According to a recent research, Connecticut is losing millions of dollars in lost economic activity and tens of thousands of prospective workers as a result of its housing scarcity. 70,000 jobs are still empty, according to a Center for Workforce Inclusion research, in part because high housing costs discourage individuals from relocating to the state. The harshness is noted by Abigail Brone, a housing reporter for the Connecticut Public.
“That’s a significant number—70,000 positions statewide need to be filled,” Brone stated. “There are a lot of people who could be relocating to Connecticut and making investments there.
What the vetoed fair share housing bill tried to do
This year, lawmakers made progress on a number of housing-related bills, but a bill supported by activists for affordable housing was vetoed by the governor and ultimately failed. According to Brone, a key component was a fair share system designed to encourage construction in communities that don’t meet affordable standards.
The fair share policy included in this bill, which essentially states that municipalities that fall short of the state’s 10% affordable housing requirement must build a certain number of affordable housing units and, in essence, have an affordable housing plan outlining how they plan to accomplish that, was one of the primary issues that people were very passionate about, according to Brone. The governor finally vetoed it because of it.
Local control vs. statewide need
According to Brone, there is a larger struggle going on between the state’s objective to increase housing and Connecticut’s long history of municipal control through zoning.
“Very restrictive zoning has a long history in Connecticut,” she said.
The impact of that restricted zoning is reminiscent of redlining, a nearly century-old federal policy that essentially prohibited people of color from residing in or purchasing homes in particular communities while providing federally subsidized loans to white homeowners.
I agree with the assessment and have heard others suggest that zoning is essentially the new redlining,” Brone added. Zoning will therefore be used as a sort of justification by some to keep undesirable individuals out of their neighborhood.
“A lot of lawmakers recognize that we need to figure out a way to either bring down housing rent costs or to build more housing,” she added, describing the politics as frequently falling into a predictable pattern. The question then arises as to whether we would be willing to carry that out in OUR town. Therefore, it appears like everyone is simply transferring the ball to another person.
That’s where local sentiment and state intervention clash.
According to Brone, the state is attempting to intervene and say, “We need this housing, so we’re just going to make you guys do it.” And many of the communities are not happy about that.
Corporate landlords and rising rents
Who owns the housing and how that impacts maintenance and costs is another source of pressure.
That’s a real problem in Connecticut, and I believe it has gotten much worse in recent years, thanks in large part to COVID, when prices were low and homebuyers and large corporations alike were snatching up properties, she said.
According to Brone, one minor but significant outcome of the session was a move to investigate the ownership of the state’s housing portfolio.
The passage of a bill to conduct a study of corporate ownership of housing in Connecticut was one of the good outcomes of the most recent legislative session. Thus, that is a positive first step in determining the number of apartment complexes held by these large firms and the resulting effects on our housing industry.
She explained that the possibility of quick pricing changes is why it concerns. Measuring the number of companies, private equity firms, and out-of-state hedge funds that might be discouraging state citizens from renting or buying a home is crucial.
According to Brone, they have the ability to raise rents at the touch of a switch, and they already have.
She pointed out that not all business owners are created equal: some are excellent. They can create incredibly magnificent structures because they have a lot of money and resources. However, when you’re not dealing with a mom-and-pop landlord, there is a certain amount of detachment.
According to Brone, tracking corporate ownership is difficult in and of itself.
Because these large corporations create local LLCs and can pass themselves off as local, it is practically impossible to determine how many buildings they possess, according to Brone. They can say, “Oh, well, we’re in Connecticut,” after obtaining a P.O. box for an office located in Connecticut. However, you can sort of get to the bottom of it if you look through the tax documents. However, it requires a lot of digging and takes a long time.
What to watch for next
Brone stated that she will be concentrating on whether any updated housing package includes significant obligations or just studies because a special legislative session is approaching.
She stated, “I’m just interested to see what happens with this housing bill because it will undoubtedly come up again.” But will they really be able to use it to do anything? Will it have teeth or will it be something pretty mild? We’re going to do some research or something.
Expectations are low, Brone remarked.
She stated, “I think it’s probably going to be really watered down based on what I’ve heard just kind of in conversation, nothing really concrete.” I’m not sure whether it will have any bite to it. It might be more of a nominal thing, in my opinion. We passed something, you know.
The governor s stance and fallout at the Capitol
In addition to emphasizing local authority, Governor Ned Lamont has stated that he is in favor of housing growth. Some Democrats were annoyed by the governor’s post-session remarks, according to Brone.
He kind of disparaged some Democratic leaders when discussing the housing bill, which is one of the reasons I’m so eager in seeing how it plays out in special session, she added. He was actually saying, “There are red flags,” after the fact, and “I wish I was more involved.” Additionally, it seems to be your party. Like, did you not? What prevents you from being more active in this? Like, “I feel like you were,” and then you may have changed your mind when things didn’t go as planned.
According to Brone, the remarks appeared to be political triangulation.
In order to avoid putting all of his eggs in one basket and to persuade some Republicans that he would cooperate with them, I believe he was somewhat caving in to the opposition. I am capable of both. “I am a multi-talented man,” she said.
The outcome of the next round of negotiations may depend on how Democratic members react.
I’m curious to know how Connecticut’s Democratic lawmakers will respond to this and whether they have a foul taste in their mouths. Brone uttered those words.
