There's some truth to that statement, but of course they are also opposed to making it easier to build new single family homes on small lots.
November 4, 2025 at 10:57 AM
There's some truth to that statement, but of course they are also opposed to making it easier to build new single family homes on small lots.
I didn’t realize there was such a big difference between red-state free-market institutes and blue-state ones. Who knew!
October 18, 2025 at 2:49 PM
I didn’t realize there was such a big difference between red-state free-market institutes and blue-state ones. Who knew!
10 new cottages going up on a 1/2 acre lot in Portland.
October 12, 2025 at 6:38 PM
10 new cottages going up on a 1/2 acre lot in Portland.
I could support some type of housing production goal that uses a reasonable needs and allocation method in exchange or an 8-30g safe harbor. Notably the state of Maine declined to require any "Affordable Housing" in its production targets. Just build more housing and the state can fund affordability
September 27, 2025 at 12:38 PM
I could support some type of housing production goal that uses a reasonable needs and allocation method in exchange or an 8-30g safe harbor. Notably the state of Maine declined to require any "Affordable Housing" in its production targets. Just build more housing and the state can fund affordability
That's a fair point. I fully support parking reform. In the Senate debate Ryan said he was open to some type of parking reform. Perhaps something similar to the compromise bill that passed in WA could be part of a "grand bargain".
September 27, 2025 at 12:26 PM
That's a fair point. I fully support parking reform. In the Senate debate Ryan said he was open to some type of parking reform. Perhaps something similar to the compromise bill that passed in WA could be part of a "grand bargain".
I’m not so sure about that. I believe he would be open to a compromise. Unfortunately, it is the housing advocates that are dead set on imposing NJ style Fair Share. Which would be a bad idea for a variety of reasons.
citizenportal.ai/articles/309...
citizenportal.ai/articles/309...
September 26, 2025 at 10:29 PM
I’m not so sure about that. I believe he would be open to a compromise. Unfortunately, it is the housing advocates that are dead set on imposing NJ style Fair Share. Which would be a bad idea for a variety of reasons.
citizenportal.ai/articles/309...
citizenportal.ai/articles/309...
Interesting mention of the regional housing production goals adopted by Maine in the op-ed. I think it represents a much better and more realistic approach. Let the free-market build as much lower-cost market-rate housing as demanded and have the state provide funding to make some of it affordable.
September 26, 2025 at 9:06 PM
Interesting mention of the regional housing production goals adopted by Maine in the op-ed. I think it represents a much better and more realistic approach. Let the free-market build as much lower-cost market-rate housing as demanded and have the state provide funding to make some of it affordable.
This is the way. Keep it simple, just build more housing, even if it's all lower-cost market-rate.
September 26, 2025 at 9:01 PM
This is the way. Keep it simple, just build more housing, even if it's all lower-cost market-rate.
I really dislike whole moratorium concept. It adds a lot of unpredictability to the development process and can be gamed (see New Canaan).
September 18, 2025 at 9:29 PM
I really dislike whole moratorium concept. It adds a lot of unpredictability to the development process and can be gamed (see New Canaan).
The proposed "missing middle" changes are entirely reasonable. It would be unfortunate if they drop them because of NIMBYs.
August 31, 2025 at 12:35 PM
The proposed "missing middle" changes are entirely reasonable. It would be unfortunate if they drop them because of NIMBYs.
There is so much wrong with this statement. Single family only zoning is social engineering, it violates private property rights, and it is not a contract.
ctexaminer.com/2025/07/22/s...
ctexaminer.com/2025/07/22/s...
August 31, 2025 at 12:06 PM
There is so much wrong with this statement. Single family only zoning is social engineering, it violates private property rights, and it is not a contract.
ctexaminer.com/2025/07/22/s...
ctexaminer.com/2025/07/22/s...
That's unfortunate, because the proposed changes are entirely reasonable.
August 31, 2025 at 11:39 AM
That's unfortunate, because the proposed changes are entirely reasonable.
August 27, 2025 at 1:48 PM
Sec 7 specifically talks about including 30%AMI households. You shouldn’t be surprised that people are confused about this bill.
August 12, 2025 at 2:16 PM
Sec 7 specifically talks about including 30%AMI households. You shouldn’t be surprised that people are confused about this bill.
Sec 7 specifically talks about including 30%AMI households. You shouldn’t be surprised that people are confused about this bill.
August 12, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Sec 7 specifically talks about including 30%AMI households. You shouldn’t be surprised that people are confused about this bill.
What line number are you referring to? The consultant report was clearly incorporated into the bill.
August 11, 2025 at 6:12 PM
What line number are you referring to? The consultant report was clearly incorporated into the bill.
That number is coming directly from the consultants report which is specifically referred to in HB5002. What is the correct allocation and where is it written down? It’s not obvious to anyone reading the law.
August 11, 2025 at 5:09 PM
That number is coming directly from the consultants report which is specifically referred to in HB5002. What is the correct allocation and where is it written down? It’s not obvious to anyone reading the law.
Parking reform isn’t the issue. I have no doubt an agreement can be reached as part of a 8-30g & Fair Share compromise.
Again, CT is an outlier on wanting both a Fair Share allocation and no safe harbor for the builders remedy. No other state does that.
Again, CT is an outlier on wanting both a Fair Share allocation and no safe harbor for the builders remedy. No other state does that.
August 11, 2025 at 3:55 PM
Parking reform isn’t the issue. I have no doubt an agreement can be reached as part of a 8-30g & Fair Share compromise.
Again, CT is an outlier on wanting both a Fair Share allocation and no safe harbor for the builders remedy. No other state does that.
Again, CT is an outlier on wanting both a Fair Share allocation and no safe harbor for the builders remedy. No other state does that.
To be fair, Ryan appears to be the only politician in Hartford actively seeking a reasonable "grand bargain" on housing. Face it, the Fair Share portion of HB5002 is special interest legislation for the big non-profit & LIHTC developers. Small scale infill for-sale developers are left in the cold.
August 9, 2025 at 2:50 PM
To be fair, Ryan appears to be the only politician in Hartford actively seeking a reasonable "grand bargain" on housing. Face it, the Fair Share portion of HB5002 is special interest legislation for the big non-profit & LIHTC developers. Small scale infill for-sale developers are left in the cold.
As far as I know, every single state that has a Fair Share / Regional Housing Allocation offers a safe harbor from the builder’s remedy following state approval of a housing plan. That includes both NJ & MA, along with CA, WA, & OR mentioned previously. It should be offered.
This makes no sense. ⬇️
This makes no sense. ⬇️
July 30, 2025 at 4:11 PM
As far as I know, every single state that has a Fair Share / Regional Housing Allocation offers a safe harbor from the builder’s remedy following state approval of a housing plan. That includes both NJ & MA, along with CA, WA, & OR mentioned previously. It should be offered.
This makes no sense. ⬇️
This makes no sense. ⬇️
This simple trick would super charge ADU construction in Connecticut. Property owners should be allowed to covert ADUs to condos. This would allow separate financing and even would allow a sale. I hear it's becoming very popular in WA.
www.rhawa.org/blog/unlocki...
www.rhawa.org/blog/unlocki...
July 27, 2025 at 7:10 PM
This simple trick would super charge ADU construction in Connecticut. Property owners should be allowed to covert ADUs to condos. This would allow separate financing and even would allow a sale. I hear it's becoming very popular in WA.
www.rhawa.org/blog/unlocki...
www.rhawa.org/blog/unlocki...
There is also the larger meta question of whether subsidizing buildings is even the best approach to providing a housing benefit. More and more evidence is pointing that it’s more effective just to focus on increasing supply and providing vouchers for those in need.
July 26, 2025 at 5:52 PM
There is also the larger meta question of whether subsidizing buildings is even the best approach to providing a housing benefit. More and more evidence is pointing that it’s more effective just to focus on increasing supply and providing vouchers for those in need.
I think it is really unfortunate that the state decided to go with the NJ Fair Share model of mostly large rental apartment buildings (at the behest of certain special interests), instead of incorporating commonsense missing middle reforms.
July 26, 2025 at 3:51 PM
I think it is really unfortunate that the state decided to go with the NJ Fair Share model of mostly large rental apartment buildings (at the behest of certain special interests), instead of incorporating commonsense missing middle reforms.
Building housing at the 30% median income level is wildly expensive. It's unclear how the proponents plan to fund their allocations.
Also, combining distinctly different concepts into one bill was too smart by half. All it did was generate confusion and intensify opposition.
Also, combining distinctly different concepts into one bill was too smart by half. All it did was generate confusion and intensify opposition.
July 26, 2025 at 1:59 PM
Building housing at the 30% median income level is wildly expensive. It's unclear how the proponents plan to fund their allocations.
Also, combining distinctly different concepts into one bill was too smart by half. All it did was generate confusion and intensify opposition.
Also, combining distinctly different concepts into one bill was too smart by half. All it did was generate confusion and intensify opposition.