Report: Connecticut has tightest housing market in the U.S. with 7% vacancy rate
Researchers from consulting firm ECOnorthwest presented an early draft of their findings about Connecticut's housing need to key lawmakers on the Housing and Planning and Development committees on Thursday. The presentation was done in response to a law passed in 2023 that mandated a statewide study on a fair share zoning policy.
Fair share is a method of encouraging more affordable housing by assessing the housing need regionally, then dividing that need up among municipalities. Under the approach, towns would be required to plan and zone for a set number of units.
The information's release marks the next step for lawmakers in gathering the information they need to detail and debate a plan to push towns to reform their zoning policies and allow more multi-family housing.
The policy has been proposed in Connecticut a few times, but hasn't passed. While advocates say it's a good way to increase housing and cut down on segregation, opponents argue that it would dilute local control and impose housing increases that towns aren't equipped to handle.
Last year, a Department of Housing official sent scathing emails criticizing the fair share policy to other state government workers, The Connecticut Mirror found.
Nonprofit and housing advocacy group Open Communities Alliance is pushing a bill this year that would require towns to outline how they would plan and zone for a set number of units in their affordable housing plans every five years. It's likely those numbers would be based on the fair share study results. The alliance has advocated for fair share policies in the past.
Democrats said Thursday that the report highlighted how many people need help and the urgency of that need.
'My default position is really thinking about the most vulnerable among us,' said House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford. 'But certainly this is a middle class issue as well.'
Rojas was a major proponent of the bill that passed in the 2023 session. The first phase of the study examined housing need in the state.
According to 2023 data, Connecticut has a ratio of 1.07 housing units per household, or about a 7% vacancy rate. This is compared to a national average vacancy rate of 11%, said Michael Wilkerson, director of economic research at ECOnorthwest.
'When we look at housing policy in its most simple terms, in economics, you're going to look at supply as the number of housing units, and demand or the number of households,' Wilkerson said.
During the pandemic, there was an uptick in household creation in Connecticut as people stopped living with roommates and moved to the state from New York and Boston. As the number of households grows, there is more need for housing, Wilkerson said.
More households does not necessarily mean population growth. Household growth can also occur when couples divorce, kids become adults and move out, or when people decide to live alone rather than with roommates.
Aspects of the study also aimed to account for housing that's aged to the point that it's no longer habitable, the elimination of second homes or vacation homes from the equation and ensuring there's housing for people experiencing homelessness or living with relatives, Wilkerson said.
The firm took three approaches to estimating Connecticut's housing need, all with focuses on different income levels. Lawmakers will debate which method is best for the state.
The 'baseline approach,' focuses on lower-income households, earning less than 30% of the area median income who spend more than half of their income on housing costs. Under that approach, the state lacks about 136,000 units of housing.
Another method focuses on the underproduction of housing and the needs for households earning less than 80% of the area median income. It takes into account the idea that building a unit of housing at any income level improves housing availability and makes it more affordable. Under this approach, the state would need about 110,000 units of housing.
The third approach looks at housing underproduction and the need across all income levels. Under this approach, Connecticut would need nearly 359,000 units of housing.
Over the past few years, Connecticut has typically permitted between 5,000 and 6,000 units of housing.
Rojas said he's not inclined to use the third approach and referred to it as 'boiling the ocean.'
Regardless of the chosen approach, the Capitol and Metropolitan and Western regions needed the highest number of units. The Metropolitan and Western regions, which are connected by transportation hubs, include the southeastern region of Connecticut from Bridgeport to Greenwich and north to New Milford.
Fair share policies have been implemented in New Jersey, California, Oregon and Washington with varying success. New Jersey's policy was created through a state Supreme Court decision in the 1970s, and has been changed several times over the years.
Washington's is more recent and since it began the state went from the second-most constrained housing market in the country to the 11th.
Lawmakers discussed the outcomes in Washington as well as California, which has remained one of the most constrained markets in the nation.
'These results confirm what we have long known,' said Erin Boggs, executive director of the Open Communities Alliance, in an emailed statement. 'Connecticut cannot continue the same policies that have left so many people in need of a decent and affordable place to live.'
Housing Committee co-chair Rep. Antonio Felipe, D-Bridgeport, said that the ideas weren't new to him, but it was helpful to have strong data behind the idea of a housing crisis.
Rojas said a fair share policy would be about providing people choices — choices about where they want to live, work and where their children attend school.
Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, argued that there isn't demand from people who want to live in small towns. Arguments about market demand in small towns are a common criticism of zoning reform.
'It's hard to live there when there's actually no housing options to afford,' Rojas responded. 'So why not allow the marketplace to respond to that potential demand? Instead, we put all these constraints in place that don't even allow us to provide an option for people to live.'
Housing Committee ranking member Rep. Tony Scott, R-Monroe, said he thought the information was helpful, but he wanted to hold off on making further judgment until he sees the final draft of the policy. He said he worries that small towns like his don't have the infrastructure to handle large numbers of new housing units.
'We'll see what the real numbers are, and see how realistic those numbers are,' Scott said in an interview.
The consulting firm is expected to release the allocations of housing units by town in the spring.
Ginny Monk is a reporter for The Connecticut Mirror (https://ctmirror.org). Copyright 2025 © The Connecticut Mirror.
This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: Conn. housing market tight, especially from Bridgeport to Greenwich

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
5 minutes ago
- Axios
How Trump is making pot a MAGA issue
President Trump is opening the door to reclassifying marijuana, potentially allowing the GOP to claim another health issue that's long been associated with Democrats. Why it matters: The administration has already flipped the political script when it comes to banning food dyes, calling for an end to animal lab testing and embracing psychedelics for mental health. Rescheduling marijuana could be a big step toward establishing an interstate cannabis trade — and turning a policy long sought by congressional Democrats and promoted by the Biden administration into reality. Driving the news: Trump brought up the subject during a recent event with donors at his Bedminster, New Jersey, country club after marijuana companies contributed millions of dollars to his political organizations, the Wall Street Journal first reported. While falling short of legalization, designating pot to have medical value and less dangerous than its Schedule I designation would be a major jolt to cannabis companies that run on thin margins, per Axios' Dan Primack. It would allow them to deduct business expenses on their taxes and also reduce restrictions on cannabis research. The industry has mounted"a very powerful PR effort," Kevin Sabet, founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana who served in the White House Office of Drug Control Policy under three administrations, told Axios. "They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars in total to influence the president from Florida onward, whether it's inauguration, whether it's million-dollar-plate fundraisers in New Jersey. They are going all out because they want this tax break." Catch up quick: Polling from the Pew Research Center and others have shown increasing support for marijuana legalization across the political spectrum, with 88% favoring medical or recreational use. "Cannabis has become a less partisan [issue] over time, and this has been accelerated by the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products," Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, told Axios. "Heck, I was just in Indiana where someone could buy THC drinks in grocery stores and bars — I don't even see that here in California." While much of Trump's orbit has been more circumspect about making such a change, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a notable exception, Sabet said. Kennedy supported legalization of marijuana during his presidential campaign and said it could open up more research into risks and benefits, although he has also warned about potential "catastrophic impacts" on users. There's still a big difference between rescheduling a drug and federal legalization, which demonstrates the political winds of change are moving slowly. Multiple state ballot initiatives seeking to legalize recreational pot have failed over the last several years. Trump, like Biden, is a teetotaler, and neither has expressed great enthusiasm for legalization over the years, said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. "The way to think about it is some people wanted Biden to legalize. Biden didn't want to do that, so he said, 'Well, I'll suggest rescheduling, which will make some people think that we've made a big change, but it isn't really,'" Caulkins said. Friction point: The rescheduling of marijuana means the government would be officially recognizing its medicinal uses. That's difficult when the quality and consistency of the botanical version of the drug isn't like more conventional pharmaceuticals, Caulkins said. The move also would transfer cannabis to the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, which could create headaches for the agency. The FDA would be "between a rock and a hard place," Caulkins said. "They either have to ignore their own rules and regulations and say, we're just going to let the cannabis happen without the usual standards for medicine, or we're going to bite the bullet and crack down on a multibillion-dollar industry that's been operating for years now." The big picture: A rescheduling would be further evidence of the MAGA world's ability to take the reins on issues once associated with the progressive movement. "For the left, it's been much more about sort of social justice and righting the wrongs of the drug war," Sabet said. On the other hand: "You have part of the MAGA wing that has embraced this," he said. "It's about business, it's about money." Yes, but: This is already stirring up some disagreement among Trump's base. "I hope this doesn't happen," Turning Point USA founder and key MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk posted on X. "Everything already smells like weed, which is ridiculous. Let's make it harder to ruin public spaces, not easier." Relaxing marijuana rules also is stirring concern among state GOP lawmakers in states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Even administration officials such as FDA commissioner Marty Makary have posted warnings about health risks from cannabis use. Reality check: Trump was vague on the timing of any move when he confirmed the WSJ's reporting on Monday, saying: "We're only looking at that. It's early."
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This North Jersey county was named the best place to raise a family
Morris County has been named the best place in New Jersey to raise a family, according to a new SmartAsset study that examined housing values, school quality, recreational access and childcare costs. The inaugural ranking looked at four key factors: housing equity, measured by home value change over time; students' academic performance; recreation and community centers per 1,000 residents; and average childcare expenses. Morris County topped the list with a 42.66% increase in home values, a near-perfect school rating of 9.94 out of 10, and childcare costs averaging $179 per week. The county's 'Best Places to Raise a Family Index' score was 75.19, the highest in the state. Monmouth County ranked second with a 58.31% increase in home values, an 8.24 school rating and with childcare costs averaging $171. Somerset County ranked third followed by Bergen and Hunterdon counties. Cape May County, known more for its beaches than its schools, landed in sixth place, while Mercer, Union, Gloucester and Burlington counties rounded out the top 10. The study also found that strong school performance and affordable childcare were consistent factors among higher-ranking counties. In Morris County, for example, the combination of academic excellence and access to recreational amenities contributed to its top ranking. This article originally appeared on Morris County named best county in NJ to raise a family


NBC News
36 minutes ago
- NBC News
How redistricting became the burning hot center of Democratic politics
It was once an issue that made voters' eyes glaze over. But in the last several weeks, the once-arcane subject of redistricting — underpinned by Texas Democrats' extraordinary exodus from their state to block Republican plans to redraw maps — has transformed into the burning hot center of Democratic politics. Potential 2028 White House candidates have sought to put themselves at the center of the fight against what they call a GOP power grab in Texas. So, too, have a bevy of Democratic governors, members of Congress and candidates for office across the country. Far from the days of old for a party mocked for sending 'strongly worded letters' while Republicans steamrolled them, Democrats are now firing their own flamethrowers. It's precisely what the rank and file want to see from a party they're fed up with and disappointed in, Democrats say. 'There are not that many moments when politics break through to normal people. This is breaking through … because of how ruthless people are seeing Republicans be, and they want to see their Democratic leaders fight just as hard,' said Josh Marcus-Blank, a Democratic consultant who has worked on senatorial and presidential campaigns. 'Any [Democratic] voter thinking about 2028 is mad right now, and they really want Democrats to stand up and fight back.' President Donald Trump elevated the issue to the national stage when he said he wanted Texas to carve up its congressional map to create up to five more Republican districts to protect the party's narrow House majority in the 2026 midterms. While both parties have gerrymandered their states' congressional districts in the past, the move in Texas stands out because it seeks to rip up the state's map mid-decade, rather than after the new census every 10 years. Democrats left the state to deny a quorum in the Texas House and prevent the GOP's plan from moving forward. The move ultimately may only delay the action, as Gov. Greg Abbott has vowed to repeatedly call special sessions until he can push through the new map. But as Abbott moved forward, the heavy hitters of the left moved to get in on the action. Democrats have already gerrymandered his state to the hilt, but Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, used another route into the spotlight. In June, he quietly discussed a way for Texas Democrats to take refuge in his state on the eve of a legislative special session. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to pursue a redraw of his state's congressional maps if Republicans move forward with their plans in Texas. Newsom, however, would need to circumvent an independent commission that controls the redistricting process in California. 'They want to change the game,' Newsom said of Republicans. 'We can act holier than thou. We could sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.' In another escalation on the issue, Newsom declared Tuesday night that Trump had missed a deadline and so California would be 'historic' and 'end the Trump presidency,' he said in a social media post that mockingly emulated the kind of statement Trump would make. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, declaring, ' We are at war,' also said she would look at ways to counter Texas' plans. Any new map in her state wouldn't take effect until after next year's midterms. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a possible presidential contender, held a live social media forum and posted a video about the issue. 'What it shows is that Republicans believe that they will lose Congress unless they change the maps before the next election,' Buttigieg said. After Texas Republicans first publicly considered redrawing the map mid-decade, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Hawaii Gov. Josh Green took turns teeing off on the issue from the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting in Colorado in late July. 'My party can't stand by and watch it happen and have the Congress taken away from the people's will, whatever that is. It's completely unethical for Texas to do this — to redistrict. It's an obvious attempt to steal elections,' Green said in an interview. 'If the courts won't stop it, then you're going to have to fight fire with fire.' In Illinois, where a competitive race is underway to replace retiring longtime Sen. Dick Durbin, the leading candidates appeared alongside Texas Democrats at news events. One day, Reps. Robin Kelly and Raja Krishnamoorthi vowed to build a wall against Trump's efforts, and the next, it was Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton. 'Now is our time to stand up and fight. President Trump and Gov. Abbott, we are watching you. In Illinois, we don't sit on the sidelines. In Illinois, we don't take kindly to threats, and in Illinois, we fight back,' Stratton said before a splay of TV cameras last week. 'If Trump and Texas Republicans won't play by the rules, we will look at every option available to stop their extreme power grab, and nothing will be off the table.' Andrew O'Neill, the national advocacy director for the progressive grassroots group Indivisible, referred to some of the Democrats' remarks and actions as 'productive ambition.' 'Democratic leadership amongst Democratic voters — it's in the toilet right now. The Democratic base is furious with the state of their party,' O'Neill said. He added that any Democrats hoping to draw attention on the national stage must show the base they know how to take off the gloves. 'If you take the sort of quiet-adult-in-the-room, 'we're just going to be responsible' approach, nobody pays attention to you, and nobody hears your message,' O'Neill said. 'So it's all well and good that you put out a boring press release that says you believe in democracy and fair maps, but if you're not actually taking the fight to Republicans and drawing that strategic conflict, in the attention economy we currently live with, nobody's going to hear you.' Hosting Texas Democratic lawmakers in Illinois has given Pritzker a platform to play protector-in-chief, vowing to stand in the way of Trump and Texas officials who authorized civil arrest warrants. 'There's no federal law that would allow the FBI to arrest anybody that's here visiting our state,' Pritzker said Sunday on NBC News' 'Meet the Press.' 'So it's a lot of grandstanding. That's what this is all about.' Meanwhile, Newsom and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the former House speaker, stood with a half-dozen Texas lawmakers Friday in Sacramento, where Newsom declared California would 'nullify' Texas Republicans' map if they moved forward. There are some signs Democrats' actions are gaining traction. For instance, a new Siena College poll found that Hochul's job approval and favorability ratings have ticked up since June as she has been front and center in the redistricting debate. Texas state Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., who leads the Democratic Hispanic Caucus and is among those in Illinois sitting out the special session, said he has been emboldened by the public's response. 'People have reached out to me that I've never heard from,' he said. Romero relayed feedback his brother, a schoolteacher, has received. 'Every day, he says, 'Man, you know, everybody's coming up to me, telling me how proud they are of you and for the fact that they didn't even know what redistricting was and now they know,'" Romero said.