This is the fourth of a five-part series exploring issues surrounding Connecticut’s affordable housing needs. Parts One, Two and Three are here. As noted, in 2022 and 2023, I co-chaired a state-level Affordable Housing Plans Working Group whose charge was to prepare recommendations for the General Assembly about how towns can boost affordable housing production.  Our group, whose membership spanned all levels of government and the public and private sectors, also examined the towns’ reports (called “§ 8-30j” plans) about what they themselves proposed to do. Our recommendations fell into two categories:  enforce laws already enacted, because the 2021 law did not provide deadlines or penalties; and proffer a “menu” of regulatory and policy steps for each town to consider.  As to enforcing what is already on the books, we focused on amplifying what the legislature had done in 2021: Mandated (previously, “encouraged”) that all towns provide housing opportunities “for all residents of the municipality and the planning region,” thereby directing local agencies to expressly consider regional needs; Required towns to promote “economic diversity” and “choice” in housing; Prohibited towns from outright banning multi-family housing; Required towns, in their regulations, to “affirmatively further” the purposes of the federal Fair Housing Act, intending to reinforce that lower-cost housing should serve regional needs, and availability of units should be advertised regionally; Allowed minimum floor area/housing size rules only in compliance with the state building and health codes, which only requires about  320 square feet for a one-occupant unit; Prohibited excessive parking requirements, setting a maximum of one space for a one bedroom unit and two for a two bedroom, but allowing towns to “opt out” of this requirement; Established standards for accessory apartments and prohibited unnecessary rules for such units, while also allowing towns to opt-out and maintain their own rules; Prohibited towns from adopting numeric or percentage caps on multi-family as a percentage of total housing units; Prevented zoning commissions from denying permits based on perceived impact to the “character” of the town, allowing denial based only on specific physical or architectural characteristics; and Prohibited fees that exceed a commission’s reasonable cost of processing an application. All of these 2021 rules were positive steps, changes that revised the state’s delegation of authority to local land use boards and targeted some of the ways that towns use regulations to exclude or inhibit lower-cost housing.  The problem is that these 2021 changes did not contain enforcement mechanisms or timetables.  As a result, as of today, most towns now in violation of the 2021 rules have done little to come into compliance.  For example, there are still more than 20 towns that ban multi-family housing, and dozens that require substantial minimum apartment unit or house sizes without regard to occupancy.  Dozens of towns still require excessive parking or have opted out of the 2021 state standards (for no good reason), and have not purged “character of the town” as a criterion from their regulations.  So, step one for the 2025 legislative session should be to mandate, within a reasonable deadline, that towns conform their regulations and procedures to Public Act 21-29. Regarding the menu portion of our recommendations, we recognized that prescriptions for urban, suburban, and rural areas will differ.  The purpose of our list was to raise awareness of existing requirements in local regulations that should be reexamined for necessity and exclusionary impact, and items missing from local rules that, if added, would eliminate obstacles.           The full menu is § VII of our report, which I will summarize: Allow more units per acre, focusing particularly on large-lot single family zones and where “middle housing” – buildings with two to four units – can be sited; Review the definition of “buildable land” for unnecessary exclusions, such as excessive open space requirements; Allow for rehabilitation, conversion, or reuse of existing buildings, especially those with functioning sewer and water connections and stormwater management systems; Allow any entity with the funding and experience to build affordable housing, not just non-profits or government agencies; Be sure that regulations allow, if not mandate, low income units for households with children, the disabled, and the elderly; Excise unneeded “design standards,” such as for siding or windows, that add construction cost; Modify or repeal onerous unnecessary application procedures, such as requiring public notice through individual certified mailings; Re-examine where housing can be built in non-residential zones, bearing in mind that a key purpose of zoning is to separate incompatible uses, but housing can be made compatible with most other uses; Allow residential wherever it can function in parallel with office, retail, commercial, institutional, and even light industrial uses; Pay special attention to zoning of transit-oriented development locations (which have, in fact, been one focal point of legislative activity in the past two sessions); Promote financial steps such as the availability of lower-interest rate mortgages, property tax relief for the disabled and elderly, rental vouchers, and down payment assistance; Loosen restrictions on modification of non-conforming uses, to allow rehabilitation and reuse for housing; Avoid preferences for existing town residents in affordable unit tenant selection, because in racially segregated towns – of which there are many in Connecticut – these rules maintain the status quo; Review the town’s subdivision and sewer regulations for provisions that exclude multi-family and lower cost housing or unnecessarily drive up the cost per unit; and To reinforce zoning reform, adopt a revised Plan of Conservation and Development that identifies specific locations where affordable housing can be built, and identify the specific regulation revisions that will pave the way for such development. Taking off my Working Group Co-chair hat, my proposal is that in 2025, the General Assembly should mandate that every town make another try at an affordable housing plan, using the Working Group’s consensus menu as the checklist.  Each town should be directed to scour its regulations and identify requirements that can be repealed or modified, and identify specific locations where affordable housing can be built as-of-right.  Each site should have adequate, available sewage disposal, water supply, traffic access, and emergency access. It should not be necessary for towns to re-do the housing needs research they did in 2022-23.  It’s the recommendations for action steps that need attention.  A specific, combined mandate from the legislature to towns could be:  “Every town, within two years, shall review and revise its zoning, subdivision, wetlands, and sewer regulations to comply with Public Act. 21-29; and prepare an affordable housing plan that, using the criteria in § VII of the February 2023 Affordable Housing Plans Working Group Report, will identify specific, multiple locations where middle housing or higher density housing can be built as-of-right and with supporting infrastructure available.  The sites must collectively enable units equal to X percent of the town’s existing housing stock.”  The legislature should appropriate funds for this planning so this mandate will not be attacked for being unfunded.  If the result is production of tens of thousands of units in the next five to ten years, the cost will be modest. The State Office of Policy and Management (OPM) could be charged with undertaking reviews of town compliance.  OPM could be given the authority to step in and impose changes if a town resists or fails.  Property owners could be given a private right of court action to force compliance with this checklist process.        The critical points here are (1) the town reports mandated in 2021 were incomplete at best; (2) when towns push back against state affordable housing mandates, they demand “local choice”; and (3) this process mandates regulatory review with a checklist and location identification, but leaves to the towns to make choices and decide details.  What the proposal does not allow is for towns to resist, maintain the status quo that excludes and discriminates, or maintain regulations that do not serve a proper land use regulation purpose. It should be noted that the Open Communities Alliance, a housing advocacy group, in recent years, for more than 20 towns, has conducted the type of review of existing regulations and locations advocated here.  OCA’s exercise found in every town it reviewed many aspects of local regulations that could be revised, and sites that could be developed, while preserving local choice.           It is unlikely that any of this will happen without a clear mandate and a deadline from the General Assembly.  It should be noted that to an extent, mandates prescribed by the General Assembly take local officials off the hook with town residents.  In any event, as a state, we need to embrace the proposition that we are in a housing crisis, caused in large part by the state’s delegation of land use power to towns, and local commissions not using that power as needed to ameliorate the crisis.  We need to rebalance the delegated authority.  We must stiffen our backbones and not countenance small towns who say they don’t have the resources or that they want to be left alone; suburbs that argue that affordable housing belongs only in cities; and cities that claim they don’t have any place left for housing.  Towns should be required to dismantle exclusion and formulate a specific plan. They can discuss and decide the details, but they must participate.  Tomorrow: Actions the CT legislature can take to promote more affordable housing.