The following is the Executive Summary of a report on affordable housing in Connecticut reprinted with permission by the Yankee Institute. It examines the role that state statute 8-30g plays in affordable housing and how it impacts the role of local Planning and Zoning Commissions. The full report is available HERE. This issue has come up numerous times in Haddam and most recently in discussions about the Rossi property and the HES development.
Affordable Housing
Executive Summary
Municipalities and developers across the state are struggling with Connecticut General Statute 8-30g implementation.
What is the solution?
It’s virtually impossible to attend a local government zoning meeting or listen to a housing policy debate at the Capitol without hearing the terms “8-30g” and “affordable housing.” This paper examines the role the legislation plays in Connecticut’s market for “affordable housing.” The role that 8-30g plays in this market is enormous, as we will show.
The stated intent of 8-30g is to increase the amount of “affordable housing” across Connecticut, with affordability roughly defined as a housing unit costing less than 30% of median income. To achieve this aim, 8-30g allows developers to build housing units without the approval of a local zoning commission in any municipality where less than 10% of existing units are deemed “affordable” under the statutory definition.
The statute’s definitions, however, are often convoluted. Municipalities and developers across the state have issues with its implementation. For example, only certain types of narrowly de fined housing qualify as “affordable” for the purposes of 8-30g: 40-year “deed-restricted” housing, Section 8 federally subsidized housing, rental assisted households and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority assisted mortgages.
It is worth noting that 8-30g does not actually measure how much housing in a particular community is within economic reach for people of modest means. Nor does it gauge how expensive a housing market is, or the impact local zoning has on prices. Yet if municipalities – who have very little control over many of the factors that often determine housing prices – fail to reach 8-30g’s uniform, arbitrary 10% threshold, they are punished by losing control over their own zoning.
Together, these factors suggest 8-30g is poorly suited to achieve its primary purpose: to ensure that housing burdened residents can find homes that are economically within reach. Instead, 8-30g measures only one type of lower-cost housing: subsidized housing.
By limiting the definition of “affordable” only to units that receive taxpayer subsidies, 8-30g disregards so-called “naturally occurring affordable housing,” which is plentiful and is an other important option for meeting the needs of housing-burdened residents. 8-30g operates at cross-purposes with housing market forces, resulting in a reduced variety and quantity of economical housing. And it creates needless distrust between state policymakers, local officials and hou sing developers.
A series of recommendations within 8-30g could mitigate its shortcomings:
- Count naturally occurring affordable housing, starter homes and single-room occupancies towards the 10% threshold.
- Bring income limits into line with federal guidelines.
- Make subsidies transferable across municipalities.
If the legislature’s goal is to put economical housing within reach of residents of modest means – as opposed to simply increasing the stock of housing defined as “affordable” under 8-30g- other factors must also be considered. Reducing supply and labor costs would help make housing more affordable. Accepting out-of-state credentials for trade workers and waiving hiring restrictions for apprenticeships would bring more talented individuals into Connecticut’s workforce. The elimination (or substantial reduction) of expensive “prevailing wage” requirements and pruning onerous building codes (which reflect special interest input but are unrelated to health or safety) would also reduce artificially inflated construction costs.
Above all, focusing on free-market policies that foster economic growth would also make the poorest households wealthier and do more to solve affordable housing issues than anything centrally designed in Hartford.
Finally, this paper should be considered the beginning of a wider ranging discussion about 8-30g and its ultimate purpose. It is important for lawmakers to be honest and transparent about the purpose of the “affordable” housing laws they draft. Policies designed exclusively “to ensure access to convenient and economical housing for those who need it” may look very different from policies “designed to produce other social outcomes deemed desirable by policymakers.” We must be clear about the ends of legislation to produce laws that are effective in securing them.
