Deciding what kind of state we want to be

For a state with long-running hotbutton issues on the table, including legalized marijuana, expanded gambling and a health insurance overhaul, no issue has attracted debate this year quite like zoning.

A topic that usually comes up at sparsely attended town meetings, zoning in 2021 is redefining how we think of Connecticut and its future. We’re questioning what kind of state we want to be.

Because for all the difficulties many residents face, Connecticut is full of comfortable people who would be happy to see not much of anything change. They’re leading the charge against reform. For everyone else, the situation looks increasingly untenable. There’s been some positive economic news coming out of COVID, but many longterm trends show we’ve plateaued. Population is stagnant, and economic growth is slow. We’re deeply divided by race and wealth. How do we change our trajectory?

There’s been criticism of proposals before the Legislature that are billed as furthering the cause of affordable housing because they don’t directly address affordability or integration. What current proposals would do is allow more building — more units per lot, more density, more of everything. They wouldn’t necessarily change the look of communities so much as allow more people to enjoy them, which would in turn drive down the price of housing. And just because it’s a first step doesn’t mean the work would be done.

All that gets some people worried, and the result is a debate over our state’s identity. It’s nice to think of Connecticut as forward-thinking, tolerant, accepting of each other’s differences. Our laws often say otherwise. Making up for our leftward lurch in national elections, local statutes that dictate the shape of our neighborhoods are outdated and leave us unable to adapt to changing times.

That’s why every defense of the status quo falls short. It’s true that some welloff towns, including Fairfield and Greenwich, are further along on questions of equity and diversity than they get credit for. They’re still a long way from equitable.

One argument against change has it that reforming zoning would be going against the free market. That’s exactly backwards — current zoning drastically limits choice, which means the market has no opportunity to do what it supposedly does. It’s another indication that anti-reformers are mostly grasping at straws, such as when they argue in favor of home rule even as the power to enact zoning at all comes strictly from the state.

It goes along with complaints about allowing multifamily housing to be built “as of right” in certain parts of towns, as is proposed. This takes away the public’s voice, opponents say, ignoring that nearly all single-family homes, no matter how out of character with the neighborhood, can be built as of right in most of the state. There’s no reason not to treat different kinds of development equally, and it’s another example of free-market defenders standing up for a system that only limits choices.

While the opposition in Connecticut has been loudest from Republicans, housing is a rare issue that doesn’t always break on partisan lines. Suburban identity frequently trumps political leaning, which is why reform in Connecticut is no sure thing. It remains to be seen if Democrats elected the past few cycles are open to the idea of their hometowns evolving, or if they think defending the status quo is better politically.

Connecticut is a rich state, but we’re not trending in the right direction. We have much to offer people who might want to live here, but we’re pricing them out, along with young people who’d prefer to stick around. Reversing those trends should be a top priority for the future of the state economy. It’s also the right thing to do.

In the end, it’s not that complicated. We need to build more, in places people want to live. The effects could be widereaching. But the first step is changing some laws.