Housing momentum grows, but faces obstacle in Lamont

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear they were baiting me.

Every time I write about another town standing up to the terrifying prospect of more neighbors moving in, and how the state must take action to stop this awful scourge of economic growth, I read about yet another suburb vowing to fight the exact same battle. Whether it’s Woodbridge, New Canaan, Fairfield or Greenwich, the noncities of Connecticut are hell-bent on keeping people out.

This time, it’s Bethel, and since I spent the better part of my youth there, it has special resonance. A group last month announced a petition to “Stop overbuilding in Bethel,” standing up against developers who were “destroying the small town and unique character” of the place.

I experienced a familiar routine regarding my hometown: I grew up and went to high school there, and at the time couldn’t wait to be anywhere else. Later, as an adult, I looked back and thought, “Huh, that’s not such a bad place.”

It wasn’t because of my neighborhood, a string of single-family homes that could have been almost anywhere. What makes Bethel nice is its downtown, with a village feel along Greenwood Avenue, and some shops and the library in easy walking distance. That’d be a nice place to grow up, I thought, long after I’d left.

It would be a nice place for more people to live, too. That’s partly why a developer announced plans last year for new multifamily housing near downtown that would check off all kinds of boxes for what the state and region need — more housing, denser construction, walkability, growth. Naturally, a vocal group of town residents is reacting with horror.

“A zone change to high-density urban residential will definitely destroy the character of the neighborhood,” one resident says. Yes, just imagine high density near downtown.

The story is much bigger than Bethel, and the need for Connecticut to act on housing has growing momentum. Chris Murphy knows it.

“People really want to move to Connecticut. That’s great news,” he said on Twitter recently. “But if we don’t want this spiking demand to price Connecticut residents out of their own market, we need to create more housing and apartments that people can afford.”

Murphy is a senator, not governor, so his impact is limited. There are others, however, uniquely positioned to take meaningful action. A lot of them are fresh off their own reelection last year.

A growing number of state legislators takes the issue seriously. Bob Duff is one of them. And Jason Rojas, the House majority leader, said a lot of smart things about the need to build more housing in a recent Hartford Courant opinion piece. “During the next legislative session, it’s time we address our housing policies to focus on affordability and expanding access to equality of opportunity,” he said.

That’s welcome. But, then, Rojas represents East Hartford and Manchester, and Duff lives in Norwalk. Those are the kinds of places where representatives have long been supportive of housing solutions. Getting the suburbs on board has been a lot tougher.

Our neighbors understand. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has unveiled an ambitious housing plan that looks to take on a severe statewide shortage, even as outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker called housing the “single biggest existential threat we’ve got.” It’s no different in Connecticut.

Then, of course, there’s our governor.

Ned Lamont’s inaugural address at the state Capitol indicated he knows the stakes. “The biggest slam to our affordability and economic growth is housing, or the lack thereof. Every business thinking about moving or expanding repeats over and over, ‘Even if you had the workforce, there is no place for them to live,’” he said in his speech.

What is he going to do about it? Lamont continued, “The answer cannot simply be more subsidies.”

This implies that Connecticut has been wasting its time throwing money at the problem, which might play well but isn’t true. Subsidies are going to have to be a major part of any solution, because affordability is not always going to be market friendly.

Then Lamont continued, in a refrain he’s repeated for months: “Connecticut towns and cities, you tell us where developers can build more housing so more housing can be built faster, at less cost, and local control will determine how and where it is built.”

The mind reels.

Left unanswered, as always, is what happens when towns say, “No, thanks!” Because that’s what’s been happening for decades now. They don’t want it — not downtown, not anywhere. Any movement of any value must involve state action. “Local control” is, and always has been, a plan for doing nothing.

Maybe the governor has a bigger plan in mind. But it increasingly appears legislators will have to do their work in spite of the governor, not with him.

Connecticut’s economy can’t grow without population growth, and that can’t happen without more housing. Some of that is happening in cities like New Haven and Stamford, but the suburbs need to play a bigger role, especially in the southwestern corner.

As for Bethel, the new development that has people up in arms would be in walking distance to the Sycamore, one of the state’s culinary gems. Do we really want to deny people the chance to walk to the Sycamore? Of course not.

Let them build.