This is part three of a five-part series exploring the issues surrounding affordable housing needs in Connecticut. Parts one and two can be found here.
So far, we’ve looked at how Connecticut’s government structure poses challenges to affordable housing reform and the myths and misconceptions that throw the policy debate off track. In this article, we focus on housing development and competing considerations.
Of paramount importance are environmental protections, particularly drinking water, water quality, and wetlands/waterways. There is no reason why affordable housing programs should come at the expense of protecting water resources. In fact, the good news is that state environmental laws and programs work well to promote housing development while protecting environmental quality.
Affordable housing laws and programs do not take precedence over environmental protections. The Wetlands Commission is not subject to § 8-30g, and all affordable development must meet the same standards as market-rate development. Zoning board denials of § 8-30g proposals based on water supply or water quality concerns have generally been upheld by the courts as significant public interests that take precedence over housing needs.
Similarly, state law does not permit towns to require affordable developments to preserve a certain percentage of their land as open space (because this power could be used as an exclusionary tool), but affordable development plans typically voluntarily include open space, whether for active or passive recreational purposes, because open space is a desirable amenity.
But environmental protection has a flip side when it comes to affordable housing: local agencies, sometimes with the help of opposing neighbors, will fabricate or exaggerate concerns to block affordable housing development. Sometimes opponents who were not previously concerned with wetland protection take up the issue when low-income development is proposed. Speculated concerns about wildlife are often presented at the same time. The potential hypocrisy is that neighbors and opponents sometimes live in older homes built decades ago on reclaimed wetlands.
Some wetlands commissions are aware of this opposition. Still, commissioners often feel the ire of their fellow residents and impose stricter, if not illegal, environmental and wetlands standards on cheap development. In one example well known in the development industry, the Wetlands Commission fought cheap development by asserting jurisdiction over not only ponds where salamanders lay their eggs in the spring, but also non-wetlands areas hundreds of feet away from the ponds where salamanders might crawl. The Supreme Court, and then Congress, struck down this overreach.
An often overlooked irony on this subject is that apartment buildings are more environmentally friendly than single-family homes. Apartments have more open space; apartment buildings can better manage stormwater, saving on transportation costs and reducing carbon emissions; developments with sewer systems outperform those with community septic systems; and, in general, higher density buildings can spread the costs of environmental management.
Therefore, we must collectively ensure that affordable development does not come at the expense of natural and environmental resources, and closely monitor whether concerns about contamination are real or manufactured to enforce exclusionary zoning.
Another important consideration is how climate change will affect development design, an area now known as resilience planning. The fact that affordable housing is proposed does not allow it to be built in areas at risk of flooding. Conversely, regulators should not give credence to current arguments that high-density development should be prohibited because rainfall has become less predictable. In fact, multifamily developments often have better stormwater management than subdivisions of single-family homes.
Sustainability, green building and energy efficiency go hand in hand with all forms of development and are important for affordable housing planning. Providing charging stations for electric vehicles and limiting the use of fossil fuels must also be part of the discussion on low-cost housing.
Density (houses per acre) is also a consideration that can turn into an environmental issue. Housing opponents too often criticize any density that is higher than existing neighborhoods. However, the environmental sensitivity of density varies depending on topography, layout, building design, and screening. Two homes per acre may seem too dense, but 25 homes on the same lot could be just fine if planned skillfully. For example, a technique called “light touch density” is being used increasingly with success.
Sewage treatment is also an important factor. Support for affordable housing should not come at the expense of proper management of a town’s sewer system. On the other hand, local sewer boards should never be allowed to hide sewer capacity or fabricate system maintenance concerns to slow affordable development, as some towns have done in recent years. The state should uniformly shorten septic tank separation distances and relax rules regarding septic tank reserve areas. Small developments should be allowed to rely on so-called alternative treatment plants, the technology of which has improved significantly in recent years.
And then there are financial considerations. A little-known fact is that local zoning boards are prohibited by law from making land use permit decisions, affordable or any other type of development, based on the financial impact to town services (including education) or property tax collections.
Meanwhile, states and local governments could theoretically get themselves out of the current housing affordability crisis by simply pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into construction grants, low-interest loans, planning grants, tax credits, tax abatements, rental assistance vouchers, down payment assistance, enterprise districts, utility credits, public-private partnerships, and a host of other instruments. The federal government’s best role with regard to housing is to provide financial support and incentives.
Of course, this allocation of resources comes at the expense of other competing needs. How much of each government should allocate to lowering housing prices is beyond the scope of this article or my experience. My point is that while the total funding needed to support affordable housing is more than any government can provide, strategic funding of the most effective programs could build tens of thousands of new and rehabilitated homes.
If I were King, I would allocate funds to (1) assist and oversee towns in the important work of amending certain zoning regulations and selecting development sites (discussed in the next two articles in this series), (2) provide rent subsidies and down payment assistance, (3) offer lower interest rate construction loans, and (4) renovate existing units.
As with the other factors above, our goal is to spend wisely, but we need to ensure that local regulations and permits do not get in the way of the financial resources our government is willing and able to put in place.
Let’s not forget environmental justice. It is well known that from the 1920s through the 1960s, when zoning was a tool of racial segregation, public infrastructure like sewers, water, parks, and public transportation were manipulated to exclude minorities. The legal, economic, and moral imperative of affordable housing reform is to acknowledge and dismantle the legacy of zoning and planning that concentrated and underserved minority groups by forcing affordable housing into inappropriate locations.
Finally, a word about historic preservation: Many towns have districts set up to preserve buildings and sites, allowing communities to see the way they once were and appreciate their past. But even here, historic preservation can be a tool of exclusion, and affordable housing opponents argue that affordable housing diminishes the “character” of historic buildings, yet affordable housing plans have no physical impact on historic resources.
In a recent decision, the state Supreme Court held that protecting “sight” from historic structures is an invalid extension of historic resource protections and cannot be used to block housing projects. Like the other protected resources discussed above, we need to ensure that the past is preserved, but not artificially expanded or expanded to block desperate needs of the present, such as affordable housing.
Tomorrow: Low-hanging legislative successes for affordable housing in CT.
