‘Home rule’ is a false argument on housing
The Connecticut Legislature is debating a proposed state law, SB1024, that would allow new housing to be built near train stations and main streets, an effort to address the state’s housing crisis.
In the middle of the debate, a handful of local politicians threw a rhetorical bomb, claiming that such a law would violate the “home rule” of Connecticut localities.
Unable to come up with convincing arguments against a law that permits the construction of unobjectionable small apartment buildings and “granny flats,” these politicians are trying to muddy the waters with overwrought arguments about the nature of local control. Calling on the General Assembly to protect the right of cities and towns to make all decisions about land use makes little sense — because such a right does not exist.
Some states have “home rule” constitutional provisions that provide some protections for local governments’ regulatory authority. In those states, one could argue that laws like the one under consideration here violate the state constitution. Even in those states, these arguments almost always lose in court, because the housing market is clearly an issue of statewide concern.
But Connecticut’s Constitution doesn’t have a similar provision. Home rule in Connecticut is granted by state statute, and can be limited by the General Assembly. Politicians arguing for “home rule” might as well have invoked the constitutions of France or Brazil. It’s neither here nor there.
The only reason towns can pass zoning ordinances in the first place is the state’s centuryold “Zoning Enabling Act.” It provides towns and cities the power to pass land use regulations but places conditions and limits on local authority. As the Open Communities Alliance has argued, restrictive zoning in many Connecticut towns already violates the terms of the Enabling Act, which requires towns to use zoning regulations to “promote housing choice and economic diversity in housing.”
Rather than worrying about legal ideas with no local relevance, people should look at SB1024 on the merits. If they do, they will find that SB1024 is a pretty modest effort to address Connecticut’s ongoing housing crisis.
Zoning regulations in Connecticut are among the most restrictive in the country, often far more restrictive than, say, zoning in Silicon Valley. Without new development, housing costs in many towns will remain extraordinarily high, leaving renters burdened and potential new residents unable to move in. Further, without new housing development, the state will continue its long economic decline. For businesses to grow, there must be places for workers to live. And without population growth, the state government will remain buried under fixed costs, like bonded debt and underfunded pension promises, entered into under the belief that growth would make them affordable.
Given the size of the housing crisis, every town needs to take steps to address it, particularly those with high levels of housing demand. But many towns are committed to stopping housing growth however they can.
SB1024 addresses Connecticut’s housing crisis in a way that does as little to touch local governmental authority as possible. The law would require towns and cities to designate half the area within a quarter-mile of a main street or a half-mile of a transit stop for multifamily housing of between two and four units — hardly skyscrapers. If towns allow more than 10 units of housing, 10 percent of units would have to be designated affordable. Towns could not require onerous numbers of parking spaces, lest towns use these requirements to make development too expensive.
The proposed legislation would leave towns free to decide how and where to accommodate this growth. It wouldn’t touch most of the area of towns, only areas very close to a main street or a train station. Towns like Greenwich already generally comply with its terms. If anything, promoters of SB1024 have done too little to push new housing growth, deferring to interests in towns and cities.
SB1024 would also allow homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, or “granny flats,” parts of existing houses and lots that could be separately occupied. This would allow housing growth without having an effect on the look and feel of existing neighborhoods.
Don’t let arguments about “home rule” scare you. A few two- to four-unit buildings near train stations and some “granny flats” are nothing to fear
SB1024 would not entirely fix Connecticut’s housing problems, but it is a smart step towards doing so.