Connecticut must address housing affordability, availability, and the long-term sustainability of our communities.
But the new, bold, and sweeping bill passed by the House this month, which focuses on expanding housing access, is not a well-thought-out answer. A bill of this scale must be not only bold but also realistic, targeted, and grounded in how communities actually function. As I evaluate the bill from the perspective of a municipal planning director responsible for delivering results, not just aspirations, I see real positives, but I also see more “bad” and “unknowns” than “good.”
Several aspects of the recently adopted housing changes merit recognition. For example, the emphasis on transit-oriented development and the promotion of housing diversity reflect national planning trends and represent a forward-looking approach. Encouraging growth near transit hubs can reduce dependence on automobiles, enhance walkability, and leverage existing infrastructure, provided that the capacity is sufficient. Similarly, repurposing underutilized commercial properties for housing can be both practical and economically sound. These are initiatives Danbury has already been pursuing, and it’s encouraging to see the state moving in that direction.
Where the bill struggles is in its broad-brush approach. Communities across Connecticut vary dramatically in their housing stock, infrastructure, capacity, history, and readiness for change. Attempting to apply sweeping zoning changes to every city and town, regardless of whether they currently meet affordable housing thresholds or whether they already have forward-looking zoning, risks creating more problems than solutions.
A simpler and more effective pathway has been implemented in other states and Canada: mandating a minimum percentage of affordable units for any proposed multi-family development, rather than the current system that requires a specific percentage of affordable units in all the existing housing stock in the community.
This approach would have ensured consistent production of affordable housing without imposing layers of complex regulatory changes that many municipalities simply do not have enough resources to manage. Additionally, the bill’s expectations regarding infrastructure evaluations, such as water, sewer, and other systems, overlook a fundamental reality: most Connecticut municipalities have aging infrastructure, and these studies require time.
A one- to two-year grace period for utilities and infrastructure capacity evaluations would have been a practical, realistic step. Only after those studies are completed can a community meaningfully craft a growth strategy and make responsible zoning changes. Without this sequencing, municipalities risk being forced into decisions without the data needed to make them responsibly.
But the unknowns are, frankly, the most worrying part. Will the mandates lead to actual housing and affordable housing production, or will they result in litigation, confusion, and unintended consequences? Will infrastructure be overwhelmed in communities unable to react quickly enough? Will towns with restrictive zoning find loopholes instead of solutions? Will communities like Danbury, which already exceed other communities in housing diversity and density, be unfairly impacted by mandates meant for towns that have done far less? These questions have no clear answers, but when state policy outpaces local capacity to implement it, such uncertainty becomes risky.
Change is inevitable, and communities in Connecticut must adapt to meet their housing needs. But change must also be well thought out, well researched, and targeted. Instead of applying identical requirements across all municipalities, the state could have tailored obligations to those communities that either do not meet minimum affordable housing requirements or maintain zoning regulations that restrict density, diversity, or housing choice. Communities already doing their part should not be burdened with one-size-fits-all mandates.
Good intentions alone do not produce lasting or positive changes. What does? Well, a thoughtful, realistic, and data-driven pathway forward that understands the needs of each community, acknowledges their capacities, and supports them with resources rather than broad directives. As the state moves forward, my hope is that implementation of this housing bill becomes more collaborative, more tailored, and more grounded in real-world planning. Only then will the good outweigh the bad and the unknown.
Waleed Albakry is planning director for the city of Danbury.