Patch Op-Ed: State Senator Says 'The People Know Best'

TOLLAND COUNTY, CT — The following opinion piece was submitted by state Sen. Jeff Gordon, who represents the 35th District in Connecticut.

Reach out and talk to people. Listen and learn. Work with them. That’s the lesson I’ve learned over the past 15 years as Chair of Woodstock’s Planning & Zoning Commission. In this role, I’ve led revisions to my town’s plan of conservation and development, zoning and subdivision regulations, and affordable housing plans.

During all of this, and even during my campaign, I spent a lot of time going out to neighborhoods to talk to people where they live, hear their concerns, find out what they need and want, and find out what realistically town government can support. Common sense rules the day in these actions and decisions.

This is how responsible and reasonable solutions are found that improve the quality of life of the people who live and work in Woodstock. My approach as your state senator has been the same.

Representing the 13 towns of our district, and talking to people in our rural and urban communities, I've
gotten the message as it relates to affordable housing options. Our residents have a real concern for these options, but it diverges from the attitudes miles away in Hartford. Here, the topic of affordable housing recently has taken center stage.

While the needs of the district may vary, we know what is best for our towns when it comes to
affordable housing. Our region exemplifies this. We are unique in that we have communities that are made up of rolling landscapes, farms, and rural neighborhoods. We also have towns with developed commercial corridors, apartment buildings, and industrial property. One size does not fit all. I am a firm advocate for attainable housing for all families in the state, keeping the unique makeup of our towns in mind.

So, what's the reason for the piqued interest in what Hartford Democrats are calling ‘affordable’
housing. A key idea in Hartford driving this is a measure that imposes ‘fair share’ affordable housing requirements for the 169 Connecticut towns. The state's definition of affordable housing is strict and very difficult to meet for rural or small towns. Based on the proposed state metric, the 13 towns of our Senate district (Ashford, Chaplin, Coventry, Eastford, Ellington, Hampton, Stafford, Thompson, Tolland, Union, Vernon, Willington, and Woodstock), would have to build an additional 5,804 housing units for the "fair share" model.

The estimated cost based upon a 2023 estimate would be around $2 billion dollars. Take the small town of Union for example, which has 781 people and 381 existing affordable housing units. This new state mandate would demand 76 new housing units—a 20 percent increase. If you have been to Union, which I have often and is a lovely town with great people, and which is comprised of a large area of protected forest, then you would readily see why its ‘fair share’ mandate cannot be achieved, even by year 10.

These requirements simply are not realistic for rural towns. Where will such a drastic increase in dwelling units be built? Where will people park? How will our water and sewer connectivity be impacted (many towns do not have such infrastructure in place)? Our schools? Towns would be forced to manage this undertaking (without meaningful state help). That is wrong. Forcing towns to provide such large numbers of affordable housing to meet a metric created by the state without regard to the unique factors and features of each town would create a situation by which towns would be destined to fail, of no fault of their own.

Any penalties placed on towns would be an unnecessary and an unfortunate burden on the hard- working families and job-creating businesses therein. It would be like trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. It does not work. A one-size-fits-all, top-down, state-mandated approach to creating affordable housing in our towns already does not work through the current laws known as the 8-30g system. This system has been in place for many years. It would be a system that would cause harm to communities across Connecticut.

Look south to New Jersey as an example of this disastrous effect. A law there enacted some years ago similar to what is now proposed here in Connecticut has failed to achieve its intended goals, has been mired in bureaucratic and legal quagmires, and has made things worse--not better--for public policy initiatives.

There is more to housing than simply what the state defines as ‘affordable.’ Earlier, I mentioned
"attainable" housing. This is how we should view the state’s housing situation. This is also the approach underpinning my work in Woodstock. There, many people who are not low income but nevertheless face challenges in buying, building, or staying in a home. It's important to look beyond strict state metrics and look at low- and middle-income brackets, how land is developed, and the cost of zoning permitting. Even more factors like environmental impacts and what land can and can’t be developed must be included. After we examine these factors that our government can control, we must look at what we cannot control as directly: the cost of building materials, land, and labor.

With that said, there is a separate bill in our Housing Committee that does take these ancillary factors into account and leads us on the best path to ‘attainable’ housing. It is a step toward a holistic approach grounded in reality using the circumstances that exist in each town. Yes, it considers that this housing meet certain income requirements, but not the strict state criteria mentioned earlier, in determining the overall recognized affordable housing in a town. This is a concept that I support. It is common-sense.

Before one starts to create or change land use regulations (zoning), one needs first to research,
understand, and think through carefully land use goals (planning). I have been doing it for many years.

Do not put the cart before the horse. We need to let each municipality continue to find what would
work and not work for its own people, then set out to create updated housing plans and land use
regulations with the input of the people who live in their own towns.

Let us work together to review the state’s current 8-30g affordable housing law and to determine
collaboratively in an inclusive manner what needs to be done for reform. These are important steps to take before we act further on ‘affordable housing’ measures. It is not about politics. It is about working together to have smart decisions made. Local planning and zoning officials who are directly elected by the people of their towns are good decision-makers for their communities and neighborhoods. Public meetings provide families opportunities to have their voices heard and for Planning and Zoning Commissioners to learn from residents. I look forward to continuing to be a leader taking part in this ongoing discussion.