So now that Gov. Ned Lamont has vetoed a good, if not perfect, housing bill, where do we stand?
Obviously, it’s roll-up-the-sleeves time. He and legislative leaders will take the summer to reconstruct what the governor foolishly rejected.
But before we get to the many issues the legislature needs to address in a September special session, we need to remind the governor and the bill’s cynical opponents of what’s most at stake: the freedom, opportunity and dreams of generations of our neighbors.
The governor — along with those screaming meemies at CT169Strong and many Republican lawmakers who say they want to solve the housing crisis but really couldn’t care less — doesn’t seem to understand that.
Governor Lamont always talks about jobs. And to that extent, he’s right. We need people able to afford to live in Connecticut to fill vacancies and produce income and state revenues.
But you wonder whether he misses the point: that even more important than a job is the ability of families to move to and live in communities that provide them with other vital necessities: high-quality education, healthcare and other building blocks of opportunity.
Hundreds of thousands of state residents spend so much on rent and mortgage payments – way more than 30% — that they have little left for nutritious meals, transportation and warm clothing.
Meanwhile, Baby Boomers have no housing options to downsize into, so they stay in homes they can no longer afford or care for, leaving too little supply on the market to meet the demand. Home prices soar as a result – 60% or so since 2019 – driving many young families into the rental market, where that additional demand has propelled rents up 30% or so in that same period. That drives those at the bottom of the rental income spectrum, unable to pay the burgeoning rents, into homelessness, which was up 13% last year.
Governor, want to solve low test scores, absenteeism, and sagging high school graduation rates, all of which contribute to poverty, poor nutrition, swelling welfare rolls and un- or underemployment?
Don’t confine low- and moderate-income people to the meager 29 municipalities with a reasonable share of affordable housing. Those cities and first-ring suburbs have larger class sizes, underpaid teachers and fewer honors/AP classes and enrichments like art and music. Get the other munis to create some housing, (strategies below) so families who choose to can move to towns with higher-resource schools and abundant services.
Which brings us to resuscitating the vetoed bill.
The governor started off fine last week, insisting the bill’s opponents were spreading misinformation and that the target numbers of affordable units it included for each town were just that: goals, not mandates. He was right.
But apparently scared the screaming meemies would continue to screech their lies from now ‘til next Election Day, he vetoed the bill anyway. He could have shown courage and leadership, teaching the exclusionary obstructionists a lesson in decency. Instead, he admitted he hadn’t paid enough attention to the bill during the five-month legislative session.
That’s malpractice. For the truth is, the housing crisis in this state didn’t just materialize – it’s been getting worse for decades – yet he has shown little leadership on the housing issue for the entire six and a half years of his term in office. Yes, he’s thrown money at the problem. But there’s so much more he hasn’t focused on.
So here, governor, as I retire from housing policy work after more than two decades, are a few things I’ve learned that you might consider as you work to rewrite this bill:
Needed: real zoning incentives, real help for towns.
The incentives offered in the bill – giving towns that create higher density zones near transit and other key locations a higher priority for state infrastructure grants – are well-meant. And despite the crocodile tears shed by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and Council of Small Towns, they’re fair. Towns that allow the creation of homes the state sorely needs deserve money for roads, sewers and sidewalks. Towns that don’t don’t.
But there’s a real question whether those incentives will actually incentivize. Here’s an idea: cash. Towns need operating revenue and the state can afford it, despite what’s coming down from Washington. Cash for what? Pay them a set amount for every multifamily unit they zone for. Pay for two more planners per town (many dislike regional or state planning help) so they can actually focus on their towns’ housing needs; more zoning enforcement officers who can seriously go after blight and code violations; and even stipends for zoning commissioners – to increase the pool willing to serve — who now heroically work late into the night for nothing but a possible thank you, and more likely abuse and criticism from town residents.
Erasing impediments.
Towns stop housing by raising development costs in many ways. They charge too much for sewer hookups, stretch out approval periods interminably to increase lawyer fees, and on and on. The bill’s provision to end minimum parking requirements is a start and the CCM/COST whining about loss of local control is silly.
Developers aren’t stupid. They’ll create enough parking without being required to, otherwise they won’t be able to rent their units. So what about penalizing towns that erect barriers to housing? Check with the best land-use lawyer in the state, Tim Hollister. He’ll give you plenty of ideas.
Getting real about towns.
You, governor, opined that “the great majority” of towns want to create housing. Take it from me, they don’t – even though it’s in their interest to do so (more revenue from the grand list, downsized housing choices for their elderly residents ie. voters), homes for workers, customers and adult kids who want to come home after graduation.
Housing creation’s too risky for reelection-obsessed first selectmen wanting to get reelected. And even if towns do want to create more housing, most have no real experience creating it proactively. They need to learn how to attract and work with good developers, how to use new wastewater technology where there are no sewers, how to think instinctively about converting old strip malls, vacant offices, schools and other buildings into housing.
The bond money you’ve given them is great but, alone, it’s like clapping with one hand.
Helping calm resident fears.
I learned years ago not to condemn residents for expressing “NIMBY” sentiments. The checks they sign to buy their homes are the largest most ever write and everything -– their kids’ education, their security, their retirement –- is tied up in their homes. So while they have nothing to fear -– research and mounds of experience show mixed-income and affordable homes don’t increase crime and school budgets nor lower neighboring property values -– they need to be heard, allowed to express their concerns and get their questions answered. ‘
So why not widely finance what my colleagues and I have started: community conversations, led by trained facilitators, to expand resident engagement and understanding. It works. We’ve been making progress with town residents and, I might add, towns’ economic development commissions, who have a particular interest in maintaining and attracting businesses, labor pool and jobs to town. Those conversations can also be sparked by videos we’ve made showing that good people live in affordable housing and the homes are beautiful. Towns are using them to deflate the myths.
Create a land-use planning program at UConn.
Other states benefit from their programs, but Connecticut towns have a hard time finding competent planners because the pool is tiny. Getting kids interested in local government in high school and undergraduate school will inculcate them with a simple notion: that local and state policy can be shaped by them to meet vital needs like housing.
Try living just a week on the housing wage.
You’re fortunate to have wealth and you’ve been good about not taking a salary as governor. But it might be eye-opening if you understood what you can, and can’t, manage on the state’s housing wage – about $35/hour, or what’s needed to afford a typical two-bedroom apartment in Connecticut, as calculated by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. About half the state’s workers don’t earn that much. Several years ago, New York City mayoral candidates lived in public housing for a few days. It was a stunt, but nevertheless instructive, even revelatory.
Food, but no kitchen, cooks or table
Here’s the bottom line. You can’t just throw money at housing. That’d be like saying we’ll provide meals by spending only on ingredients. You need cooking utensils and a stove (infrastructure), plates and glasses (tools), a cook (planners and developers) and a table (zoning) to serve it on.
So, please, put together a good bill that gets at the key issues, one that’ll pass and that, most important, keeps in mind our current and future neighbors who are suffering because they can’t find homes or are paying much too much for them. And then get out and support it. Loudly. And forcefully.
David Fink, a former legislative reporter and politics editor at The Hartford Courant, has been a housing policy professional for 22 years.