and makes highway trips more pleasant.

    2. John Palmer

      Bryan, I don’t disagree with you on the problems of transportation in Fairfield County, but I don’t think the blame lies on any one political party. The fact is that there is only so much room to expand in Fairfield County. As for looking north, I grew up on the Wilton border on Route 7, and the state has been fighting to get the Route 7 Connector expanded to Danbury for as long as I’ve been alive, more than 50 years. The rich residents of northern Fairfield County will never allow that expressway to go through their tiny, exclusive communities even though it would most certainly alleviate traffic congestion in the Norwalk area. I can tell you from covering news in those areas for years that there are just as many Republican lawmakers as Democrats. Until they can all agree on a solution, nothing will change. For now, I personally think the best solution is to make it easier for commuters to get off the roads in the first place, and make the most out of the limited room that is there.

      1. Bryan Meek

        Less affluent areas in Spain for one are tunneling like crazy. To duffs credit when he started out he was a proponent of 7, but has since sold us out for his shiny title. He is right about the lack of vision. He just needs to look in the mirror for part of the source.

  3. Mike Murray

    Housing is a local issue. There is no need to force communities who have made mistakes in zoning in the past to force the communities who have done it right to follow their path. People need to locate areas where they can afford to live and move there whether it be in CT or out of state.

    1. J T

      High opportunity areas have artifically low supply of housing as members are more likely to be homeowners and to be civically involved, giving them a vested personal interest in reducing housing stock to increase their home values. Meanwhile, areas with lower cost housing have lower opportunity. CT has major budget issues long-term thanks to unfunded pensions/other debt, and has had negative population growth for years. If the population continues to decrease because homeowners restricted housing construction to juice their home values at the expense of the public good, eventually the state will become bankrupt, and those homeowners or atleast their kids will have a heavy burden fall on them. Meanwhile, many of the people who had to move away will find themselves and their children in a poverty loop without access to good schools&opportunities, increasing their reliance on public benefits and reducing their contributions to tax revenues.

      If these communities were to integrate via denser housing policies that made housing more affordable by increasing supply, high opportunity areas would likely see lower taxes and lower prices for services. The additional tax revenue and economic growth created as lower income people reap the reward of good schools and opportunities would have knock-on effects for tax rates and state fiscal health, and the increased labor pool would keep a check on wages.

      Leaving zoning to localities creates a sort of tragedy of the commons situation, where every community chooses whats best for them (understandably) instead of the whole, and everyone loses. We have the choice between a positive and a negative sum solution for the people of our great state. I know which one I support.

  4. David Muccigrosso

    The state needs to quit trying to fit the square peg into the round hole. The plain fact is, over nearly the last century local governments have shown themselves incapable of competently managing their permitting processes.

    Connecticut should do what Montana did: Upzone our urban areas to make them densely walkable, while protecting the beauty of our natural wilderness and countryside. Our cities are already too spread out, and sprawl just makes reliance on cars worse. The footprint is big enough for all of us to live prosperously. We just need to actually allow ourselves to build it.

  5. David osler

    let the cities do it but hold the developers accountable for not complying like what happened in Washington village norwalk and don’t tell me that norwalk or even greenwich has that issue tgm anchor point is a very short walk to greenwich ave and other low income areas
    norwalk has 2 mill+ houses and under 400k houses on the same side streets. the house wants the developers $$ that’s all they care about.

  6. David osler

    btw fix the train system add some lines stops and rides on the branch lines and widen I95. 5 lines or even 4 lanes 287 to 91 would be amazing

  7. John O’Neill

    Let me see if I have this straight:
    1) Looking for Growth and More Housing & More Automobiles
    2) Our roads are incredibly congested — As bad as I’ve seen it. Build a new highway and I’ll sign on. But hey, that requires foresight.
    3) Our Electric Bills are thru the roof — Legislators don’t want to tackle that. AND , now that electorate has woken up to Wind Farms’ Costs the can is being kicked
    Why isn’t that Duff’s #1 priority. Probably because he knows he can dance from Memorial Day until Labor Day and then headlines die down. Sad.
    4) Duff/Rojas want this done at the State Level…Yes, that same people who’ve screwed up schools with State policies Locals have to pay for. And State
    policies that don’t work for Teachers. You know, those same people who’ve screwed Norwalk out of ECS Funds for our schools.
    5) Rojas represents East Hartford — Norwalkers don’t want to turn into East Hartford
    6) What type of growth are these two geniuses talking about — Over the last 20 years high paying jobs have left and warehouse jobs have been created.
    If that’s the type of growth Duff/Rojas want, that will only add to our burden.
    7) Lamont is the only adult in the room up in Hartford. Thank God for Ned.

  8. J T

    1) There is an issue with your first statement. More growth&more people does not need to mean more automobiles when density, walkability, and public transit access is prioritized. Building more single family housing, which is essentially the only available solution for the housing shortage in ct under current local zoning laws, would increase automobiles&traffic by increasing sprawl and dependence on cars. Beyond this, single family housing promotes obesity/sedentary lifestyles and makes creating a sense of community more difficult.

    2) Building a new highway is not a cure-all. There is a widely accepted idea in traffic engineering called “induced demand”. People react to a decrease in travel time as an incentive to live further away, and an increase as a disincentive. This causes a constant equilibrium of traveling time, as whenever more highway or other low-density transport is built, more people are incentivized to take the highway and eventually traffic will settle at a similar equilibrium to where it was before.

    3) You mention the last 20 years having high paying jobs leave the state, with warehouse jobs replacing them. This argument does not benefit the pro local zoning control argument as local zoning was the de facto policy for and leading up to this time period. If anything it makes dense local zoning look better, as there is no way higher housing costs are good for attracting jobs and high productivity residents, although I will not claim this argument as correlation does not equal causation.

    As for your comments on west hartford, electricity prices, and your views on elected officials, I have no comment. I respect your opinions and would like to make it clear I am arguing not for or against any side but for the benefit of dense zoning, which I believe will have massive benefits for our state and economy according to the simple concepts of supply&demand at no cost to the state or people. This is especially important to me as a college student. If housing costs in CT don’t become more sustainable, I will have to live with my parents indefinitely or move from my home city&state.

    P.S. I actually do have one comment on elected officials- I am incredibly thankful toward Lamont for getting our budget back on track. His fiscal conservatism and good management practices have made us a better state.

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Chalk Talk promo
Secret Link