Connecticut’s affordable housing statute, known as 8-30g, was enacted with an important goal: expanding housing opportunity statewide. That goal remains valid. But decades later, the law’s one-size-fits-all framework no longer reflects the reality of Connecticut’s diverse communities, particu larly small, rural towns. Nick D’Addario I recognize that this position may put me at odds with many in my own party. As a Democrat, I believe deeply in the need to address housing affordability in Connecticut. But good policy requires more than good intentions. It requires realism —about infrastructure, environmental constraints, and the very real differences between urban, suburban, and rural communities. If we want durable, equitable solutions to affordability, they must be grounded in place, not imposed uniformly across towns with vastly different capacities. A town of fewer than 10,000 residents is not the same as a town of 25,000 or 50,000. Yet under 8-30g, they are largely treated the same. Rural towns like Easton are defined by low population density, limited road networks, little or no public transit, and heavy reliance on private wells and septic systems. Much of our land is protected open space or active watershed, serving not only local residents but communities far beyond our borders. These characteristics are not incidental —they are foundational to how these towns function and why they exist. Applying density and approval standards designed for more urbanized municipalities to places like Easton ignores basic planning realities. It risks straining infrastructure that does not exist, increasing traffic on rural roads not designed to handle it, and threatening water quality in environmentally sensitive areas. Opposition to ill-suited development in rural towns is often mischaracterized as opposition to affordability itself. That framing is wrong. Protecting drinking water, preserving farmland, and safeguarding watersheds are core public responsibilities, not exclusionary tactics. Many small towns shoulder an outsized share of regional environmental protection, providing benefits that extend far beyond municipal borders. The solution is not to weaken affordable housing policy, but to modernize it. Connecticut should adopt a tiered approach to 8-30g that recognizes meaningful differences among municipalities, including population size, density, infrastructure capacity, transportation access, and environmental constraints. Towns under 10,000 residents should not be evaluated by the same criteria as towns several times their size. Under a reformed framework, affordable housing goals would remain statewide —but pathways to compliance would vary, allowing rural towns to meet obligations in ways that are realistic, sustainable, and consistent with long-term planning. Greater recognition of accessory dwelling units and preservation of naturally affordable housing would better align state goals with local capacity. Equally important, reform must restore balance between state mandates and local expertise. Planning and zoning commissions understand the constraints of their communities and should be partners in achieving affordability —not obstacles to be overridden. Connecticut can expand housing opportunity while respecting the differences between its towns. Equity does not require uniformity. Updating 8-30g to reflect population, infrastructure, and environmental realities will produce better housing outcomes —and stronger public trust— across the state. Nick D’Addario is a Selectman in Easton. ...read more read less