Don’t let rich towns buy their way out on housing

During the Civil War, when someone who was drafted didn’t feel like fighting, there were some simple, legal remedies. You could find a substitute to take your place, or just pay $300 and get out of it altogether.

It was not a perfect system. Three hundred dollars was a lot of money, which meant only well-off people could take advantage of the loopholes. But more than that, it was just morally corrupt.

Still, the idea stuck around, and rich people simply writing a check to get out of their obligations is a time-honored tradition.

All of which brings us to the housing question in 2022 Connecticut.

The state, you may have heard, has a housing shortage. More people want to live here than there are homes available, which is leading to bidding wars and big price increases for existing homes, as well as unfilled jobs in businesses across the state. What homes are available often price out all but the top rungs of the income ladder, leaving the deficit of affordable housing even more acute.

Since individual municipalities have been mostly unwilling to open up zoning and otherwise allow more development, action has been sought at the state level, where Democrats are in firm control of all levers of power. It hasn’t been easy, though, as proposed reforms last year were significantly watered down before passage, and little is likely to emerge in this year’s short session.

One reform that did pass a few years ago was a requirement for each community to at least have a plan for addressing its housing needs going forward. A draft plan from the Western Connecticut Council of Governments, which includes cities such as Norwalk and Danbury as well as some of the toniest addresses around in places such as Darien, Greenwich and New Canaan, has raised some hackles.

This gets a little in the weeds, but it’s important. There’s no requirement for any town to have a certain level of affordable housing. But, if a town has less than 10 percent of its housing deemed affordable, it’s subject to the notorious 8-30g, which provides that a town can’t just flat out reject a housing proposal with an affordable component without a reason regarding safety or something equally serious. You can’t just say no.

These aren’t theoretical obligations. The state’s Zoning Enabling Act requires regulations to “promote housing choice and economic diversity in housing, including housing for both low and moderate income households.”

Most towns don’t hit the 10 percent mark, and without 8-30g, there’d be little if any affordable housing development in these communities. Even with the law, there’s not nearly enough to satisfy demand. If these towns built more housing, people would live there.

Despite the law’s effectiveness, and necessity, a lot of people don’t like it. They appear to take the attitude that towns are doing just fine on their own without state interference, and we should let “local control” handle any perceived problems. All that is belied by the aforementioned housing crisis, which towns have done little to alleviate.

In any event, WestCOG, as that group representing 18 towns is known, has hit upon a unique solution — instead of each town having to hit its own 10 percent mark to be exempt from 8-30g, why not think regionally? Since some cities have a “surplus” of affordable units, the state should let communities share the wealth. “One solution to the affordable housing mismatch would be to allow municipalities with an affordable housing shortfall to pay a neighboring municipality with an affordable housing surplus for the right to apply designated housing units to their Section 8-30g quota,” the draft plan reads.

Let the rich towns pay their way out. To be clear, this wouldn’t work. As noted by Sean Ghio, policy director at the Partnership for Strong Communities, 8-30g applies at the municipal level, not regionally, so unless someone changes the law, towns would still be subject to suits stemming from zoning denials.

But the problem goes deeper than that. It’s about how towns continue to see housing, especially affordable housing, as a burden rather than an opportunity. If more people can live in your community, that’s a benefit. If people can afford to spend at local businesses rather than dedicate up to 50 percent of their income toward housing alone, that helps everyone. Your children would get to go to school with more people from different backgrounds, and people’s lives would be enriched.

It would be foolish to think race doesn’t play a role. Many of these towns are overwhelmingly white, and the term “affordable housing” is associated with people of color. Just the word “apartment” can get people riled up. It’s rarely stated explicitly, but it undergirds nearly every discussion on housing you’ll ever hear.

At some point, we could stop thinking of suburbs as open only to those lucky enough to get in before the gates slammed shut behind them. Whether residents admit it or not, the whole state would benefit from changing that mindset.