Op-Ed: The Mirage of Affordable Housing

Editor’s Notes: i) This op-ed was submitted by Eric Knapp, who is employed as the Town of Old Lyme’s Land Use Coordinator. He is writing here as a private citizen.
ii) This is the opinion of Eric Knapp.

The Connecticut General Assembly has determined that creating more affordable housing in the State is a priority. It is hard to argue that we have sufficient housing in a price range that a family of moderate means can afford. As a goal, housing that residents can afford is worthy. 

It is also apparent that Connecticut’s attempts to promote that goal have not been a success. The original legislation to promote “affordable housing” was adopted in 1988. In the intervening 36 years, a variety of carrots and sticks have been put forward, but the problem has not gone away. I am not even sure we can say it has gotten measurably better.

And yet the Legislature is looking at even more heavy-handed solutions to address the problem. To quote a popular gif, “the beatings will continue until the morale improves.”

It is worth exploring why these methods have failed in this part of the State. Whatever your political leanings, we all have an interest in not perpetually continuing failed methods.

For starters, much of the “easy” land to develop has already been divided up. This part of Connecticut has been carved up since colonial times, and there are few remaining farms or other large tracts to work with. While shifting “affordable” housing to marginal land has been a historical pattern, it is not a very successful, or equitable solution. Additionally, as we have discovered, filling wetlands does not solve the underlying hydrological reason the land was wet to begin with. Many lands that were filled back in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s are returning to their original state. Climate change is accelerating that process.

Lack of sewers is an inherently limiting factor. If sewage for each parcel must be treated on the parcel itself, then larger uses require larger areas for septic treatment. Creating any type of increased density requires good (original) soils, and area used for septic systems displaces other possible uses.

For all of the talk and legislative push for “transit-oriented development”, this part of the State is notably poor in transit options. Yes, Clinton, Westbrook and Old Saybrook have train stations, constructed at great expense, but no one really uses these to get around locally. Old Lyme, East Lyme and Waterford lack even the station, although we have the tracks. Going up the Connecticut River Valley, there is no rail at all. Yes, there is River Valley Transit (formerly Nine Town Transit), but service is sparse and still requires either living near the pick-up locations or using the “XtraMile” ridesharing app on your phone. In short, having a car is more or less obligatory in this part of the State, and that becomes expensive. 

The State can keep upping the ante. It can assign a “mandated” number of units. It can even prohibit single family zoning. Honestly, I do not believe even abolishing zoning entirely would have much of an impact on housing affordability for this part of the State. It is fun to complain about the hurdles zoning regulations place on development, but, while there are affordable housing projects that are violently opposed, it is usually not at the zoning commission where they are blocked effectively.

If the State of Connecticut is serious about rebalancing the housing market, here is what works: infrastructure and public services. If there was both public water and municipal septic disposal, there could be additional density. The State has largely dumped “Complete Streets” into the towns’ laps, but if it wants this done, it will have to do it itself. A more vibrant bus network will take state money and coordination. Upgrading drainage infrastructure will prevent flooding. None of this comes cheap. And historically, this part of the State has been underserviced compared to Hartford, New Haven and Fairfield Counties. By way of example, Route 11 sits unfinished. 

The Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments (SCCOG) produced a study in 2019, entitled the “Regional Wastewater Management Plan”. Five years ago, it noted that, “the sewer system in East Lyme has essentially exhausted its capacity allocation negotiated with New London and Waterford.” It also notes that, “sewers in portions of Groton, Jewett City, New London, and Norwich predate the federal Clean Water Act in 1972”. But the official policy of most towns is still “sewer avoidance,” which is an effective way to discourage further density.

The truth is that the towns of this area probably have about the population density that they want. And that is fine. But if you want to address the affordability crisis, you will need more housing units. More units require greater density. Greater density requires upgraded infrastructure. Short of that, it is like the old joke about the weather, “everyone talks about it, but no one does anything.”