Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password
Reason logo

Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.

Reason is supported by:
John Beck

Donate

Housing Policy

In Connecticut, Zoning Reform Is Back From the Dead

Plus: A challenge to the Trump administration's shift away from "housing first" and reflections on the West's "Great Downzoning"

Christian Britschgi | 12.2.2025 1:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont | Aaron Flaum/TNS/Newscom
(Aaron Flaum/TNS/Newscom)

Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. With the holiday last week, today's newsletter is slightly abbreviated.

It does at least include some happy holiday news for zoning reformers: Connecticut's passage of a controversial, once-vetoed housing supply bill.

We also cover a new lawsuit filed by 20 states against the Trump administration's restrictions on homelessness funding.

Rent Free Newsletter by Christian Britschgi. Get more of Christian's urban regulation, development, and zoning coverage.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This newsletter also offers some reflections on the West's "Great Downzoning."

Lastly, Reason's annual webathon starts today. As a scrappy, freedom-loving nonprofit, we depend on the generosity of readers to keep the lights on. If you find this newsletter interesting, useful, informative, or even just enraging, I'd encourage you to donate to support our work.

Anyway, on with the show!


In Connecticut, Zoning Reform Rises From the Dead

Back in June, Connecticut Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont vetoed House Bill (H.B.) 5002, a sprawling 160-page piece of legislation that included a number of supply-side reforms aimed at getting the state's municipalities building again.

While not everything in that original bill was deregulatory, much of it was. The governor justified his veto by pointing to the opposition of local governments, which objected to state interference in their land-use powers.

While H.B. 5002 was controversial, so too was the governor's veto. So much so that he called a special session of the Legislature to reconsider the bill.

The result is H.B. 8002, which the governor signed this past Wednesday. Like its predecessor, H.B. 8002 is a lengthy piece of legislation that includes a grab bag of subsidies, incentives, cuts to some red tape, and a tightening of other regulations.

The Good

The bill includes a number of state preemptions that are now part of a well-worn YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") playbook. It forbids local governments from requiring parking spaces in developments of fewer than 16 homes. Larger developments must submit a "parking needs assessment" as part of the approval process.

Jurisdictions that have limited or eliminated minimum parking requirements (which can add significant costs to a development) have seen a lot of new multifamily construction as a result.

H.B. 8002 also requires municipalities to approve "middle housing" developments of between two and nine units in commercial and mixed-use zones, effectively a scaled-back version of residential-in-commercial bills passed by states such as Texas and Montana.

Where the law doesn't directly preempt local regulations, it offers carrots to get municipalities to liberalize their zoning codes in exchange for additional state funds.

Towns that allow more housing construction near bus and rail stops would be eligible for housing growth grants, more school construction funding, and loans for sewer infrastructure projects.

The Questionable

H.B. 8002 also creates a new system of local and regional planning for housing growth.

Already, Connecticut municipalities were required to create 10-year conservation and development plans. Housing advocates criticized this system for giving "little incentive or guidance on how to successfully diversify housing choice in their communities."

The new law establishes a much more robust planning process. Municipalities will be required to produce their own plans for increasing the amount of deed-restricted affordable housing within their borders, or otherwise participate in a regional plan that likewise lays out where new affordable housing will go.

A new state Council on Housing Development will "evaluate and enforce" these local and regional plans. Localities that meet their housing targets will be eligible for new state infrastructure grants.

A number of states impose similar planning requirements on municipalities, with mixed results. New Jersey's longstanding fair share housing system has arguably proven the most successful at getting localities to zone for new housing.

California's similar decades-old system has largely been a bust for its first few decades of existence. Opinion is mixed on whether more recent YIMBY reforms and stepped-up state enforcement have actually pushed localities to sincerely welcome more development.

Connecticut's focus on encouraging towns to create plans for deed-restricted housing is also conceptually flawed. Housing becomes affordable when a lot of it is built, not necessarily when some additional income-restricted units are planned for.

Time will tell whether the system created by H.B. 8002 actually moves the needle on housing supply.

The Ugly

As mentioned, H.B. 8002 is a big bill. It includes a lot of provisions that enhance regulations on the provision of housing in ways that free marketers won't like.

Already, Connecticut requires localities of 25,000 people or more to create "fair rent commissions" that hold hearings on individual rent increases and order landlords to lower rents, or phase in or delay proposed rent increases.

The state's new law will require cities of 15,000 people or more to create such commissions. While this is a relatively flexible form of rent control, it is a system of rent control nonetheless. One can expect it to reduce investment in rental housing on some margin.

Markets, not local councils, should be responsible for setting rents.

H.B. 8002 also bans companies from using property management software to set rents and vacancy rates. Rent-recommendation software provided by companies such as RealPage has become a target of legislation recently. Critics argue that this software encourages landlords to set rents above market rates and hold units off the market.

The economic case for this view is pretty weak. The limited research on rent-recommendation software finds that it produces more efficient pricing: It recommends landlords to raise prices in hot markets and lower them in down markets.

RealPage didn't stop market rents from plunging in Austin, Texas, in response to a glut of new supply. San Francisco's ban on this software didn't lower rental prices in the housing-starved city.

H.B. 8002 also includes new tax credit and subsidy programs for first-time homebuyers.


States Sue HUD Over Homeless Funding

Twenty states are suing the Trump administration over its decision to shift homeless funding from permanent supportive housing programs to transitional housing assistance, reports Politico.

The lawsuit, filed by mostly Democratic-led states, argues that the Trump administration is attaching novel conditions to homeless housing grants in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Congress' spending powers.

For months now, the Trump administration has been attempting to shift federal homelessness policy from a "housing first" approach—that prioritizes placing the currently homeless in supportive housing—to one more focused on the provision of temporary shelter and public order.

It has also attempted to stop funding from going to jurisdictions that allow safe-injection sites.

The administration has argued that focusing on public order and treatment for the homeless better addresses the root causes of homelessness. Its new grant conditions would shift $3.9 billion away from permanent housing programs.

Critics, including 20 states suing the administration, argue the change in policy will instead lead to a lot more homelessness generally.

"Communities across the country depend on Continuum of Care funds to provide housing and other resources to our most vulnerable neighbors," said New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the litigants, in a press release, per Politico. "These funds help keep tens of thousands of people from sleeping on the streets every night."


Thoughts on the 'Great Downzoning'

Works in Progress' Samuel Hughes has a really interesting essay on the West's "Great Downzoning"—his term for the proliferation of early zoning laws that set density and use restrictions in early 20th century European and American cities.

There's a lot of rich information in Hughes' essay, and I encourage people to read the whole thing.

A few of his observations seem particularly relevant today.

The first is that private covenants that attempted to restrict density through various contractual measures were not particularly successful over time. Requiring private parties to bear the costs of enforcement of density restrictions meant that these restrictions often went unenforced, particularly when demands for denser housing were increasing.

Government-enforced zoning codes were adopted as a more robust alternative to weak private restrictions on dense housing.

Secondly, Hughes notes that large landowners of undeveloped land were the most opposed to early zoning codes because they tanked the development potential of their property. While some property owners saw economic benefit in restricting use and density, these restrictions could often come with serious economic costs as well.

Today, it's likely that most property owners would see a major economic upside to removing restrictions on their ability to develop their own land.

Had the Western world not gone all in on downzoning, one can imagine a world where private covenants temporarily locked in lower-density, purely residential neighborhoods where demand for them was high. As demands for density grew, private covenants would give way to new housing construction.

Instead, we did adopt zoning codes, and the result is the West's continent-spanning housing shortage.


Quick Links

  • President Donald Trump talks up the fact that he doesn't have to go through any zoning processes to add a big new ballroom to the White House.
  • Politico covers landlords' efforts to organize against incoming New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's proposed rent freeze.
  • Texas is the latest state to flirt with substantial cuts to property taxes. It's a nice idea in theory that would, in practice, likely require massive sales tax increases.
  • The Los Angeles Times covers the California Legislature's efforts to block a single Santa Barbara apartment project. You can read Rent Free's coverage of the case here.
  • The Wall Street Journal has an interesting visual essay on the innovations making technically difficult office-to-residential conversions a reality in New York City.

Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: College Football Teams Can’t Keep Making the Lane Kiffin Mistake

Christian Britschgi is a reporter at Reason.

Housing PolicyConnecticutZoningRent controlHomelessnessHistory
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (5)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Stupid Government Tricks   40 minutes ago

    H.B. 8002 also bans companies from using property management software to set rents and vacancy rates.

    One aspect seldom mentioned is how the government knows how rents were set. Nothing stops landlords from running the software and following its recommendations with minor tweaks.

    Just another excuse for Big Brother to know everything.

    Log in to Reply
  2. Rick James   31 minutes ago

    While not everything in that original bill was deregulatory, much of it was.

    Would that make this bill the "most libertarian", the "best libertarian" or "only libertarian" housing bill currently being considered?

    Log in to Reply
  3. Rick James   26 minutes ago

    its decision to shift homeless funding from permanent supportive housing programs to transitional housing assistance, reports Politico.

    Good, because this horseshit is what taxpayers get with "housing first"

    As hundreds sleep on Seattle streets, a county-owned hotel sits empty

    You don’t need to be an expert in commercial real estate to see that something has gone badly wrong at the old Inn at Queen Anne.

    Plywood covers many windows and doors of the brick-fronted former Seattle hotel. Razor wire menacingly guards the entrance. The place has been dark now going on two-and-a-half years.

    Mike Garner, though, is a commercial real estate expert — with 45 years in property law. Retired, he walks by the once bustling Inn a few times a week. It’s more than just an abandoned building in Lower Queen Anne, he said. It’s become a sad symbol of the region’s struggles with the homelessness crisis.

    “It’s a microcosm,” Garner said. “They always start off with good intent. There’s a big splash announcement. But then they’re unable to achieve their goals.”

    The big splash was back in May 2021. King County announced an experiment — to buy up a bunch of hotels, emptied out due to the pandemic, and use them as permanent shelter or housing for homeless people.

    “This could be the moment where we’re able to turn the tide on this thing — we’ve just got to unite around it,” then-King County Executive Dow Constantine said in 2021.

    Trump is protecting taxpayers in sane districts from having to subsidize bloodthirsty retardation in blue districts.

    Log in to Reply
  4. Fu Manchu   24 minutes ago

    Whadaya know, Trump pardoned Hernandez. Jesse, want to apologize for insisting it was fake news? Got anything to say about bombing a bunch of dinghies while freeing one of the biggest drug kingpins? I'm sure you got your talking points already.

    Log in to Reply
  5. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   19 minutes ago

    Local story.

    Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Dec. 2 - Dec. 9, 2025 Thanks to 113 donors, we've reached $27,776 of our $400,000 goal!

Reason Webathon 2023

Donate Now! Donate Now

Latest

In Connecticut, Zoning Reform Is Back From the Dead

Christian Britschgi | 12.2.2025 1:30 PM

College Football Teams Can't Keep Making the Lane Kiffin Mistake

Jason Russell | 12.2.2025 1:00 PM

The Poverty Line Isn't a Vibe

Eric Boehm | 12.2.2025 12:45 PM

The Trump Administration Says Nursing Isn't a Professional Degree. Here's Why That's a Good Thing.

Emma Camp | 12.2.2025 11:41 AM

No One Left Alive

Liz Wolfe | 12.2.2025 9:40 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

HELP EXPAND REASON’S JOURNALISM

Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.

Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREEDOM

Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks