State must take action on housing needs

If there’s one lesson to take from the past two legislative cycles, it’s that Connecticut’s suburbs aren’t going to change unless they’re pushed. In 2021, after weeks of debate, the General Assembly passed a law legalizing accessory dwelling units, otherwise known as granny pods or ADUs, anywhere single-family homes are allowed. These are a separate home on a piece of property, either attached or detached, that are viewed by experts as a good way to improve housing availability without affecting the character of a street. It was seen as a good first step in a much larger problem.

But the law came with an out clause. Communities had two years to opt against allowing the construction of ADUs, and many towns are taking advantage of that option. The result is little change at all.

The 2021 law had other provisions, including increased training for local zoning officials. But it’s clear what the state needs — more housing. We lag every other state in the nation in per-capita housing construction, and the business lobby has targeted our stagnant population as a key driver for our slower-than-hoped economic growth. We can do better, but we need places for people to live.

Communities are opting out for a variety of reasons. Bridgeport and Danbury, for instance, have long barred ADUs in many areas, but the state’s cities are almost the only place to find multifamily homes in Connecticut. They are far from our biggest problem when it comes to housing.

It’s the suburbs, as always, that present the biggest challenge. As while many town leaders say they simply want the freedom to write their own regulations, such reasoning is hardly reassuring.

These towns, after all, have always had the right to change their permitting standards. They could allow ADUs or apartments in more places any time they choose. The reason the state had to act, and why it will have to act again, is that towns when left to their own devices do far too little to encourage construction of the homes the state needs.

“I want to be able to maintain local control,” the head of Darien’s Planning and Zoning Commission said in recommending a rejection of the statewide statute. This is the recurring theme of local land-use officials, that they want to stop the state from taking over decisions that are best left to local communities.

The effect, though, is to remove control from property owners themselves. If someone wants to build an ADU but can’t due to an action by town government, that’s not standing up for anyone’s freedom. That’s taking opportunity away.

The implications go far beyond any one community. The state has an interest in a growing economy, and that requires people to fill thousands of open positions around the state, especially in its economic stronghold in southwestern Connecticut. Towns have shown what they are willing to do, and it’s not enough.

It’s therefore incumbent on the state to revisit this issue. We know based on history, but also what’s happened since the ADU law passed, that towns can’t be counted on to solve this problem. If we’re going to build more homes, the state must step in.

While many town leaders say they simply want the freedom to write their own regulations, such reasoning is hardly reassuring.