Can status quo of housing be broken?

One size fits all?

Over the past two years the strongest proponents of applying one-size to the use of land have accused housing diversity advocates of promoting a one-sizefits-all policy. An interesting projection.

The 18 municipalities in the region of the state known as the Western CT Council of Governments (WestCOG), which includes Greenwich, are zoned on average to allow for single-family homes as-of-right on 95.5 percent of the region’s land. This certainly has a one-size look.

Highlighting this one size single-family land use is that, on average, the municipalities in this same region are zoned for as-ofright multi-family housing on 2.1 percent of the region’s land.

At an April 2021 demonstration in Fairfield that denounced state legislative proposals for more diverse and affordable housing, state Sen. Tony Hwang (R- Fairfield) defended the single-family land use pattern by arguing that proponents of the controversial legislation were advocating for a one-size-fits-all policy.

“I’m not saying that we should stay with the status quo,” he said. “I’m simply saying that the solution being offered right now by Hartford is a one-size-fits-all that takes away and disrespects the personal property rights of owners and residents of every community in the state of Connecticut.”

Not the status quo? The rejection of legislation that would have permitted greater density and more diverse housing opportunities as-of-right in downtown areas and near transit hubs in Connecticut municipalities certainly appears to defend the one-size-fitsall single-family status quo.

Change is difficult. It invites resistance. It mobilizes defenders of the status quo. It engenders hostility. But without significant change the state, faced with a serious housing shortage, will never meet its overall housing needs, much less produce an adequate supply of housing affordable to households of moderate, low, and extremely low income.

A National Low Income Housing Coalition report released in March 2021 found a national shortage of 7 million homes affordable to extremely low-income households (at and below the poverty level, or at and below 30 percent of their area median income). Connecticut has 148,502 extremely low-income households, but only 61,785 rental units that are affordable to them, leaving a shortfall of 86,717 units for extremely low-income households.

Affordable housing requires multi-family development and greater concentrations of density than is currently permitted in most Connecticut municipalities. The proponents of increased housing supply and greater diversity of housing choices want such density to be permitted in downtown areas and near bus and rail stations. They advocate for statewide land use policies that address the state’s housing needs by allowing for more affordable, equitable, integrated, and environmentally sustainable development.

Statewide policy. Multi-family. Density. Low-income.

These concepts pose a threat to those who are invested in the onesize single-family status quo. Especially threatening is the idea of a statewide policy that could interfere with local zoning that protects this status quo. Although the legislative proposals are not about government regulation, but rather about removing local regulations that prevent market forces from addressing housing need, these proposals are perceived as state government taking away local government control.

It’s really all about ensuring that local zoning restrictions maintain the status quo.

The WestCOG affordable housing plan, still in draft form, is illustrative. It doesn’t call out regulatory barriers that exclude affordable housing. It doesn’t call upon municipalities to allow as-ofright multi-family housing. And rather than encourage municipal investment in infrastructure to support multifamily housing, it validates infrastructure as an anti-development argument. It fails to acknowledge the region’s racial and income segregation.

Most disturbing is the plan’s perversion of the intent of the 8-30g statutory provisions that allow developers to submit applications inconsistent with local zoning regulations if conforming to an 8-30g affordable housing formula. The intent of this 1989 legislation, with an exemption threshold for municipalities with 10 percent affordable housing stock, was to break through exclusionary zoning barriers, not mandate 10 percent affordable units, nor even set a 10 percent goal.

The WestCOG plan applies 10 percent to the entire region and proposes individual municipalities below 10 percent buy their way out from municipalities with units in excess of that threshold (Stamford, Norwalk, Danbury). This ensures continued exclusivity within the region, while concentrating affordable housing in three cities, exactly what 8-30g was designed to prevent.

One size fits all? Yes, it’s about rejecting anything else.