Credit: Photo by Michael Tuszynski on Pexels

Overview:

This article examines Connecticut’s newly signed Public Act 25-1 and its intended role in addressing the state’s housing shortage. It explores how the law shifts zoning authority, impacts construction costs, and affects taxpayers, renters, and local governments. Supporters argue it will spur development, while critics warn it could drive up costs and weaken local control.

Public Act 25-1 won’t solve Connecticut’s housing crisis — it will deepen it.

As a Connecticut landlord and realtor who’s been in the trenches for years, I’ve watched rents climb, good tenants get priced out, and small towns get steamrolled by Hartford policymakers. The crisis of affordable housing in Connecticut faces today is real, urgent, and increasingly destructive for working families.

When I first heard Governor Lamont signed Public Act 25-1 (the rebranded HB 8002) in November 2025, I thought, finally, someone in the statehouse gets it. We need more housing. We need solutions that actually expand affordable housing in Connecticut residents can rely on. But then I actually read the 100+ pages of this monster, talked to a few shell-shocked planners in small towns, and looked at what similar “incentives” have done in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

This bill won’t fix the affordability crisis. It will make it worse — a lot worse. And it will do it while pretending to strengthen affordable housing in Connecticut, which is the most infuriating part.

Here’s the ugly truth, broken down piece by piece, with zero sugarcoating.

1. The “Incentive” System That’s Really Just Extortion with Extra Steps

The bill says towns get “bonus” money if they write a state-approved Housing Growth Plan, designate Transit-Oriented Districts, allow higher density as-of-right, and hit deed-restricted affordable unit targets. Sounds voluntary, right? Wrong.

The state holds a gun to every small town’s head with the things they actually need: school construction reimbursements and sewer/water infrastructure grants. Don’t play ball? You lose eligibility for low-interest sewer loans and the extra 5% boost on school building reimbursements (§46, §47).

Small towns already scrape by on crumbs from Hartford. When the elementary school roof leaks or the septic systems in the village center fail, “opting out” isn’t an option. It’s comply — or watch your tax base collapse because you can’t fix basic infrastructure. This isn’t an incentive. It’s hostage-taking disguised as a solution for affordable housing in Connecticut.

California’s RHNA system works exactly the same way: “voluntary” until the state withholds transportation dollars. Then suddenly every suburb builds four-story apartments next to single-family homes. Property taxes skyrocket. Services get strained. Market-rate housing still costs a fortune. The same outcome is now likely for affordable housing in Connecticut.

2. Forced Inclusionary Zoning Always Raises Market Prices — Always

Let me explain this one like you’re five, because it sounds good on paper and people get fooled every time. Inclusionary zoning means: when a developer wants to build an apartment building or condo complex, the government forces them to set aside a big chunk of the units — typically 30% (reducible to 10% or even 5% in some areas) — and rent or sell them at below-market rates for at least 40 years.

On the surface: “Yay, affordable units!” In reality: developers must make the project financially viable. They don’t eat the loss. They raise the prices (or rents) on the remaining 70–95% of the units to cover it.

A 2019 Furman Center study of inclusionary zoning in areas like San Francisco and suburban Boston found it produced almost zero net new affordable units, cut overall housing production by 10–20%, and drove up market prices higher. Connecticut is copying the exact same failed playbook for affordable housing in Connecticut.

The people who get hurt worst? The nurse, the teacher, the cop, the young couple — anyone making 90–120% of AMI who doesn’t qualify for the restricted units but now pays hundreds more per month so the developer can hit the quota.

As Thomas Sowell put it: when you force part of the market to be unprofitable, you get less of everything — including affordable housing in Connecticut working families actually need.

3. Union Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) Are Baked In — And You Foot the Bill

Here’s the simple version of what a Project Labor Agreement actually is: Normally, any qualified builder can bid — union or non-union — and competition keeps prices down. A PLA requires every contractor to follow union rules regardless of affiliation.

That means:

  • Union hiring halls or union dues
  • Union work rules
  • Mandatory union pension contributions
  • Small non-union contractors effectively locked out

Result? Way fewer bidders → way less competition → prices go up 13–30%+, according to multiple studies.

Section 34 of the bill forces any “affordable” housing project using state money to sign one of these PLAs.

In Connecticut, where union labor already dominates public projects, this just hands the work to the biggest, most politically connected union contractors. The extra 15–30% comes straight out of the budgets meant to support affordable housing in Connecticut — or from your rent and taxes.

New Jersey learned this the hard way: costs exploded, projects stalled for years, and taxpayers got crushed.

4. Fair Rent Commissions: Rent Control by Another Name

The bill forces every town with 15,000+ residents to set up a fair rent commission by 2028. That’s over 40 new boards empowered to declare rents “excessive.” This is being marketed as protection for affordable housing in Connecticut, but history shows the opposite.

Here’s what rent control always does:

Landlords Stop Maintaining Buildings — or Leave Units Vacant
When rents are capped below operating costs, maintenance collapses. In New York City alone, over 50,000 rent-stabilized units sit empty for this exact reason.

New Rental Housing Disappears
No one builds under profit caps. Stockholm developed a 20+ year waitlist. Connecticut already ranks third-lowest in the nation for new housing built since 2000 — disastrous for affordable housing in Connecticut.

Incumbents Hoard, Newcomers Lose
San Francisco tenants in rent-controlled units were 20 percentage points more likely to stay put, locking out newcomers.

Condo Conversions and Demolitions Explode
Cambridge lost thousands of rentals before rent control ended.

Black Markets Replace Fair Housing
Berlin’s attempted rent cap triggered bribery, side payments, and discrimination before being struck down by courts.

Rebecca Diamond’s Stanford study showed rent control raised citywide rents 5–7% while benefiting wealthy insiders. Even Paul Krugman called rent control a universally discredited policy. Assar Lindbeck went further: it destroys cities faster than warfare. None of this helps affordable housing in Connecticut.

5. The Slow Death of Local Control

Small towns aren’t anti-growth — they just don’t want to be bankrupted by projects they didn’t plan for in the name of affordable housing in Connecticut.

This bill overrides local zoning through:

  • As-of-right multifamily mandates
  • Mandatory accessory apartments in TODs
  • State oversight of local grant eligibility

It’s death by a thousand cuts for home rule. The result is traffic, school overcrowding, and soaring local taxes — without the commercial tax base to support them. That is not a sustainable path to affordable housing in Connecticut.

The Progressive Case Against This Bill (Yes, Really)

If you’re a progressive who actually cares about working-class people and the future of affordable housing in Connecticut, you should hate this bill even more than I do.

It hands market power to:

  • Corporate developers
  • Union political machines
  • Large institutional investors

It crushes:

  • Small builders
  • Minority-owned contractors
  • Black and Hispanic mom-and-pop landlords

Urban Institute research shows small minority landlords were hit hardest during the pandemic — and corporate landlords now file nearly 200% more evictions. That directly undermines affordable housing in Connecticut at the community level.

The bill:

  • Raises construction costs
  • Expands rent control
  • Encourages consolidation
  • Shrinks minority wealth-building
  • Fails to fix supply

Real progressive solutions to the affordable housing in Connecticut crisis would include:

  • Ending single-family-only zoning statewide
  • Cutting prevailing wage and PLA mandates
  • Eliminating parking minimums
  • Forcing wealthy towns to share sewer capacity

But those reforms would upset politically connected interests. So they were never seriously considered.

Bottom Line

This bill will produce a handful of headline-grabbing “affordable” units at enormous cost, drive up market rents, explode property taxes in small towns, enrich politically connected contractors, and leave affordable housing in Connecticut in the exact same crisis five years from now — only with less local democracy.

We’ve seen this movie before.
It ends with longer waitlists, higher homelessness, and more young people leaving the state.

I hope I’m wrong, Hartford. I really do.

Sources

And if this bill has you seriously considering selling the house, packing the U-Haul, and fleeing to a state that still believes in property rights and basic economics… well, call me. I’ll make sure your Connecticut sale goes smoothly (and I won’t judge you one bit for leaving).https://bellaagents.com/gabrielle-peters/
Instagram: @wildwayfaringwonder (No, I’m not even kidding.)

Gabrielle Peters

More from Presence News:

Where to Stay in London on a Budget?
Trump’s 50-Year Mortgage Gamble: Boom for Buyers or Bust for the Economy?
Your First Apartment: A Renter’s Guide to Smart Choices

Post Views: 526