The passage of HB 8002 late in 2025 was the culmination of a long struggle to pass meaningful housing reform in Connecticut. It was not the end of the political fight over affordable housing. Recent attacks from public officials and policy professionals make clear that this issue will remain in the forefront in 2026 and beyond.

There’s no question that anti-housing candidates vying for their party’s gubernatorial nomination this year consider housing a potent topic. State Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich has long opposed all kinds of housing reform, and has allied himself with fellow Fairfield County residents who are the loudest opponents of the new law. Former New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart, who actually has an interesting history of promoting thoughtful development in her city, has already moved far from previous pro-growth positions and now says she’d like to repeal HB 8002 – this before it’s even begun to take effect.

Then there is Betsy McCaughey, the former lieutenant governor of New York-turned Greenwich resident and gubernatorial hopeful. She makes the two frontrunners look like moderates, and she, too, has deployed the issue to get attention, using some of the most offensive reasoning imaginable in doing so. She may not win, but she could certainly complicate matters for Fazio and Stewart.

As politicians make their claims, policy leaders are speaking out on housing, as well. The Yankee Institute has put out multiple pieces attacking parts of HB 8002 and the very early implementation efforts. 

“Housing Advocates Acknowledge New Law Shifts Authority Away from Towns,” the Yankee Institute warns in a recent post. “HB 8002 does not leave the decision entirely to municipalities. It establishes statewide standards, requires universal participation, and conditions financial and regulatory benefits on compliance.”

This is all true. The problem, the writer seems to be saying, is that politicians, in pushing the bill over the finish line, highlighted the decision-making power that remains in local hands. How can it be local control if the state has a role to play?

In reality, none of this is controversial. The right for a town to zone at all comes from a state law, CGS Sec. 8-2, known as the Zoning Enabling Act. There is nothing unjust or even abnormal about the state setting standards for what that zoning should entail or what metrics should be set. 

In fact, HB 8002 overwhelmingly keeps the power of local zoning with individual communities. What it asks is that towns have a plan to meet the affordable housing need that everyone, on all sides of the issue, agrees is a legitimate and growing crisis. How they go about that is up to the town.

What they can’t do – provided the law is implemented properly – is simply say no to everything. That has been the default position in far too many communities, and is the reason why state legislation was needed at all. If leaving everything up to the towns was enough, there wouldn’t be a housing crisis.

That’s not where we are. In fact, there is a significant crisis of housing, both in terms of affordability and segregation. State action is necessary to remedy the situation. It’s up to towns themselves how they go about meeting those needs.

The best solution for everyone would be to act in good faith in implementing the law’s requirements and fulfill the housing needs of every town in a way that works best for each individual community. Judging by early reactions to the law, that good faith could be hard to find.

Hugh Bailey, Policy Director
Open Communities Alliance (OCA)