State Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Greenwich Republican who has repeatedly opposed meaningful housing reform, recently won reelection in one of the state’s most closely watched races. He did so by arguing against plans that would allow for the building of desperately needed housing that is more affordable, including in the wealthy communities he represents.

He’s free to oppose whatever he chooses, but he should base those objections on the actual proposals.

In a pre-election Greenwich Sentinel opinion piece, Fazio discussed the reforms he opposes, including the Fair Share plan that is likely to come up in 2025. Fair Share would set realistic targets for every community in the state to plan and zone for the affordable housing that is in such high demand, and include enforcement mechanisms to ensure every community is playing its part. 

Fazio said, “It would give developers even more ability to ignore local zoning to build whatever they want and, on top of that, make towns and cities financially liable to build new developments themselves.” He adds: “our property taxes could go up significantly to pay for the construction of vast government buildings.”

There are a lot of misconceptions to unpack in that statement.

Fair Share requires towns to plan for the affordable housing the state needs, calibrated town by town. It further requires towns to adjust their zoning to allow that housing to be built. Importantly, once towns have set their goals, they get to create their own plan for how to reach it.

It does not, under any circumstances, require towns to build housing themselves. This has never been the case, under any version of the legislation, past or future.

It also does not mandate the creation of “vast” developments. This spin evokes images of the massive public housing developments built in cities in past eras. This kind of public housing is simply not being built anywhere anymore. Instead, people in Fazio’s district could look to some of the beautiful developments sponsored by, for example, the Westport and Fairfield housing authorities to see what is possible.

Fazio has been taking the position that Greenwich, where the median home sold for more than $2 million last year, and where rent for the average apartment is above $4,000 a month, doesn’t need meaningful housing reform. His position is apparently that only people who can afford such prices deserve safe streets and high-performing schools.

Others – like those who are experiencing this everyday reality, or one of the many businesses where tens of thousands of jobs are going unfilled partly due to housing scarcity, or people with compassion – are free to disagree.