Connecticut lawmakers insist a major housing plan is coming — they just won’t say what’s in it.
At the “Building for All” conference on Oct. 23, housing officials and legislative leaders promised new legislation to expand affordable housing. Yet no one outside the Capitol has seen the bill. The event did, however, reveal much about the mindset driving the debate: when the proposal finally appears, it may be an all-or-nothing package.
Moderator Liz Kurantowicz opened the discussion by noting that $400 million in state funding and $2 billion in public-private investment are already producing about 7,000 housing units — all “absent new legislation.” Yet instead of examining what is working, lawmakers focused on what additional mandates could be imposed.
The roundtable — featuring Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), House Majority Leader Jason Rojas (D-East Hartford), and Brian O’Connor of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities — previewed the coming fight. Rep. Rojas acknowledged that roughly 85 percent of the draft bill has bipartisan support. The remaining 15 percent — the controversial provisions on “fair share” quotas and parking mandates — are the sticking point.
But compromise doesn’t appear to be part of the plan.
“Eighty-five percent is great. That is incremental. I don’t have the patience for that… It would be ideal to have 100 percent on the bill,” Rojas said, adding that he has “only so much patience for getting [Republicans] on board, as opposed to doing my job, which is to enact policy change.”
Sen. Duff echoed that sentiment, “I hope we can get there, but we will not bring — I will not bring — a weak bill to the floor of the House or Senate. … We will not bring a weak bill to the Senate.”
That all-or-nothing posture matters, because the proposal reportedly borrows from a model that has already failed elsewhere — New Jersey’s “fair share” system of state-mandated housing quotas.
Fair Share: A Formula Without Results
In housing policy, “fair share” refers to a system in which the state assigns every municipality a quota for how much affordable housing it must allow, based on regional formulas and demographic data. The concept emerged from New Jersey’s 1980s Mount Laurel rulings, intended to ensure that wealthier towns “did their part” to accommodate lower-income residents.
In practice, it shifted zoning power from local governments to state agencies and courts, triggering decades of litigation and administrative cost rather than housing construction.
Research by economist Jason Sorens of the American Institute for Economic Research examined decades of data comparing New Jersey’s record with that of similar states and found:
“No effect of affordable-housing mandates on housing production and minimal to no effect on housing costs.”
Sorens observed that housing construction actually slowed when New Jersey enforced its quotas through the Council on Affordable Housing — and when enforcement later lapsed, construction levels didn’t change. If mandates had been effective, ending them would have reduced production. It didn’t.
Instead of encouraging development, the system turned housing policy into a cottage industry for consultants and lawsuits. Years of staff time and taxpayer dollars were spent debating formulas that produced little measurable housing growth. When New Jersey replaced its system in 2024, the affordability crisis had only worsened.
The new law, “Act 2 of 2024,” further entrenched the problems. It assumes that 40 percent of all new housing demand will come from low- or moderate-income households — a one-size-fits-all target that ignores geography, infrastructure, and labor markets. Large “urban-aid” cities are exempt, placing heavier burdens on suburbs. Towns with growing commercial values face higher quotas, effectively a tax on success. Even fully built-out communities receive targets they cannot meet, guaranteeing more litigation and delays, but few new homes.
Connecticut’s emerging proposal appears to borrows heavily from that same playbook — a state-imposed formula framed as a moral obligation to “build for all,” but likely to produce the same conflicts and limited results.
Connecticut’s Crossroads
Connecticut should view New Jersey’s experience as a cautionary tale, not a model to emulate. If the goal is genuine affordability, the evidence suggests that politically driven quotas and price controls are unlikely to achieve it.
A better approach would focus on policies that expand overall housing supply and streamline development without overriding local planning. A recent New Jersey study listed the following as the most practical reforms:
- Regional collaboration. Shift affordable-housing targets from individual municipalities to regional planning bodies. Regional authorities could review and coordinate applications for affordable housing in consultation with towns, allowing the market, not formulas, to guide where projects make sense.
- Incentives after results. Reward municipalities for actual building permits issued, not just for rezoning plans. Tying incentives to real outcomes encourages cooperation and reduces litigation.
- Streamlined permitting. Introduce firm review timelines (“shot-clocks”), authorize third-party permitting, and expand exemptions from redundant approvals. Faster, more predictable permitting reduces costs and risk for builders.
- Private-sector flexibility. Leverage property rights and market demand by granting clear development rights for projects that meet objective site and infrastructure standards.
These ideas reflect a shift from bureaucratic quota systems toward regulatory reform that fosters general housing abundance. When the goal is to lower costs for everyone, policies should focus on reducing barriers and aligning incentives — not on assigning blame or redistributing quotas.
The bottom line is simple: Bureaucracy doesn’t build homes. Mandates may satisfy activists and consultants, but rarely help renters or first-time buyers.
If Connecticut repeats New Jersey’s mistakes, it will inherit the same results: fewer homes, higher costs, and another decade lost to process instead of progress. The state has an opportunity to learn from experience — and to choose a path that builds housing through collaboration, transparency, and market-driven growth rather than through mandates that have already failed elsewhere.
