The state’s older housing stock and popularity among those seeking beachfront vacation homes or easy commutes into New York City contribute to the scarcity, the report added.

“Connecticut’s overall population is aging and in decline, as many younger families cannot afford to move into existing housing, while seniors wishing to downsize lack housing choice in size and variety,” the authors wrote. They estimated the need for more housing at between 120,000 and 380,000 additional units.

“If you talk to someone in the grocery store, they’re going to tell you that their kid is in their basement and that they don’t know what they’re going to do with their aging parent,” said Melissa Kaplan-Macey, the chief initiative officer at The Housing Collective, a nonpartisan homeless services organization.

“Noone is against affordable housing,” said Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, a Republican, in an interview. “Many of the communities that objected very loudly are communities that have taken it upon themselves to develop affordable housing.”

But Harding voted against the bill because, he said, “There was an arbitrary breakdown that designated how much affordable housing the community had to have and if you didn’t have that, the state would determine what your punishment was.”

Harding sees senior housing as a particular challenge. Many older residents want to stay in their communities, but downsize into a smaller, easier-to-maintain residence. But state zoning laws prioritize the construction of homes affordable to low- and moderate- income residents over senior housing, Harding said.

“That’s the problem with statewide zoning,” he said.

Towns want ‘local control’ over policy

Allowing the state to manage rulemaking, like zoning, was the main sticking point that derailed HB 5002.

The bill established a community-by-community allocation and encouraged cities and towns to develop new housing according to it. It would have prioritized state funding for those municipalities that complied, but states overtly that it would not have withheld aid or otherwise punished local communities.

But opponents, mostly representing wealthier communities, said the bill contained punitive requirements from the state. In a press conference after vetoing the bill, Lamont called it a “planning document” and not a mandate, but said the opposition influenced his decision to nix the bill anyway.

“The Governor ultimately did not sign the housing bill into law because of concerns he had around whether local leaders would be able to achieve the goals outlined in the bill,” a spokesperson for Lamont said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY.

“The Governor, working with the legislature over the past several years, has been actively working to put more financial resources into housing construction,” the statement continued. “One thing we have learned from that work is that local leaders need to be bought in to the solution – and it was clear that was not the case with this bill.”

Why can’t blue states build housing?

Some housing advocates see parallels between Connecticut’s experience and the challenges in neighboring Massachusetts, where the state in 2024 took one community to court when it refused to adhere to a law mandating planning for housing.

“I think some of it (getting policy made) is having a little bit more political courage to do things that may seem unpopular at first,” said Jonathan Berk, founder of the real estate and placemaking consultancy re:MAIN and a Massachusetts resident.

More: Why is housing so expensive? There simply aren’t enough homes.

In the Bay State, legislators are now more “gun shy” about working in favor of additional housing measures because some constituents have said they don’t like the statewide legislation, Berk said. “A lot of that is despite polling that shows some of these reforms are actually popular, but it’s that vocal minority, passive majority situation that has played itself out in local housing decisions for decades across the Northeast.”

In Connecticut, some advocates are trying to see the silver lining.

“What is really fascinating about the way the conversation around this has changed over the last year is we are not talking as much about whether we need these goals or not, but what those goals should be, which is a giant shift,” said Erin Boggs, executive director of the Open Communities Alliance, a fair housing and affordable housing group.