Tim Vilinskis

Also, CT's for-sale housing market is inelastic. In other words, it is unable to respond with additional supply when hit with additional demand due to restrictive zoning, driving up prices.

Population is the wrong metric. It is household formation that drives housing demand. You can have a flat population, but if households are getting smaller, you'll need more housing.

Stamford's Comprehensive Plan is Bad News for Waterside To the Editor: Over the last 10 years I have personally observed a significant jump in occupancy, congestion, noise, unhealthy living conditions, blight, pollution and sirens in the Waterside area […]

Typical. A myriad of reasons why his neighborhood should keep additional people out, but no recognition of the harm inflicted on those in need of housing or Connecticut's economic viability as a whole.

ctexaminer.com/2025/09/27/s...

Not surprised Sen Gordon could do that with a straight face 😀

I could support some type of housing production goal that uses a reasonable needs and allocation method in exchange or an 8-30g safe harbor. Notably the state of Maine declined to require any "Affordable Housing" in its production targets. Just build more housing and the state can fund affordability

The Fair Share proposal, as written, is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. But, the framework could be useful. I do believe the state has a right to see that the zoning power delegated to localities is not used to deprive decent housing options to the citizenry as a whole. That said...

That's a fair point. I fully support parking reform. In the Senate debate Ryan said he was open to some type of parking reform. Perhaps something similar to the compromise bill that passed in WA could be part of a "grand bargain".

I really wished they ran these disparate sections as separate bills. It did a real disservice to public debate by lumping them all together. You can't expect people who were going to vote against HB 5002 because of the Fair Share element to energetically & thoughtfully engage on the other elements.

I’m not so sure about that. I believe he would be open to a compromise. Unfortunately, it is the housing advocates that are dead set on imposing NJ style Fair Share. Which would be a bad idea for a variety of reasons.

citizenportal.ai/articles/309...

Interesting mention of the regional housing production goals adopted by Maine in the op-ed. I think it represents a much better and more realistic approach. Let the free-market build as much lower-cost market-rate housing as demanded and have the state provide funding to make some of it affordable.

This is the way. Keep it simple, just build more housing, even if it's all lower-cost market-rate.

watering down ≠ compromise on fundamentals

I'm arguing for a compromise. Perhaps you should too, considering your preferred alternative was vetoed.

If you read anything that I've written, you'll see that I completely disagree with those that want to do nothing. I'm, in fact, arguing to do more than you. It's just spread out over a wider variety of housing types and includes all communities.

It's not "less than perfect". The Fair Share portion gets some things fundamentally wrong. We need to take the time to get state law right. Because, as we know, bad state law is very difficult to change when it benefits special interests.

“It’s a compromise of a compromise”. What exactly did you compromise on? You watered it down a bit, but didn’t compromise on any of the key parts.

“No one likes the moratorium process”. Every other state that has a builder’s remedy, offers an immediate safe harbor upon the adoption of an approved zoning plan.

I really dislike whole moratorium concept. It adds a lot of unpredictability to the development process and can be gamed (see New Canaan).

I agree with you that towns would prefer not do do anything. Let them make a choice, stay with the 8-30g status quo or adopt a reasonable pro-housing zoning code and get safe harbor.

3. And importantly, safe harbor from 8-30g should be granted to localities immediately upon adoption of an approved zoning plan. Good faith implementation would be required for continued immunity.

No, I’m not. Here’s why:
1. Need assessment only targets “subsidized” housing. Should be mostly lower-cost market-rate, as shown by Alternative Appr #2.
2. Allocations should be based on real world planning metrics in collaboration with COGs, not just demographics, and reflect state & regional POCDs

Maybe it’s the housing advocates that are in the wrong and need to compromise? There is a reason no other state has adopted the NJ Fair Share model. Just focus on facilitating lower-cost market-rate housing (for all income levels and all communities) and provide funding for “Affordable Housing”.

The proposed "missing middle" changes are entirely reasonable. It would be unfortunate if they drop them because of NIMBYs.

There is so much wrong with this statement. Single family only zoning is social engineering, it violates private property rights, and it is not a contract.

ctexaminer.com/2025/07/22/s...

www.stamfordct.gov/government/o...

ctexaminer.com/2025/08/30/s...

That's unfortunate, because the proposed changes are entirely reasonable.

www.commerce.wa.gov/growth-manag...

San José approves the first ADU condominium in California - PublicCEO The City of San José approved the first Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) condominium in the state. The home, located on Joséfa Street, near downtown, will be the first ADU in the state of California that...

Other states are even allowing property owners to condo ADUs and sell them separately. The more homeownership opportunities the better, IMO.
www.publicceo.com/2025/08/san-...

towns could easily meet any allocation by adopting light touch missing middle housing and denser mixed use at transit nodes and strip commercial zones.

But some type of written zoning code will still be required and that requires coming up with numbers.

Veto and Correct HB 5002 in Special Session It is by now self-evident that Connecticut needs to allow more housing to be built. While the new housing bill (HB 5002) aims to address this important goal, it ultimately […]

No question state prodding is required to move the needle. We have a collective action problem, individual localities aren’t going to open their communities to development while others stay on the sidelines.

Fair Share is workable, but it needs amending.
ctexaminer.com/2025/06/22/v...