Housing analysts lay out different methods to calculate statewide need as Connecticut implements new law

State housing researchers and implementers outlined competing methods for measuring statewide housing need at a meeting convened by the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, offering guidance as Connecticut prepares to implement a new statutory requirement to produce regional housing targets.

Representatives from New Jersey, Massachusetts and the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority described distinct approaches that communities might adopt when translating statewide goals into municipal plans. "Public Law 2024, Chapter 2" set New Jersey’s formula, Chris Wheeler of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs said, and it produces two separate obligations: a ‘‘present need’’ tally of deficient units occupied by low‑ and moderate‑income households and a ‘‘prospective need’’ that amounts to 40 percent of recent decennial housing growth by region.

Wheeler described three municipal allocation factors used to apportion prospective need — an income‑capacity differential, an equalized nonresidential valuation share and a land‑capacity factor based on a GIS analysis that excluded protected and constrained parcels. He also noted a protective cap that limits any municipality’s obligation to 20 percent of its housing stock or 1,000 units, whichever comes first, a feature he said affects a small number of jurisdictions that experienced large nonresidential ratable growth.

"The prospective need calculation is based on three different factors that are averaged together," Wheeler said, and municipalities may adopt the state’s land‑capacity figures or submit alternative local calculations if they can justify differences.

Tim Reardon, chief data and strategy officer for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, described a different, supply‑focused exercise used in Massachusetts’ statewide plan "A Home for Everyone." The Massachusetts team built four demographic and demand scenarios driven by assumptions about domestic and international migration, headship rates, seasonal conversions and desired vacancy rates. Reardon said the administration selected its third scenario, producing an estimated need of roughly 222,000 homes to both address existing shortages and accommodate anticipated household change.

"Lack of supply is at the root of our affordability crisis, and we can't solve any of our problems without dealing with the supply issue," Reardon said, summarizing the rationale for producing a plan that sets production expectations across 13 regional planning agency areas.

Connecticut Housing Finance Authority senior analyst Andrew Bolger described CHFA’s gap analysis methods, which use HUD’s CHAS tables re‑tabulated from ACS microdata to compare the number of households at each income band with the inventory of units affordable at those bands. CHFA supplements the CHAS analysis with more current market indicators from CoStar and housing‑market metrics such as vacancy, rent growth and starts.

"One out of three of the rental units priced for the lowest income renters are occupied by higher‑income renters," Bolger said, demonstrating how cross‑occupancy produces shortages for the lowest‑income households even when some units on paper appear affordable.

Attendees pressed presenters on specific modeling choices that could affect Connecticut’s implementation of its statute. Erin, a member of the working group, noted that Sec. 25‑1 requires consideration of severely cost‑burdened households and referenced a working figure of about 136,000 units as a baseline under one interpretation of the statute; she asked how that baseline should be combined with growth scenarios and deed‑restricted targets. Presenters offered practical options: municipalities can meet obligations through housing elements that list sites and projects, use inclusionary zoning set‑asides, or adopt local land‑capacity analyses to challenge state parcel assumptions.

No formal votes or policy decisions were taken at the session; the Chair asked presenters to circulate slides and data tools used in their analyses, and staff said they would share links and follow up by email. The meeting closed with an agreement to continue technical discussions as Connecticut develops regional housing growth plans.

The presenters and staff plan to provide the materials and documentation discussed, including the New Jersey statutory formula, Massachusetts scenario assumptions, CHFA’s CHAS‑based tool and sample municipal housing element examples, to help local planners and legislators evaluate options for translating statewide need into municipal actions.