Last week, CT 169 Strong, the anti-everything group from Fairfield County, issued another round of misinformation about zoning reform efforts in Connecticut. Their latest message to supporters contains a lot of words, certainly. Hardly any of them make sense. But since the group represents a worldview that holds plenty of sway in Connecticut, it’s important to push back.
Let’s start with the headline on its recent Facebook post, which reads: “Is Connecticut poised to have the largest tax increase due to a new housing policy that the legislature may pass?” Best of luck to anyone trying to diagram that sentence. The idea seems to be to scare people into thinking taxes will inevitably rise with zoning reform, which is not true. But mostly it’s just badly written and confusing.
By way of background, we’re in the midst of a severe housing crisis. Two years ago, the state of Connecticut passed legislation to look at affordable housing needs in each community across the state. The results have been released in recent months, broken down by town. Open Communities Alliance is supporting legislation to put that study into action by asking each municipality to plan and zone to allow the housing identified in the study to be built.
As to what CT 169 has to say, much of it is incomprehensible, and nearly all of it is wrong.
For starters, what’s on offer this year is not the Fair Share proposal that’s been introduced in past sessions. It’s similar, but there are major differences, the most significant being that towns can comply with the new proposal simply by planning and zoning for housing to be built. Whether that happens is, at that point, up to the private market.
By contrast, here is the misinformation spread by 169 Strong:
What they say: “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 and concrete”
The truth: Under the proposal supported by OCA, no town would be allocated housing units that would require it to grow by more than 20 percent over 10 years – and the average municipal growth is 12 percent. There is plenty of precedent for adding population in a way that is thoughtful and well-planned. And there are all kinds of ways besides large-scale apartment buildings to add housing, including many that maintain the look and feel of a neighborhood. Most critically, under this proposal, municipalities can also demonstrate that they can’t plan and zone for the number of units allocated to them and offer up another number.
What they say: “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.”
The truth: To be perfectly clear: The proposed bill doesn’t mandate towns to create housing; it asks them to plan and zone so the housing is allowed to be built by the private market. And, of course, OCA is a nonprofit, but it is not a government agency.
What they say: “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 Connecticut's municipalities.”
The truth: Towns would maintain local zoning authority. The state would not be telling them where to build or what it would look like. Towns would, however, be asked to comply with laws already on the books that say every municipality must provide housing for a range of incomes. Beyond that, there is nothing about adding affordable housing that threatens health, safety or the environment. That is pure fear-mongering. As for fiscal viability, towns would see more taxpayers and more money coming into their local economies – and therefore municipal coffers – by virtue of adding homes.
What they say: “Let’s reject these top down mandates and champion local zoning to build stronger, more affordable communities together.”
The truth: Towns have been empowered for decades to make local zoning decisions on their own with minimal state input, and the result is a tremendously damaging housing crisis. Towns can act on their own to help provide the kind of housing the state so desperately needs, but to date have mostly refrained from doing so.
There’s more like this, but it gets repetitive quickly. CT 169’s message is one that says we should do nothing for young people just starting out in life who can’t find an affordable place to live. It’s a message that we should ignore older families who want to downsize but can’t find any other options in their price range. It’s a message that says we don’t need to worry about 90,000 unfilled jobs in Connecticut, which are in large part a result of a lack of housing for workers.
We can do better than CT 169’s pleas to say no to everything. We can pass meaningful zoning reform and help move Connecticut forward.
Hugh Bailey, Policy Director
Open Communities Alliance (OCA)