Changes to zoning laws worth supporting

For all the controversy engendered by various zoning proposals before the state Legislature, with 24-hour testimony sessions, worries about a loss of rights and brewing feuds between local leaders, it’s remarkable how little visible impact they might have on local communities were they to pass.

Nothing under discussion in the Legislature would eliminate local zoning. There are no mandates for specific buildings that will come down from Hartford. The current drive to update land-use laws is about giving people more freedom to make decisions about their land, opening up what’s allowed in certain parts of towns and bringing some life to a state that is too often left behind. In the process, a new future of greater equity and inclusion could result.

The highest-profile bill, pushed by the group Desegregate CT, would allow housing of at least four units in 50 percent of an area within a half-mile of one transit facility, such as a railroad station, chosen by the community. It would also allow 2- to 4-unit developments in 50 percent of an area within a quarter-mile of one main street, also chosen by the municipality.

That’s not much different than currently exists in many communities. A complementary provision, to allow the legalization of what are known as accessory dwelling units in single-family zones, would not affect the appearance of a neighborhood at all. The main street proposals affect a tiny fraction of state land, and the smallest communities would be exempt.

But that’s a major point of the legislation, which is to limit sprawl while increasing the quantity and variety of housing available. Communities would still have the final say on issues like building height and wastewater treatment. It’s not as though anyone is looking to replicate downtown Hartford in New Canaan.

Opponents have reacted to all this with something that can best be described as hysteria. The composition of neighborhoods and schools is highly personal, and people will naturally take notice when something affects them so directly. But to look at the details of the plans on offer alongside the pushback from local officials is to realize they are not commensurate.

Worse, opponents are stoking divisions between communities. As proponents of changes rightfully point out the divisive, often racist history behind our zoning codes, reactionaries have been lashing out, blaming the problems in cities on the residents who live there, as if there weren’t a long, well-documented history of specific policies that put the state exactly where it finds itself.

Changing zoning codes, either by following Desegregate CT’s plan or by instituting a “Fair Share” plan as pushed by the group Open Communities Alliance (which is also before the Legislature) would not solve all of Connecticut’s problems. Neither would these plans fundamentally change the character of small towns that local officials treasure so much.

They would start to correct some policy mistakes of the past and open a future of greater equity. They would also, evidence shows, go a long way toward helping the state economy by making Connecticut more welcoming to new arrivals and others who’d like to stick around. That much, at least, should be enough reason to give our land-use laws an overhaul.

A a major point of the legislation is to limit sprawl while increasing the quantity and variety of housing available.