The General Assembly won't take on CT zoning or enforce mandates

New apartments under construction in downtown Danbury recently.

Believers in the housing status quo in Connecticut can take heart. After threatening to take major action to spur construction of much-needed homes to satisfy demand across the state, the General Assembly is taking a pass.

The much-hyped housing omnibus bill finally unveiled just days before the close of this year's legislative session turned out to lack much of what had been hoped for. Instead of Fair Share language, based on a successful program in New Jersey that has seen the construction of thousands of homes of all types in a wide swath of communities, the Connecticut version is mostly about asking nicely for towns to do better.

The General Assembly won't take on zoning or enforce mandates, which is as good as doing nothing.

It's not nearly up to the task of dealing with what Connecticut needs. It will allow our frozen neighborhoods to remain virtually unchanged. It will not mandate that towns allow the construction of homes we so desperately need to spur our economy out of its decades-long doldrums.

It's always easier to stop change than to create it. Connecticut is not exactly known for taking big steps to solve what ails us, and our reputation is secure in that regard. We’re instead going to keep hoping that more of the same is going to get us what we need.

As such, it will be on those who fought so hard against meaningful housing reform to explain why, if towns can handle this situation on their own, they haven't already done so.

It will be on anti-housing activists to explain why recent college graduates can't find a home anywhere near their occupation, which puts Connecticut in a severe bind. Jobs are available, but asking people to live an hour away to afford their rent is untenable.

It will be the responsibility of those who fought reform to explain to businesses that if their employees want to live near their jobs, they should simply work harder to be able to afford the outrageous home prices in our most densely populated areas.

These would seem to be questions that would be of interest to our leadership, including the governor. But Ned Lamont, as is his wont, was simply nowhere to be found on this debate. He could have weighed in at any time on the urgent need to build more housing, and legislators might have listened. He declined to even try.

There are some aspects of the housing bill as written that might do some good. There are incentives, even as the places in most need of housing have proven that incentives have no bearing on their behavior. There are some protections for renters, which would be welcome. Some pilot programs could lead to the development of new options.

But the big issues of housing are unresolved. We know what is holding the state back, and it's local control of zoning that drastically limits the free market for development. If there were either fewer restrictions on what could be built or mandates from the state for towns to meet the population's needs, we could start to tackle what is our most severe crisis as a state.

Opponents will take this bill as a huge win. But we know who lost — the state of Connecticut.