Connecticut’s Housing Crisis: Past, Present, and Future Solutions

Introduction

Connecticut is one of the wealthiest states in America, yet it faces a severe housing crisis. Across the state, many families struggle to find a home they can afford. Rents and home prices have been rising faster than people’s incomes, leaving many paying too much of their paychecks for housing. As a result, more people are becoming homeless or living in unstable situations. This crisis touches every corner of Connecticut – from cities to small towns – and it affects everyone: low-income families, middle-class workers, seniors, and young people just starting out. This report explains how we got here, what the situation looks like today, and what we can do to ensure every Connecticut resident has a safe, affordable place to live.

We will look at the history and root causes of Connecticut’s housing problems, including restrictive zoning laws and decades of under-building. We will examine current issues like the shortage of affordable housing, rising homelessness, the lack of “workforce housing” for moderate-income workers, the displacement of residents from their communities, and the challenges of an aging housing stock. Along the way, we’ll include Connecticut-specific data, real examples, and comparisons to other states to see how Connecticut measures up. We’ll also highlight the human impact – the real families behind the statistics, such as children forced to live in shelters or commuters traveling hours because they can’t afford to live near their jobs. Finally, we will discuss forward-looking solutions. These include policy changes (like zoning reform and increased investment in housing), innovative construction methods (such as modular homes and accessory apartments), and steps each of us can take. The report concludes with a call to action for everyone – residents, lawmakers, developers, and funders – because solving the housing crisis will require all hands on deck.

(Note: This report uses plain language so that everyone, even readers at a fourth-grade level, can understand. Key data and facts are cited from reliable sources to satisfy policymakers, economists, and investors who need detailed information.)

Historical Context: How Did We Get Here?

Connecticut’s housing landscape today is the result of decades of history. In the mid-20th century, like much of the United States, Connecticut experienced suburban growth. Many new single-family homes were built after World War II as families moved to suburbs. During this time, zoning laws – local rules that decide what can be built and where – were often written to favor single-family houses on large lots. Apartment buildings and multifamily homes were frequently limited to certain areas or banned in many towns. These policies were sometimes influenced by discriminatory practices (for example, “redlining” and exclusionary zoning) that kept lower-income families and people of color out of some communities. Over time, this created pockets of wealth (affluent suburbs with mostly single-family homes) and pockets of poverty (cities with higher concentrations of affordable housing). This historical segregation laid the groundwork for the challenges we face now.

By the late 20th century, Connecticut recognized it had a growing affordable housing problem. In 1989, the state enacted the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act (Section 8-30g). This law set a goal for each town: at least 10% of its housing should be affordable (meaning reserved for people with low or moderate incomes). Towns that don’t meet the 10% target face a special process where developers can propose affordable housing and, if the town rejects it without a valid health or safety reason, the developer can appeal the decision. This was meant to encourage housing development in communities that had long blocked it. While Section 8-30g did lead to some new affordable units, many towns still did not reach the 10% goal over the ensuing decades. In fact, most of Connecticut’s 169 towns still fall below the 10% affordable housing mark, meaning the law’s goal remains unmet in much of the state (wealthier suburban towns are often the furthest behind).

Another historical factor is the slow pace of housing construction in Connecticut. After a building boom in the 1980s, housing construction in Connecticut cooled. The recession of the early 1990s and again the housing crash of 2008 hit Connecticut hard, and new housing production never returned to earlier highs. For instance, in the early 2000s Connecticut was building over 3,000 new homes in a single quarter, but by 2024 the pace had dropped dramatically​  yaledailynews.com. In the first quarter of 2024, only 959 new housing permits were issued statewide – about one-third of the quarterly rate seen in 2004​ yaledailynews.com. This long-term underproduction means that for years Connecticut’s population (or number of households) grew faster than the number of homes available. Even when population growth slowed, housing construction stayed low, creating a pent-up demand for homes.

Finally, much of Connecticut’s existing housing is old. As a historic state, Connecticut has many houses built decades ago – in some neighborhoods, over a century ago. While old homes have charm, aging housing stock can become unsafe or unsuitable if not maintained. Older homes may contain lead paint or outdated plumbing and electrical systems, and they are often less energy-efficient (leading to higher utility bills for residents). Over time, some older apartment buildings deteriorated due to lack of investment, contributing to today’s substandard housing conditions for some low-income families. In short, Connecticut entered the 21st century with a trifecta of challenges: segregated land use patterns from past zoning, a slowdown in new housing construction, and an aging inventory of homes. These historical factors set the stage for the current housing crisis.

The Current Housing Crisis in Connecticut

Today, Connecticut finds itself with high housing costs and not enough homes for the people who need them. In simple terms, there are more people looking for affordable places to live than there are homes available. Let’s break down the key aspects of the crisis:

Affordable Housing Shortage

Connecticut has the most constrained housing supply in the nation, according to recent research​  ctmirror.org. This means our state has a very low vacancy rate – few homes are empty and available at any given time – compared to other states. Only about 7% of Connecticut’s housing units are vacant (available to rent or buy), whereas the national average vacancy rate is around 11%​ ctmirror.org. A healthy housing market typically has some vacancy so that renters and buyers have choices. Connecticut’s extremely low vacancy is a sign that demand far exceeds supply​ ctmirror.org. People are competing for the limited number of units, which drives prices up.

Researchers estimate that Connecticut needs to add at least 110,000 more housing units to meet current demand​ ctmirror.org. In other words, if we could magically build 110,000 homes overnight, most of them would be immediately filled by people who are currently searching or doubled up with others. And that figure is just one estimate; if we focus only on the lowest-income families’ needs, the shortage might be even larger. A state-sponsored study in 2023 considered different ways to measure housing need. One method looked at the poorest households (those earning less than 30% of the area median income) who spend more than half their income on housing; by that measure, Connecticut is lacking about 136,000 units of affordable housing for those extremely low-income families​ ctmirror.org. Another method, focusing on overall underproduction across income levels, suggested the state would need nearly 359,000 additional units to fully eliminate housing scarcity​ ctmirror.org. No matter which approach you use, the shortfall is huge – on the order of hundreds of thousands of homes.

It’s important to understand that “affordable housing” in this context doesn’t only mean government-subsidized units; it broadly means housing that regular people can afford without spending an unsafe share of their income. Housing experts generally say one shouldn’t spend more than 30% of income on rent or mortgage. Yet in Connecticut, many families routinely exceed that. Nationwide, renters spend about 31% of their income on rent on average. In Connecticut, the average is about 32% – slightly higher ​ctmirror.org. That might not sound too bad, but averages can be misleading. What’s more alarming is that nearly 55% of Connecticut renters are paying around 35% of their income (or more) on rent​ ctmirror.org. This means over half of renter households in our state are considered “cost-burdened” – they struggle to afford other necessities because so much of their pay goes toward keeping a roof over their heads.

Housing costs in Connecticut are high by national standards. Connecticut ranks as the 8th most expensive state for renters​ ctmirror.org. As of 2024, a modest two-bedroom apartment in Connecticut costs roughly $1,695 per month at fair market rent​ ctmirror.org. Smaller apartments aren’t cheap either – a one-bedroom averages about $1,360, and even a studio (often just one room with a bathroom) is around $1,170 per month ​ctmirror.org. These numbers come from HUD’s Fair Market Rent estimates and indicate what a household would typically need to pay for a basic apartment. To comfortably afford a two-bedroom at that $1,695 rent, a family would need an income of about $71,000 per year (so that rent is no more than 30% of income) ​nlihc.org. That translates to an hourly wage of roughly $34 per hour for a full-time worker. By comparison, the median hourly wage in Connecticut is much lower, and many essential workers (like retail employees, home health aides, or early-career teachers) earn well below $34/hour. In fact, a report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition found a shortage of about 94,000 rental homes in Connecticut that are affordable and available to the lowest-income renters​ nlihc.org ​nlihc.org. These are people often working low-wage jobs, for whom the private market simply isn’t producing apartments cheap enough to live in without hardship.

Not only are rents high, but they have been rising very quickly in recent years. After a relatively stable period in the 2010s, rents took off around 2021 (in part due to pandemic-related shifts, like people moving out of shared housing). From 2021 to 2024, Connecticut rents increased dramatically across all unit sizes. For example, studio apartments went up about 33%, and two-bedroom rents went up around 28% in just three years​ ctmirror.org. Larger family-size units like three-bedrooms jumped over 27%, and four-bedroom rentals spiked by about 30% (which was an increase of roughly $580 a month for a four-bedroom home)​ ctmirror.org. These steep increases far outpaced general inflation and wage growth, meaning housing has become much less affordable very quickly. The chart below illustrates the surge in rent prices by apartment size in Connecticut from 2021 to 2024:

Rent increases by apartment size in Connecticut (2021–2024). Each bar shows the percentage increase in Fair Market Rent for that size unit over the three-year period. All apartment sizes saw rent jumps of roughly 27–33%. Data from HUD FMR and reported by CT Mirror​ ctmirror.org.

These rising costs and limited supply affect would-be homebuyers as well. Home prices in Connecticut have been climbing, making it harder for first-time buyers to purchase a house. From 2023 to 2024 alone, Connecticut’s housing prices (for homes) rose about 9.6%, which is faster than the national average increase of 6.6%​ yaledailynews.com. In fact, Connecticut had the 7th highest home price increase among all states during that year​ yaledailynews.com. Higher home prices mean larger down payments and mortgages, putting ownership out of reach for many middle-class families. Some long-time residents have seen their property values and taxes go up, which can be a double-edged sword – good for those selling a home at a profit, but challenging for those on fixed incomes trying to stay.

In summary, Connecticut’s current affordable housing shortage is marked by very low availability of homes and very high costs. Many families are one rent hike away from not being able to afford their current home. Others are stuck living in overcrowded situations (multiple families or generations under one roof) because they can’t find an affordable separate unit. And thousands of people are on waiting lists for affordable housing subsidies or units – a clear sign of demand outstripping supply. We will later discuss solutions to increase housing, but first, let’s look at other aspects of the crisis, starting with its most visible and heartbreaking symptom: homelessness.

Homelessness and Housing Instability

When housing is too scarce and too expensive, the most vulnerable residents often end up homeless. Connecticut has seen a worrying rise in homelessness in recent times. On a single night in January 2024, more than 5,000 people in Connecticut were experiencing homelessness​ housedems.ct.gov. This figure includes people sleeping in emergency shelters or on the street, as well as those in temporary transitional housing programs. What’s truly heartbreaking is that this number jumped by 13% from the previous year ​housedems.ct.gov. In January 2023, the count was lower, which means that despite efforts, homelessness is on the rise again in our state. Even more concerning, among those 5,000 individuals without a home, 44% were children or seniors over age 55 ​housedems.ct.gov. In other words, this crisis affects not only single adults but also families with young kids and older adults who may have nowhere to go.

To put it plainly: in one of the wealthiest states in the U.S., thousands of children and elderly people do not have a home. As one state legislator said, “One unhoused person is unacceptable. To have more than 5,000 people experiencing homelessness – infants, children, seniors – in our state is unconscionable.” ​housedems.ct.gov. This quote highlights the human tragedy behind the statistics. Every person counted as “homeless” is someone’s child, parent, or grandparent, and the toll on their health and wellbeing is severe.

Homelessness in Connecticut includes several groups: individuals with long-term homelessness (often with disabling conditions or veterans, whom the state has tried to target for special help), families with children who might be in shelter due to an eviction or job loss, and youth or young adults who may be couch-surfing or in unstable living arrangements. There is also a hidden form of homelessness: people not counted in official shelter numbers but who are doubling up with friends or relatives because they lost housing. The housing crisis contributes to all these situations. For example, if a family’s rent goes up and they can’t pay, they may get evicted. Connecticut, like many states, saw a pause in evictions during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic due to moratoriums and rental aid. But once those protections ended, advocates warned of a surge in evictions ​nlihc.org. In 2021, it was estimated that more than 130,000 Connecticut tenants were behind on rent as the eviction moratorium was expiring ​nlihc.org. Many of these households sought help from programs like UniteCT, which distributed emergency rental assistance, but not all landlords or tenants were able to access relief in time​ nlihc.org. While eviction filings did resume, Connecticut has taken some steps (like considering a “right to counsel” law to provide lawyers for tenants in eviction court ​nlihc.org) to prevent evictions from leading to homelessness. Still, the need outpaces the help: housing hotlines were receiving about 1,100 calls per day from people seeking rental assistance in 2021​ nlihc.org, illustrating how many were on the brink.

Connecticut has made some progress in the past. A few years ago, it became one of the first states effectively to end chronic homelessness among veterans, by making sure every veteran in need was quickly connected to housing and support. The state also worked on ending chronic homelessness for those with disabilities. Those efforts, while successful for specific groups, did not fully solve homelessness for everyone. The recent increase shows that economic pressures (like high rents and inflation) can quickly undo progress if there aren’t robust systems in place to help people.

Homelessness is also tied to other systems: the availability of mental health and addiction treatment, job opportunities, and the foster care system (youth aging out of foster care are at high risk of homelessness, for example). However, experts agree that the core of the issue is the lack of affordable housing. Many people experiencing homelessness simply cannot find a unit they can afford and sustain. Waiting lists for rental assistance or public housing are very long. In New Haven, for example, about 30,000 residents are on the housing waitlist for the city’s housing authority or related programs​ yaledailynews.com. Some have to wait over a year or even multiple years for an affordable unit to become available ​yaledailynews.com. When the waitlist is that large – roughly one in five residents in a city like New Haven – it signals a systemic shortage. People on these lists often have to stay in shelters, motels, or doubled up while they wait, or they leave the state to find housing elsewhere.

The human impact of homelessness is devastating. Children without stable homes may struggle in school, move frequently, or suffer health problems. Adults experiencing homelessness face higher rates of illness, difficulty finding employment, and personal safety risks. Connecticut’s social service and nonprofit agencies work hard to connect people to shelter and eventually permanent housing, but they are under strain. This is why advocates (like the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness) have been urging the state government to invest more in solutions. In fact, lawmakers and advocates recently requested $33.5 million in the state budget to help solve homelessness, aimed at funding three priorities: prevention (to stop people from losing their housing), crisis response (shelters and services), and sustainable housing for the homeless ​housedems.ct.gov. The recognition is that it will take sustained funding and policy support to turn the tide so that those 5,000 individuals can move into stable housing – and to prevent more families from becoming homeless in the first place.

The Workforce Housing Crunch (Housing for Middle-Income Workers)

It’s not only the very poor or homeless who feel the housing crisis. So-called “workforce housing” refers to homes that are affordable for middle-income working families – people who don’t qualify for subsidized housing, but still can’t comfortably afford market prices in many Connecticut communities. This includes professions like teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters, retail managers, and office workers – the essential workers who keep our towns and economy running. In Connecticut today, a significant number of these middle-income earners are struggling to find housing near their workplaces that fits their budget.

One state leader put it well: “My default position is really thinking about the most vulnerable among us… But certainly this is a middle class issue as well.”​ ctmirror.org. This was said by the Majority Leader of the Connecticut House of Representatives, acknowledging that the housing crisis extends into the middle class. Many moderate-income families are priced out of the very communities they serve. For example, a new teacher or a starting police officer might earn somewhere in the range of $50,000–$60,000 a year. With Connecticut’s housing costs, that income might not be enough to rent a suitable apartment within reasonable distance of the job, especially if the worker is also paying student loans, car payments, or supporting children. As noted earlier, the annual income needed to afford a typical 2-bedroom apartment is around $72,000 ​nlihc.org. This means lots of working families have incomes below that threshold and thus would have to pay more than 30% of their income on rent for a typical unit. Indeed, many do: middle-income families often end up paying 35%, 40%, or more of their income on housing in Connecticut, especially if they want to live in lower-crime areas or near good schools, which tend to be more expensive.

Connecticut’s high cost of living compounds the problem. It’s not just rent – childcare, transportation, and taxes are also relatively high. So a family that might be doing fine in a lower-cost state can find it very hard to make ends meet in Connecticut without a higher salary. Some people who work in Connecticut’s coastal Fairfield County (where many jobs are) have to live in farther counties or even out of state (for example, in Pennsylvania or further up in the Hudson Valley) and endure long commutes, because housing is too expensive near their jobs. This has implications for traffic, quality of life, and even the state’s economy. If workers feel they cannot find housing, they might decline job offers or leave for other states. Businesses have started voicing concern that the lack of affordable and workforce housing makes it difficult to attract and retain employees. For example, a tech company or hospital in Connecticut might recruit a young professional, only for that person to balk at the rent prices in the area and choose to work elsewhere. This “brain drain” or worker shortage can hurt the state’s competitiveness.

Another factor is that Connecticut’s apartment stock is skewed toward older units. Recall the statistic that less than 15% of Connecticut’s renter-occupied homes were built in the last 25 years​ ctmirror.org. This means new, modern apartments (which often include amenities but also come at high luxury rents) are relatively rare outside of downtown areas, and much of the rental housing is older. Newer units tend to target the high end of the market (luxury apartments) because those are the ones developers can profit from given high construction costs. This leaves a gap in the “middle market” – there are not enough reasonably-priced, modest apartments or starter homes for middle-class families. In a healthy housing market, you would have a range: subsidized units for low-income households, mid-priced rentals and small homes for middle-income, and higher-end homes. In Connecticut, the middle part has shrunk, and many developments are either high-end or aimed at low-income with government subsidies, with less in between.

The workforce housing crunch is evident in many towns’ housing plans and studies. Towns that host large employers (like universities or hospitals) often acknowledge that many of their employees cannot afford to live locally. For instance, a city like Stamford has a lot of jobs in finance and service sectors, but also very high housing costs; many workers commute from places like Bridgeport or beyond. On the flip side, some suburbs have relatively affordable homes but lack jobs, forcing people to drive long distances (and thus spend time and money commuting) to employment centers. Ideally, communities would have housing options for all kinds of workers who serve the community – teachers can live near their schools, firefighters near their stations, and so on. Currently, that’s not the case in much of Connecticut.

In summary, moderate-income earners are feeling the squeeze. They may not qualify for any housing assistance, yet they struggle with high rents or home prices. They are often the ones stuck in the middle: not poor enough for subsidized housing, not rich enough to comfortably afford market prices. This segment of the population often gets labeled “missing middle” – missing middle housing (like duplexes, townhouses, and small multifamily buildings that could serve them) has not been built much in recent decades due to zoning and market forces. Later in the report, we’ll discuss strategies to promote more workforce housing so that people who work in Connecticut can also afford to live here without financial distress.

Zoning Laws and Segregation

One of the less visible, but very powerful, factors behind Connecticut’s housing crisis is the set of zoning laws and local regulations that govern development. Connecticut is known as a “home rule” state – local towns have strong control over what gets built. For many years, this meant that wealthier suburbs could (and did) zone out multifamily housing and apartment buildings, effectively keeping lower-income (and often minority) residents from moving in. These practices have contributed to a pattern of economic and racial segregation in housing. Even today, Connecticut has stark divides: some towns are predominantly single-family homes, mostly owner-occupied by affluent residents, while other areas (especially cities like Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, and certain pockets of other towns) contain most of the state’s affordable and multifamily housing. This imbalance didn’t happen by accident – it was shaped by policy.

Typical restrictive zoning practices include: minimum lot sizes (e.g. you can only build a house if you have an acre of land, which makes housing more expensive), bans or caps on multi-unit buildings, lengthy approval processes for any housing that isn’t a single-family home, and sometimes outright prohibitions on apartments or duplexes in large swaths of a town. In Connecticut, it’s common that the only places you’re allowed to build an apartment building are a few small areas (perhaps near a town center), and even then, you might need a special permit. This keeps density low. While neighbors often support these rules in the name of preserving “neighborhood character” or preventing traffic, the cumulative effect statewide is a severe under-supply of multifamily housing. Fewer apartments mean fewer opportunities for renters. And since renters are more likely to be younger, less wealthy, or people of color (due to historical income disparities), the zoning choices end up segregating communities by income and race.

A direct outcome of these policies: most suburban towns in Connecticut have very little affordable housing. Despite the state’s 8-30g law (which set a 10% affordable goal), as noted, the majority of towns have not met that threshold. In many affluent towns, the percentage of housing that is considered affordable (under the law’s definition) is in the single digits. Some have as low as 2-3% affordable housing. Only a couple dozen municipalities (out of 169) have reached 10% or higher – these are generally cities or older industrial towns, not the wealthy suburbs. For example, cities like Hartford or New Haven have a lot of publicly assisted housing and thus exceed the 10% goal, whereas wealthy suburbs like Greenwich, Westport, or Darien are far below it. This mismatch means that low- and moderate-income families have limited or no access to live in many areas that might have better job opportunities or schools. It also puts heavy pressure on the places that do allow affordable housing, because the demand concentrates there.

In recent years, zoning reform has become a hot topic in Connecticut as a way to address the housing crisis. Advocates argue that without changing the zoning rules, it will be very hard to build the number of homes needed. One proposal is the “fair share” approach, which was studied by the state in 2023 and into 2024. Fair share planning means figuring out how many new housing units (especially affordable units) each region or town should add to meet the overall need, and then requiring those towns to plan and zone for them ​ctmirror.org​ctmirror.org. This concept has been used in states like New Jersey for decades – stemming from the famous Mount Laurel court decisions – and more recently in states like Washington. The early findings in Connecticut’s study showed the massive needs (like the 136,000 units figure) and suggested dividing that responsibility among towns. Under a fair share law, even towns that historically built very little housing would have to designate areas where apartments or affordable homes can be built ​ctmirror.org​ctmirror.org. They wouldn’t necessarily have to build it themselves, but they must allow it. Proponents say this is essential for equity (every town doing its part) and for increasing supply in a broad, statewide way. Opponents, however, often local officials, argue that this infringes on local control and that some towns lack the infrastructure (sewer, water, etc.) or demand for large developments ​ctpublic.org. Some fear changing the character of small towns.

Connecticut did pass a zoning reform bill in 2021 that took a few modest steps: it made it easier to build Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (small in-law apartments or garage apartments) by generally allowing them as of right on single-family lots (though towns could opt out) and it placed limits on excessive parking requirements (which can make housing more expensive to build). It also required towns to modernize their zoning codes with an eye toward the state’s housing needs and to take a training course on fair housing. These changes, while positive, were incremental. Many towns chose to opt out of the ADU provision, for example, under pressure from residents who did not want to allow two homes on one lot. So, the impact of that law has been limited in some areas.

Zoning is a complex, wonky issue, but its effects are very real. To illustrate: If a developer wants to build a 20-unit apartment building in a suburb, under current zoning they might be outright banned from doing so. Even if allowed, they might have to go through years of public hearings and legal battles, especially if the development would include affordable units (which sometimes face opposition from neighbors). This slow and uncertain approval process itself raises costs and dissuades builders from attempting projects in Connecticut. They might find it easier to build in states or towns with more welcoming regulations.

The bottom line is that Connecticut’s restrictive zoning has choked off the supply of new housing, particularly multifamily housing, and contributed to segregation and inequality. It’s one of the root causes of the crisis. Any solution will likely require reforming these laws so that creating housing – especially in high-opportunity areas – becomes easier. Other states have shown that changing zoning can open the door to more development: for example, when New Jersey enforced fair housing, many suburbs built their first affordable housing developments, and Washington State’s recent housing policies coincided with it moving from the 2nd most housing-constrained state to the 11th, meaning their market loosened up a bit​ ctmirror.org. Connecticut is now grappling with how to balance local desires with the urgent statewide need for more housing.

Displacement of Residents and Gentrification

As housing costs rise and new development (often high-end) comes into previously affordable neighborhoods, many Connecticut residents face displacement – being forced to move out of their community because they can no longer afford to stay. Displacement often hits low-income families and communities of color the hardest. It can occur in cities when neighborhoods start to “gentrify” (meaning higher-income people move in, new expensive buildings go up, and rents increase). It can also happen in mobile home parks or older apartment complexes when landlords decide to sell or redevelop the property, pushing out existing residents. Even without new development, simply the pressure of a tight housing market can displace people: if a landlord sees that market rents have gone up, they might not renew a lease or might raise the rent significantly, knowing that if the current tenant can’t pay, someone else will be ready to rent at the higher price. The original tenant then has to leave and find someplace cheaper, which might be farther away or in worse condition.

In Connecticut’s cities like Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Stamford, there are signs of gentrification in certain areas. For example, parts of Stamford’s South End have seen luxury apartments and offices spring up, which dramatically increased rents in what used to be a lower-cost area. Long-term residents there have voiced concerns that they’re being priced out of their own neighborhood. In New Haven, a city with a large population of renters, over half of residents are housing cost-burdened according to a 2023 housing authority report​ yaledailynews.com. The city estimates it will need to build 8,500 new housing units by 2030 to meet demand, yet in the decade of 2010–2019, fewer than 5,000 homes were built​ yaledailynews.com. This shortfall contributes to people being displaced as competition for apartments intensifies. New Haven also has the complication of Yale University students and staff needing housing; as noted in one report, the influx of students seeking off-campus housing can inadvertently “price out New Haveners” because students might outbid local families for the limited units available​ yaledailynews.com.

Displacement isn’t just an urban issue. In suburban and rural parts of Connecticut, displacement can happen when, say, a family renting a single-family house is told the owner is selling (often to take advantage of high home prices), and the renter family cannot find another affordable rental in that town. They might have to relocate to a different town entirely, which could mean changing jobs or schools. In extreme cases, people leave Connecticut altogether in search of lower housing costs. We’ve seen population movement data indicating some residents leaving high-cost states in the Northeast for places like the South or more rural areas where housing is cheaper. While Connecticut’s overall population has remained fairly stable, some of that stability is due to higher-income people moving in (for jobs in finance, for instance) while lower-income people move out – a form of economic displacement on a statewide level.

Another form of displacement is when evictions occur. Each eviction is an involuntary displacement. Connecticut’s eviction rate isn’t the highest in the nation, but in certain cities, a significant number of households face eviction filings each year. Often these are in poorer cities and neighborhoods. The end of the eviction moratorium after COVID led to a backlog of cases; however, Connecticut’s steps toward providing legal aid to tenants (right-to-counsel pilot programs) aim to mitigate the worst outcomes. Still, an eviction can go on a tenant’s record and make it much harder to rent in the future, potentially pushing that person into substandard housing or homelessness.

Displacement has social costs. When families move away, communities lose neighbors and friends; schools lose students; businesses lose customers. For the families themselves, being uprooted can be traumatic – children might have to change schools (affecting their education), adults might lose support networks or have longer commutes, and any stability they had is disrupted. For elderly residents on fixed incomes, displacement can mean being forced out of a long-time hometown because taxes or rents got too high – effectively breaking community bonds and support systems they relied on.

In Connecticut, addressing displacement means both preserving existing affordable housing and adding more affordable options so that people have someplace to go if they are priced out of one place. Preservation could include things like rent stabilization policies to limit extreme rent hikes, programs to help renters buy their buildings (or nonprofits to buy them and keep them affordable), or stronger tenant protections against unfair evictions. Some advocacy groups propose “just cause eviction” laws to ensure landlords can’t evict without a valid reason (like non-payment or violation of lease) as a way to prevent arbitrary displacement. These ideas have been debated in the state legislature, reflecting the growing recognition that keeping people in their homes is as important as creating new homes.

Aging Housing Stock and Quality Issues

Connecticut’s housing is not only scarce and expensive – much of it is old and in need of repair. The state’s housing stock is aging, and this creates a whole other set of problems. As noted, less than 15% of renter-occupied homes in Connecticut were built in the last 25 years​ ctmirror.org, which implies that 85% of rental units were built before 2000. A large chunk were built mid-20th century or even earlier (pre-1940 housing is common in cities and older towns). Older owner-occupied homes are also prevalent, from 19th-century farmhouses to 1950s capes.

What challenges come with an aging housing stock? First, maintenance costs – older homes require constant upkeep (roofs, boilers, insulation, etc.). Many low-income owners or landlords struggle to afford these costs, leading to deferred maintenance. Over time, small issues can become big issues (a small leak becomes mold; old paint peels and exposes lead; an outdated furnace breaks in winter). Some houses become unsafe or unhealthy. Unfortunately, Connecticut has seen cases of families living in substandard conditions because it’s all they can afford – for instance, units with mold, pest infestations, or unreliable heat. As Connecticut Tenants Union Vice President Luke Melonakos-Harrison pointed out, the combination of aging apartments and low vacancy is a “perfect storm” resulting in many tenants living in “slum conditions at rents that they can barely afford or they can’t afford.”​ ctmirror.org. This stark statement highlights that some people are paying high rents for very poor-quality housing, because they have no other choice in a tight market.

Another issue is lead paint and environmental hazards. Homes built before 1978 often have lead-based paint on the walls. If that paint deteriorates or during renovations, lead dust can poison children living there. Connecticut has thousands of lead poisoning cases in children each year, mostly due to old housing. Similarly, older homes might have asbestos in insulation or pipes, or outdated electrical wiring that’s a fire hazard. Many older multifamily buildings also lack modern fire safety systems (like sprinklers) unless they were retrofitted.

Energy efficiency is a concern too. Older homes typically have poor insulation, old windows, and older heating systems. This means high utility bills for residents (making the cost burden even worse) and contributes to higher carbon emissions. Programs exist to weatherize homes, but the need is great.

The aging housing also ties into Connecticut’s character – people love the historic New England charm, but there’s a tension between preservation and modernization. For instance, some communities resist tearing down old structures to build new apartments, valuing the historic aesthetic. But preserving every old building can sometimes impede creating safer, updated housing. Ideally, Connecticut can both rehabilitate old buildings (when feasible) and replace those that are beyond repair with new, comfortable housing.

In essence, the quality of housing is an important part of the crisis. It’s not just about having four walls and a roof; the housing should be decent and healthy. A low-income family living in a dilapidated apartment is technically housed, but their situation is far from ideal – children might get sick from mold, or the heat might not work well in winter. Aging housing stock also means some properties are actually going offline – for example, an old building might be condemned or demolished if it becomes uninhabitable, reducing the housing supply further.

Addressing the aging stock issue means investing in housing rehabilitation: fixing old homes, removing hazards, improving energy efficiency, and sometimes converting old buildings (like factories or schools) into new housing. Connecticut does have some programs (like grants or loans for home repair, lead abatement programs, etc.), but again, the scale of the issue is large. Without attention to the quality of housing, we risk having units that are technically “available” but not truly suitable for people to live in safely.

Having reviewed these facets of Connecticut’s housing crisis – the shortage, homelessness, workforce housing gap, zoning challenges, displacement, and aging stock – it’s clear that this is a multidimensional problem. There is no single cause and thus no single fix. In the next sections, we will discuss the root causes in a bit more detail (summing up why all these problems exist), and then crucially, outline the forward-looking solutions that can help Connecticut move out of this crisis. The good news is that many smart people across the state are working on these solutions right now, and there are examples from other states that show positive results.

Root Causes of the Crisis: A Summary

By now, some root causes have become evident, but let’s summarize the main underlying reasons Connecticut faces this housing crisis:

• Severe Underproduction of Housing: For years, Connecticut didn’t build enough new housing to keep up with the formation of new households. Household formation can increase even without big population booms – for instance, when young adults move out on their own or when people stop having roommates. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Connecticut actually saw an uptick in household formation as some people left crowded city living in New York/Boston and others sought more space ​ctmirror.org. Our housing construction, however, has been relatively stagnant or slow. With only ~5,000–6,000 units permitted per year recently​ ctmirror.org, the math doesn’t work out when tens of thousands more units are needed. This under-supply naturally drives prices up (high demand, low supply = high prices in a market economy).

• Restrictive Zoning and Local Opposition (NIMBYism): Connecticut’s local land use policies historically favored the status quo and limited growth. This “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) mentality meant that even when there was demand for housing, projects could be blocked or downsized. Each town acting in its own interest led to a collective failure to meet regional housing needs. Wealthy areas remained exclusive. This cause is deeply entwined with the state’s governance structure; any solution has to tackle this head-on, possibly by state intervention or incentives for towns to change their zoning.

• Economic Inequality and Stagnant Incomes for Some Groups: While Connecticut has a high median income, that hides a big gap between the highest earners and lower earners. Many working-class jobs haven’t seen wages rise nearly as fast as housing costs. The state’s economy has also transitioned away from some well-paying blue-collar jobs (like manufacturing) over the decades, leaving pockets of unemployment or underemployment. The study that ranked Connecticut worst for renters cited the state’s above-average unemployment rate (4.7% vs 3.9% nationally at the time) and low apartment availability as factors​ ctmirror.org. If incomes don’t keep up, more people will fall into the cost-burdened category or potentially lose housing.

• High Construction Costs and Regulatory Hurdles: Building housing in the Northeast is expensive. Land costs are high, labor is high-skilled and high-wage, materials costs have risen (especially during pandemic supply chain issues). On top of that, the process to get approvals can be time-consuming, as mentioned. All these add costs that result in high rents/prices needed to make a project viable for a developer. So new construction tends to skew luxury (where the rents can cover the cost) or requires subsidies to be affordable. This isn’t unique to Connecticut, but it’s a root cause generally of why the private market alone isn’t solving the shortage with more supply.

• Past Disinvestment in Affordable Housing: On a policy level, the federal government and states cut back on affordable housing investment in the 1980s and 1990s compared to prior decades. Fewer public housing units were built; existing ones weren’t always maintained (many got demolished). The federal Section 8 voucher program helps many families, but vouchers are limited – only about 1 in 4 eligible families nationwide gets one due to funding limits. Connecticut has done some state-funded housing, but budget constraints often limited big initiatives. So, there’s a cumulative deficit from years when we didn’t invest enough in below-market housing for those who needed it.

• Segregation and “Two Connecticuts”: This is more of a social cause, but the mentality of keeping certain areas exclusive meant that opportunities (like good schools, safe neighborhoods, job proximity) were not accessible to everyone. Over time, this created a divide where low-income (often minority) residents were concentrated in certain cities or neighborhoods with fewer resources. This legacy makes solving the housing crisis also an exercise in equity – it’s not just more units, but more units in a diversity of places, so that people aren’t all stuck in the same overcrowded areas.

• External Market Forces: Especially in recent years, external factors played a role. The low interest rates of 2020-2021 made buying houses more affordable for those who could, which drove up home prices due to competition (and now higher rates are making mortgages expensive, pricing people out). The pandemic caused some urban-to-suburban migration flows, hitting Connecticut’s market with sudden demand. And now inflation in utilities and other costs also affects housing budgets.

Each of these causes is interlinked. For example, underproduction is partly due to restrictive zoning; economic inequality is worsened by segregation. Recognizing these root causes helps in formulating solutions. It tells us that we need both policy changes (like zoning reform and investment) and market responses (like encouraging new construction techniques to lower costs). It also highlights that doing nothing will not magically fix things – without intervention, these forces will likely continue to make housing in Connecticut more expensive and out of reach for many.

Forward-Looking Solutions: Paths to Address the Crisis

Solving Connecticut’s housing crisis will require a comprehensive approach. No single policy or program can fix everything, but a combination of efforts can make housing more affordable, available, and equitable. Below, we outline a range of solutions, from policy reforms to innovative construction methods. These solutions target different aspects of the problem: increasing the supply of housing, ensuring that a good portion of that supply is affordable to those who need it, protecting residents from displacement and poor conditions, and embracing innovation to build and preserve housing more efficiently. Many of these ideas are already being discussed or piloted in Connecticut. The key is scaling them up and coordinating them for maximum impact.

1. Increase the Housing Supply (Especially Affordable Units)

At its core, the crisis is about supply and demand. So one fundamental solution is: build more housing. This includes market-rate housing (which can relieve pressure overall) and dedicated affordable housing. Here are strategies to boost supply:

• Fair Share Housing Planning: As mentioned, Connecticut is considering a fair share approach where each town is allocated a target number of new units (particularly affordable units) to zone for. Adopting a fair share law would push every municipality to proactively plan for growth. New Jersey’s example shows it can lead to tens of thousands of units over time (though not without legal wrangling). Washington State’s recent adoption of similar principles correlated with a better housing vacancy ranking​ ctmirror.org. Connecticut’s study found a need of about 136,000 units focused on lower-income severe needs ​ctmirror.org. A fair share law would turn that number into actionable goals for towns. This ensures that wealthier suburbs contribute by allowing more homes to be built, rather than leaving the burden to cities alone.

• Leverage Underused Land: The state and municipalities can identify underused or vacant land for housing development. For instance, empty lots, abandoned properties, or even parts of underutilized shopping centers and office parks could be turned into housing. A 2025 legislative proposal even looked at converting vacant office buildings into apartments ​ctmirror.org, given the rise of remote work leading to empty office space. Such adaptive reuse can create new housing without needing to develop untouched land, and it can revitalize areas that might otherwise blight.

• Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): Encourage building housing near public transit hubs like train stations and bus lines. This has a double benefit: it adds supply and promotes sustainable communities where people can rely less on cars. Connecticut has train lines and bus rapid transit (like CTfastrak) that could support more apartments around stations. Some zoning reforms have tried to encourage this by easing density limits near transit.

• Inclusionary Zoning: Require that new larger developments include a percentage of affordable units. For example, a town could mandate that any new apartment building with 10 or more units must rent, say, 10–20% of them at prices affordable to moderate-income households. Some Connecticut cities have passed such ordinances (New Haven enacted its first inclusionary zoning policy in 2022, requiring certain developments to set aside affordable units). This way, whenever the market builds, it also creates some workforce or low-income housing as part of the mix.

• State and Federal Funding for Affordable Housing: Increase funding to programs that finance affordable housing construction. The Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) and Department of Housing (DOH) administer programs that offer low-interest loans, tax credits (like the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit), and grants to affordable housing developers. Expanding these can directly support the creation of more below-market units. For instance, the National Housing Trust Fund allocated about $9.7 million to Connecticut in the current year​ nlihc.org, which can be used to build or preserve housing for extremely low-income households. Advocates often call for more robust investment – treating housing as infrastructure deserving of public dollars.

• Streamline Permitting and Reduce Red Tape: The state could incentivize or require faster local permitting processes for housing. If approvals that used to take 2 years can be done in 6 months, projects become less risky and costly for builders. One idea is a state-level “default approval” if towns don’t act on an application within a certain time frame (to avoid indefinite delays). Another approach is to provide template architectural plans for things like ADUs or small homes that are pre-approved to meet code, making it easier for property owners to add units.

• Encourage Mixed-Income and Mixed-Use Development: Sometimes combining different types of housing and even blending housing with commercial space can make projects more viable and community-friendly. For example, a development could have shops on the ground floor and apartments above, some market-rate, some affordable. This adds housing while also boosting local business and keeping communities vibrant.

Importantly, building more doesn’t mean just sprawl or random development. It should be smart growth – adding density in sensible places (near jobs, transit, or town centers) and preserving open space elsewhere. With thoughtful planning, Connecticut can add the housing it needs without losing its character. And as supply catches up, the intense pressure that leads to bidding wars and skyrocketing rents should ease, stabilizing prices.

2. Reform Zoning and Land-Use Policies

To unlock the ability to build more housing, zoning reforms are critical. Connecticut has begun this conversation, but more action is needed:

• Allow More Types of Housing: One simple change is to legalize duplexes, triplexes, and small multifamily homes in areas that currently only allow single-family houses. States like Oregon have done this statewide. If every residential neighborhood in Connecticut allowed, say, up to a 4-unit building, you wouldn’t see a sudden wave of mansions turning into fourplexes, but over time it would enable gentle increases in density. This creates more units and often more affordable ones (a new duplex can be cheaper per unit than a new single-family home on the same lot). It also promotes “missing middle” housing that fits into neighborhoods without high-rises.

• Make Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Truly Permitted: Strengthen the 2021 ADU law by removing the opt-out or by offering incentives for towns to opt in again. ADUs – like basement apartments or backyard cottages – allow homeowners to add an extra unit, which can be rented out (providing income to the homeowner and an affordable unit to someone else) or used for family (like an elderly parent or grown child). They are a low-impact way to increase housing. States like California have aggressively pushed ADUs and seen a surge in their construction after relaxing laws. Connecticut could simplify ADU approval, provide model codes, and maybe even offer financing help to build them.

• Reduce Minimum Lot Sizes and Other Barriers: Many towns require large lots which limit how many houses can be built. By reducing minimum lot sizes (especially in areas with sewer and water service), more homes can fit in a town without sprawl. Similarly, reducing excessive parking requirements (which Connecticut started doing) helps because requiring two parking spaces per unit, for example, can make construction more expensive and use up land.

• Override Local Zoning in Certain Cases: As a stronger measure, the state can assert more control for projects of state importance. Section 8-30g is one such override mechanism for affordable housing – it could potentially be bolstered or its thresholds adjusted to encourage more usage. For instance, lowering the threshold of units in a project that need to be affordable to qualify for 8-30g could encourage smaller developments in small towns. Alternatively, a state-level board could be created to fast-track affordable housing proposals (Massachusetts has a similar concept with its “40B” law, which is akin to 8-30g). If fair share passes, it might come with enforcement teeth that act as an override if towns don’t comply.

• Promote Regional Planning: Housing needs and solutions could be addressed at the regional (county or Council of Governments) level rather than purely town-by-town. This way, if one town has little land or capacity, a neighboring town might absorb more of the share. Connecticut abolished county governments decades ago, but regional councils exist and can coordinate on issues like transportation and housing. The state could require regional housing plans that each town must contribute to, fostering cooperation instead of each town acting in isolation.

Zoning reform can be politically challenging – residents often fear change or have misconceptions about what higher density might mean (some fear traffic, others fear impact on schools or property values). It’s crucial to communicate that well-planned growth benefits everyone: it can bring in new neighbors, support local businesses, increase tax base, and allow seniors to downsize locally or young families to move in. Some opposition is based on legitimate concerns (e.g., will infrastructure like sewers handle more people?), so solutions should include upgrading infrastructure in tandem with growth. Ultimately, modernizing zoning laws is about moving away from exclusion and toward inclusion, making Connecticut’s communities more open and welcoming while still maintaining what makes them special.

3. Expand and Preserve Affordable Housing Programs

Building more homes will help, but we also need specific efforts to ensure affordable housing (capital A, as in below-market units for those with lower incomes) is created and preserved. Not everyone can wait for the market to trickle down benefits. Here are targeted solutions:

• Increase Rental Assistance (Vouchers): Expanding programs like the federal Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) or state rental assistance programs can immediately help families by bridging the gap between what they can afford and market rent. If a family pays, say, 30% of their income and a voucher covers the rest, they can afford to stay in housing. The challenge is twofold: funding more vouchers and getting landlords to accept them. Connecticut could put more state money into its rental assistance program, and also enforce anti-discrimination laws that bar landlords from rejecting tenants just for using a voucher (this is already law in CT, but enforcement and education can be improved).

• Support Nonprofit Housing Developers and Land Trusts: Nonprofit organizations and community land trusts can develop housing that remains affordable long-term. For example, a community land trust can hold land and sell or rent homes on it at affordable rates with resale price limits, ensuring affordability for generations. The state and philanthropy can support these models with grants or land donations. Habitat for Humanity, local housing authorities, and other nonprofits are active in CT; scaling their work would add units that won’t suddenly go to market rate in a few years.

• Housing Preservation and Anti-Conversion: Ensure existing affordable housing remains available. Many affordable units (especially those built with older programs) have affordability periods that can expire after a certain number of years, after which owners might convert them to market-rate. Tracking these and providing incentives or funds for owners to extend affordability is important so we don’t lose ground. Also, for private unsubsidized affordable units (often called “naturally occurring affordable housing”), which are simply older, cheaper apartments, we might offer landlords low-interest loans to rehab them in exchange for keeping rents reasonable.

• Homelessness Prevention and Housing First: To tackle homelessness, invest in Housing First programs that move people directly into permanent housing with support services, rather than keeping them in shelter for long. Connecticut has had success with Housing First for veterans and chronically homeless individuals – expanding that approach can help others. The requested $33.5 million for homelessness initiatives would go toward exactly this: prevention (like emergency rental assistance to prevent eviction), crisis services (shelter, outreach), and stable housing solutions​ housedems.ct.gov. Each person prevented from losing housing or quickly rehoused shortens the cycle of homelessness.

• Right to Counsel and Tenant Protections: Pass laws that give renters more security. A right to counsel in eviction cases (which Connecticut was considering​ nlihc.org) can reduce evictions by ensuring tenants have legal help. Other protections could include requiring “just cause” for evictions (landlords must cite a reason like non-payment or lease violation, not just end a lease to evict), or longer notice periods for rent increases over a certain percentage. These measures help keep people housed and reduce displacement.

• Focus on Workforce Housing Solutions: For those middle incomes, states sometimes create specific workforce housing programs. For instance, offering low-interest mortgages or downpayment assistance to teachers, first responders, etc., to help them buy homes in the communities they serve. Or supporting public-private partnerships where employers (like a hospital) contribute to building affordable homes for their workers (some hospitals have done this to ensure nurses and staff have housing). Connecticut could pilot programs where major employers and the state team up to fund workforce housing developments. This could be especially useful in areas like Fairfield County or university towns.

• Modest Rent Regulation: Connecticut currently does not have statewide rent control (a controversial topic). While strict rent control can have downsides, some form of rent stabilization for certain areas or buildings could be considered, to protect tenants from egregious rent hikes year to year. Even a cap like “no more than X% increase per year unless justified” could smooth out the worst spikes. This would need careful crafting to avoid deterring investment, perhaps limited to older buildings or areas with the highest increases.

In short, a suite of policies aimed at making sure those who need help get it will bolster the safety net. Affordable housing, whether it’s through vouchers, public housing, or inclusionary units, is essential for people who simply cannot survive in the private market’s price structure – which includes many working poor, disabled individuals, and seniors on fixed incomes.

4. Embrace Innovative and Modular Construction

Traditional construction methods are often slow and expensive. To address a large housing shortage quickly, Connecticut will benefit from innovation in construction and design. The prompt specifically mentions modular and panelized homes, and ADUs, as part of the solution set. Let’s explore these:

• Modular Homes: Modular construction means building sections of homes in a factory and then assembling them on-site. This can cut costs and construction time because work can happen in parallel (site work and module fabrication) and factories can achieve efficiencies. Modular homes today can be high quality and indistinguishable from site-built. Companies in New England already produce modular units; Connecticut could partner with them or facilitate modular projects. For example, a developer could order modular apartments, have them delivered and stacked on a prepared foundation, finishing a project in months instead of over a year. This speed means less financing cost and faster occupancy. As an added benefit, factory construction is less affected by weather delays, which in New England can be significant.

• Panelized Construction: Similar to modular, panelized construction involves factory-building flat panels (like walls with windows installed) and then putting them together on site. It’s like building with giant Legos – wall sections, floor slabs, etc. This also saves time and reduces waste. Both panelized and modular methods reduce labor needed on site, which is helpful when skilled construction labor is in short supply.

• 3D Printing and New Materials: This is cutting-edge, but some companies are now 3D-printing homes using concrete or other materials. It’s still experimental but has shown promise in building basic housing units very cheaply and quickly. Connecticut could host pilot projects for 3D-printed homes, especially for small affordable units or ADUs, to demonstrate feasibility. Other innovative materials include cross-laminated timber (for sustainable wood construction) which could allow mid-rise buildings that are greener and potentially cheaper.

• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Encouraging ADUs is partly policy (zoning) and partly helping homeowners actually build them. Many homeowners might like an ADU for rental income or family but are daunted by the process or cost. The state or municipalities could offer “pre-approved” ADU designs that meet code and are relatively low-cost. They could even partner with builders or provide financing (loans or grants) especially if the ADU will be rented at an affordable rate. If, say, 10% of single-family homeowners in CT added an ADU, that alone could create tens of thousands of new homes. ADUs can be modular or kit-built as well – one can order a prefab cottage and have it installed in the backyard with minimal fuss.

• Streamlined Building Codes for Innovation: Sometimes building codes don’t outright forbid new methods but aren’t written with them in mind, causing delays in approvals. The state can update codes to explicitly allow and provide guidelines for modular, panelized, tiny homes, etc., so that local building officials are comfortable signing off. Education for builders and code officials on these new methods will help avoid unnecessary barriers.

• Training and Workforce Development: Embracing new construction means training workers to use these methods. Connecticut’s technical schools and community colleges can incorporate modular construction techniques and other innovations into their curricula. This ensures we have the workforce to actually deliver on these methods, creating jobs in the process.

• Cost Reduction Through Scale: If the state signals a big demand for modular/prefab units (say, for affordable housing developments or ADU programs), manufacturers might scale up and reduce costs per unit. Bulk purchasing of materials by a state housing agency for non-profit developers could also save money (e.g., buying 100 prefab units at once for use in various towns).

Innovative construction can help build faster, cheaper, and potentially greener (factories can reduce waste and even incorporate solar or efficient tech easily). It’s not a silver bullet – not every project can be modular (custom high-rises likely not), but for many types of housing (single-family, townhouses, low-rise apartments), it can make a big difference. Quicker construction also means we can respond to the housing shortage more rapidly, helping people in need sooner.

5. Invest in Rehabilitation and Preservation of Older Homes

Building new housing is crucial, but we also must not forget the homes we already have. Preserving and fixing the aging housing stock addresses quality issues and can add to supply (by keeping units usable or even splitting larger old homes into additional units carefully). Key actions:

• Home Repair Programs: Increase funding for grants or low-interest loans to low-income homeowners and small landlords to fix code issues, replace old roofs, get rid of lead paint, etc. Connecticut has programs like Rehab Loans and lead abatement funds, but demand often exceeds supply. Expanding these would prevent houses from falling into disrepair or foreclosure. It also keeps people in place (preventing displacement due to condemnations or unsafe conditions).

• Weatherization and Efficiency Upgrades: Use programs (like federal Weatherization Assistance Program or utility-run efficiency programs) to insulate attics, upgrade heating systems, and install better windows in older homes. This lowers utility bills for residents (making the home more affordable in practice) and preserves the structure. Connecticut’s energy efficiency programs are among the better ones in the country, but more outreach to low-income households could ensure every eligible home is weatherized.

• Adaptive Reuse: Convert old buildings into housing. Many Connecticut towns have historic buildings (old mills, factories, schools) not in use. These can often be turned into unique loft apartments or condos, often with public funding help due to high up-front costs. This both preserves a piece of history and adds housing. There have been successful mill conversions in Connecticut (e.g., in Vernon and Torrington, old mills became mixed-income apartments). Encouraging more of this, with state historic tax credits and financing, can bring dozens of units at a time.

• Preventing Loss of Naturally Affordable Units: We touched on this, but it’s worth stressing. Some older buildings with relatively low rents get bought by investors who then renovate and upscale them (causing rent hikes and displacement). Providing an alternative path – such as giving non-profit housing organizations or tenant cooperatives a chance to purchase those buildings – can keep them affordable. The state could establish a fund to help trusted entities buy and hold such housing for community benefit.

• Code Enforcement with Assistance: Cities should enforce health and safety codes to ensure landlords maintain properties. But when landlords genuinely lack resources to make fixes, there could be a program that pairs enforcement with access to repair funds – stick and carrot. This way, tenants get better conditions, and landlords get help to provide them in exchange for keeping rents stable.

By rehabilitating what we have, Connecticut can improve living conditions quickly and cost-effectively. It’s often cheaper to repair an existing unit than to build a new one, in terms of public subsidy needed. Plus, it prevents the affordable housing stock from shrinking further due to neglect. People get to stay in their communities but in safer, healthier homes.

6. Learn from Other States and Cities

Connecticut is not alone in facing a housing crunch. There are valuable lessons from other states that can guide Connecticut’s actions:

• New Jersey’s Mount Laurel Doctrine (Fair Share): New Jersey’s system (originating from courts) essentially told municipalities they have an obligation to provide their “fair share” of the region’s affordable housing. This led to the creation of tens of thousands of units across NJ over decades, through mechanisms similar to 8-30g and proactive requirements. It wasn’t easy – there were many legal battles – but it did move the needle. New Jersey also set up a state council (Council on Affordable Housing) to oversee this at one point. Connecticut is studying this model and has advocacy groups pushing for it. The key takeaway is that a state mandate with numbers and enforcement can break through local resistance and yield real housing, albeit with continuous vigilance.

• Massachusetts 40B: Massachusetts’ law is akin to CT’s 8-30g, but it’s older (since 1969) and has produced over 70,000 units of housing, about 40,000 of them affordable. It shows that over time, a law like this can add a significant amount of housing, even if each individual development is fought over. MA also recently passed a law requiring multi-family zoning in communities served by the MBTA (transit), pushing suburban Boston towns to zone for apartments. That’s another model: tie state transit or infrastructure funding to zoning compliance.

• Minnesota and Oregon Zoning Reforms: Minneapolis became the first major city to eliminate single-family-only zoning in 2018, allowing up to triplexes on any lot. Early results show an uptick in small-scale multi-unit construction. Oregon followed with a state law in 2019 that did similar for cities above a certain size. These changes are quite new, but they signal a trend toward allowing more diverse housing types. California has also passed laws allowing duplexes on any lot statewide and encouraging lot splits (the “SB 9” law). Connecticut can watch how these changes play out – initial reports from California show thousands of applications for ADUs and some for duplexes, adding to supply in a gentle way.

• Rent Control/Protection Examples: New York City and California cities have rent stabilization, though their markets are still very pricey (perhaps due to demand and other constraints). But a moderate approach like in New Jersey (which limits rent increases in some towns, often around inflation rate) can be studied. Also, a number of cities/states have adopted right-to-counsel for evictions (NYC, San Francisco, Cleveland) and have seen improved outcomes (eviction rates dropped, more settlements that keep tenants housed). Early data from those can support Connecticut’s consideration of similar policies.

• Success in Reducing Homelessness: Some places, like Utah famously in the early 2010s, made huge strides by using Housing First – giving homes to the homeless without preconditions. They cut chronic homelessness drastically (though some of that progress reversed due to economic changes). The lesson is, with focus and funding, homelessness can be reduced significantly – it is not an unsolvable problem. Connecticut already applied this to veterans. Places like Houston, TX also reduced homelessness in the last decade by coordinating efforts and building lots of permanent supportive housing. So Connecticut can replicate those best practices: strong coordination (through entities like the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness), data-driven outreach (knowing each person by name who’s on the streets and working to house them), and committing housing resources to this population.

• Modular Construction Use: Modular building is used widely in places like Scandinavia and Japan for housing. In the U.S., some cities faced with housing crises (like San Francisco for homeless housing, or New York for emergency supportive housing) have started turning to modular to save time. Also, after disasters (like post-hurricane rebuilding), modular is used to quickly replace homes. Observing these implementations can inform Connecticut’s push on modular – understanding pitfalls and best techniques.

By learning from these examples, Connecticut can adopt proven strategies and avoid pitfalls. Each place has its unique context, but the underlying principles (build more, include everyone, protect the vulnerable, innovate) are universal.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

Connecticut’s housing crisis is a complex challenge, but it is not insurmountable. The historical and current analysis we’ve presented shows that while the situation is serious – with tens of thousands of units needed, thousands of people homeless, and many more struggling – there are clear steps to take that can make a difference. This is a critical moment for Connecticut to act boldly on housing. Success will require collaboration between all stakeholders: government at all levels, private sector developers, non-profit organizations, communities, and residents themselves. Everyone has a role to play in ensuring that the state’s housing future is one of abundance and inclusion rather than scarcity and exclusion.

Here is a call to action for various groups, highlighting what each can do:

• Residents: Your voice matters in this issue. You can support positive change by learning about the housing needs in your town and welcoming new neighbors. When a new housing development (be it affordable apartments or a mixed-income project) is proposed, avoid the reflex to oppose – consider the benefits it brings, like housing for seniors, young professionals, or working families. Participate in public meetings and speak up in favor of more housing and fair zoning. If you’re a homeowner with space, consider building an ADU or renting a room to help with the housing shortage. Treat renters in your community as equal neighbors – reducing stigma is important. Understand that helping others find housing security strengthens the whole community: it reduces homelessness on our streets, improves economic vitality, and allows your children and grandchildren a chance to afford to stay in Connecticut. Voting is also key – elect local and state leaders who prioritize housing solutions. Simple acts, like supporting local housing nonprofits (through donations or volunteering), can also make a difference. In short, residents can shift the culture from NIMBY to “Yes In My Back Yard” (YIMBY), sending a message that Connecticut towns are ready to be part of the solution.

• Lawmakers and Public Officials: This crisis calls for courageous leadership and policy action. As a lawmaker, you can champion legislation to implement the solutions discussed: push for fair share housing laws with teeth, allocate more funding in the budget for housing and homelessness programs, and refine zoning and land use statutes to encourage development. Be willing to modernize old laws (like strengthening 8-30g or introducing new incentives for compliance) even if there’s some local pushback – the broader good for the state is at stake. At the state level, prioritize housing production goals and perhaps set up a central housing coordination office that works across agencies (transportation, environment, economic development) because housing intersects with all of these. At the municipal level, officials should update local plans of conservation and development to include aggressive housing goals and use new tools the state provides. Also, enforce fair housing laws to ensure housing opportunities are open to all, and consider property tax policies that encourage building on vacant lots. Engage with communities to explain the need – sometimes opposition comes from fear or misunderstanding, and informed leadership can help guide constituents to see the benefits. In essence, make housing a core part of the policy agenda – much like transportation or education – recognizing that without housing, everything else suffers.

• Developers and Builders: The private sector has a significant role in creating housing. We urge developers to be partners in solving the crisis, not just by building luxury units but by also contributing to affordability. Take advantage of incentive programs to include affordable units in your projects – these can actually broaden your market reach. Explore innovative construction methods (like modular) to reduce costs and pass those savings on in rents/prices. Work collaboratively with communities: early engagement with neighborhoods and addressing concerns (traffic, design, etc.) can reduce opposition and speed up approvals. Consider pursuing projects in towns that haven’t seen much development – there may be untapped demand there and potential partnership with officials now open to housing due to the crisis’ visibility. For smaller builders, building duplexes, triples, or ADUs can be a profitable niche if more widely allowed – diversify what you build, and you might find new market opportunities. Also, support workforce development in the construction trades – a larger, skilled workforce can help deliver housing faster. Lastly, recognize that quality and affordability can go hand in hand: building sustainable, energy-efficient homes might cost slightly more upfront but will be an asset to marketing and long-term value. The development community should see itself as building the future of Connecticut – one where housing is not a luxury but a foundation for thriving communities.

• Funders, Lenders, and Investors: Financing is often the linchpin of housing projects. Banks and financial institutions in Connecticut can help by being flexible and forward-thinking in funding housing. Embrace programs like low-income housing tax credits and work with developers using them, even if it means more complexity – these projects fill crucial needs. Community banks can allocate a portion of their portfolio to affordable housing loans or invest in community loan funds that finance housing for underserved markets. Philanthropic foundations in Connecticut can step up by granting funds to housing initiatives – whether it’s supporting a nonprofit developer’s pre-development costs, funding a pilot modular project, or backing research and advocacy for housing reform. Social impact investors might consider investing in housing bonds or funds that yield modest returns but large social impact by creating affordable units. Employers (large companies, universities, hospitals) fall in this category too as funders – consider investing in housing near your employment centers, perhaps through employer-assisted housing programs or joint ventures with developers, as housing for your workers will benefit your organization in the long run. In summary, direct more capital towards housing solutions – treat it as an investment in Connecticut’s human capital and economic stability. Often, affordable housing projects struggle to “pencil out” financially; innovative financing (like below-market loans, guarantees, or blended funding stacks) can make the difference. As funders, you also have a voice – you can advocate for policies that make projects less risky and more bankable.

A Shared Responsibility

Everyone – from the individual citizen to the governor – has a stake in fixing the housing crisis. The benefits of success will be far-reaching: more young people will stay in Connecticut, seniors will be able to downsize in place, families will experience less stress and better health outcomes, businesses will find it easier to hire, and communities will become more diverse and vibrant. Imagine a Connecticut where homelessness is rare and quickly addressed, where no child has to shuffle between motels and shelters, where teachers and nurses can afford homes in the towns they serve, and where blighted properties are replaced with new homes for families. That is a future we can achieve with sustained effort.

This white paper has laid out the data and the strategies. Now it is time to act. We call on all readers – whether you’re a concerned resident, a town official, a state legislator, a builder, or a banker – to take these recommendations to heart and find a way you can contribute. The housing crisis in Connecticut wasn’t created overnight, and it won’t be solved overnight, but with each concrete step and each collaboration, we will make progress. The urgency is real: the longer we wait, the more our neighbors suffer and the more our economy misses opportunities. Connecticut has historically been a leader in many areas – we can also lead in showing how a state can tackle housing affordability head-on.

Let’s ensure that in the coming years, we transform the housing landscape so that every person in Connecticut has a place to call home. This is both a moral imperative and a practical necessity for our state’s future. Together, through smart policies, community support, investment, and innovation, we can solve this crisis. Connecticut’s best days can be ahead – with thriving communities that include everyone.

Sources:

• Connecticut’s extremely low housing vacancy (~7%) and an estimated shortfall of 110,000+ units to meet current demand​ ctmirror.org​ctmirror.org.

• Statewide study findings: focusing on lowest-income needs shows a 136,000-unit deficit; broad underproduction scenario shows need for up to 359,000 units​ ctmirror.org​ctmirror.org. Connecticut has only been permitting ~5,000–6,000 units per year in recent years ​ctmirror.org, far below what’s needed to close the gap.

• Homelessness on the rise: Over 5,000 people homeless in CT (January 2024 count), a 13% increase from 2023. Alarmingly, 44% of those were children or seniors ​housedems.ct.gov. Lawmakers and advocates are seeking $33.5 million to invest in homelessness prevention, services, and housing ​housedems.ct.gov.

• Connecticut is ranked as the worst state for renters in a 2024 study, due to the combination of high unemployment, high rent burden, and low availability. About 55% of CT renters spend roughly 35% of income on rent (many exceed that), and the state’s rental vacancy was only ~3.5% – extremely tight ​ctmirror.org​ctmirror.org. Less than 15% of renter households’ units were built in the last 25 years, highlighting an aging stock ​ctmirror.org.

• Connecticut’s rent prices are among the highest in the nation (8th highest). Fair Market Rent for a 2-bedroom is about $1,695. Rents jumped ~25–33% from 2021 to 2024 for various apartment sizes ​ctmirror.org ​ctmirror.org, greatly outpacing income growth. A household needs an income around $71,837 to afford a typical 2-bedroom at fair market rent ​nlihc.org.

• Connecticut has the most constrained housing market of any state, with a housing unit-to-household ratio of only 1.07 (meaning very little slack in the market)​ ctmirror.org. The national average vacancy is notably higher at 11%​ ctmirror.org. This tight market drives up competition and prices – a point emphasized by researchers and acknowledged by lawmakers as evidence of a crisis​ ctpublic.org​ctpublic.org.

• New housing production in CT is historically low: only 959 new housing permits were issued in Q1 2024, compared to quarterly peaks of over 3,000 in 2004​ yaledailynews.com. Over the 2010s, housing growth lagged far behind stated needs (e.g., New Haven needed 8,500 units by 2030 but built less than 5,000 from 2010–2019)​ yaledailynews.com.

• Zoning reform debates: A 2023 law mandated a study of a “fair share” zoning model ctmirror.org. The draft study confirmed the huge need and is guiding proposals to require municipalities to zone for a certain number of units​ ctmirror.org​ctmirror.org. States like New Jersey and Washington that implemented similar models saw increases in housing production or improvements in housing availability rank​ ctmirror.org.

• Quality and aging issues: Tenant advocates note that many renters are in slumlike conditions due to aging housing and low vacancy giving them no alternatives. Connecticut’s aging stock plus 3.5% rental vacancy is described as a “perfect storm” leading to tenants paying high rents for poor conditions​ ctmirror.org. This underscores the need for housing rehab and enforcement.

• Illustrative data point on human impact: In New Haven, 30,000 residents are on housing waitlists with waits over a year​ yaledailynews.com – meaning a huge segment of the population cannot access affordable housing when needed. This, along with rising home prices (CT home prices +9.6% in one year vs +6.6% U.S.​ yaledailynews.com), shows how many people are at risk of displacement.

These sources (from news organizations like CT Mirror, Connecticut Public Radio, Yale Daily News, official communications, and research bodies) collectively paint the picture of Connecticut’s housing crisis and back up the points made in this report. By acting on the solutions recommended, Connecticut can change these statistics for the better in the years to come.