As voters in Connecticut prepare for the mid-term elections on November 3, 2026, the issue of housing—not just affordability but supply, zoning and local control—is once again at the forefront. A shortage of housing units, rising rents, and debates over how much state law should push construction all mean that housing will be a significant campaign issue.
But to understand how candidate positions matter—and how they may affect what actually gets built or rented in Connecticut—it helps to start by looking at how we gauge trends in the housing (and mortgage) domain, and then pivot to the major candidates and what they are saying (and not saying).

How We Gauge Trends: Key Metrics

To contextualize housing policy debates, we use a framework borrowed from mortgage‐market analysis (and adapted for housing policy in Connecticut). The idea: by tracking measurable upstream “supply/processing” metrics, we can see where bottlenecks lie, what policy interventions might work, and how candidate proposals will map to real-world outcomes.

1. Application / initiation volume – In the mortgage context this means number of mortgage loan applications (refinance & purchase) for both government-backed and conventional. In the housing supply context this can map to: number of building permits filed, number of multi-unit proposals submitted, number of zoning changes sought.

   • A drop in permit filings suggests supply risk.

   • A surge may indicate pent-up demand or policy tailwinds.

2. Processing times / closing times – For mortgages this is how long from application to closing. For housing policy: how long from zoning/permit submission to approval and start of construction. Are local approvals taking months or years? Are policy changes shortening that time?

3. Delivery bottlenecks / backlog – In mortgage land: backlogs in underwriting, agency verifications. In housing supply: backlog of projects awaiting zoning/permit/financing; stalled projects on hold for regulatory or infrastructure reasons.

4. Sector segmentation – In mortgages: conventional vs government-insured vs GSE-guaranteed loans. In housing supply: e.g., market-rate vs affordable rental vs homeownership new units; urban vs suburban vs rural; infill vs greenfield. Some sub-segments may face greater regulatory impediments (e.g., multi‐family downtown vs suburban single homes).

5. Regional or lender/geography variation – Mortgage: geography with flood zones, veteran housing, etc. Housing supply: towns with strong zoning resistance, fast‐growing metro areas (New Haven, Hartford, Fairfield County) vs slow growth rural towns; towns under the state’s “10 % affordable stock” threshold vs ones that already meet it.

6. Secondary market / investor confidence – Mortgage: investors buying/guaranteeing loans, risk. Housing supply: developer capital flows, willingness of builders to bring forward multi-unit housing, the cost of financing construction. If policy risk is higher (zoning fights, moratoria), developer pipelines may shrink.

7. Policy/agency announcements / temporary waivers – Mortgage: GSEs adjusting rules during shutdowns, etc. Housing policy: state grants, streamlined zoning laws, moratoria on design reviews, “middle‐housing” incentives, tax credits, state mandates to municipalities. These change the operating environment rapidly.

Connecticut Housing Supply & Policy Trends

Let’s compare these metrics in what is currently happening in Connecticut.

Statewide / broad patterns

• The state is widely considered to have a housing shortage, particularly in the affordable and workforce‐rental segments.

• In 2025, the legislature passed a sweeping housing bill, HB 5002, aimed at increasing supply, streamlining zoning for “middle housing” (2-9 units), and incentivizing municipalities that build more housing. Connecticut House Democrats+1

• However, the bill was vetoed by Ned Lamont in June 2025 amid push-back from suburban towns and concerns over local control. 

• The veto reflects tension between state-level urgency (to build housing) and municipal/local resistance (to changes in zoning or density).

• A legislative panel is now publicly debating (August 2025) whether to continue requiring municipalities to meet a target of 10 % of housing stock as “affordable” under the state’s 8‑30g statute.

Regional / segment variation

• Some municipalities—often suburban, lower-density towns—are more resistant to higher-density or multi-unit housing. The debate around local control vs state imperatives is more heated in Fairfield County, rural areas, and towns with large single‐family zoning blocks. 

• Multi-family housing and workforce housing (e.g., families earning $50 k-$80 k/year) are being prioritized in new construction. For example, a 154-unit project in New Britain funded with nearly $8 million in state grants drew attention. 

• Municipalities with low percentages of “affordable housing stock” (by 8-30g definition) face more developer pressure and state scrutiny. For instance, Shelton has a 3.35 % affordable stock and is in litigation over a proposed 56-unit affordable project. 

What this means in our metrics

• Permit filing volumes may be rising in transit-oriented and urban zones, but may still remain weak in more suburban or zoning-resistant towns—creating supply bifurcation.

• Processing times: since zoning reform (middle-housing) was in limbo due to veto, some municipalities may still have lengthy review times.

• Backlogs: municipalities may have projects stalled due to uncertainty about future state mandates, causing a backlog of applications.

• Sector segmentation: market‐rate single‐family units may face fewer regulatory headwinds; by contrast, affordable/multi-family and middle-housing units are more exposed.

• Developer investment: if municipal resistance remains high, builders may shift their focus to more accommodating towns or delay projects, reducing supply where it's most needed.

What to Watch Going Into the 2026 Cycle

For borrowers or housing‐consumers, and for observers of the policy landscape:

• Expect variation in closing or completion time: In multi-family or affordable/development deals reliant on state incentives, or in towns with strong zoning resistance, planning/approval may take longer—adding cost, delaying occupancy.

• Affordability pressure remains: Because supply remains constrained (especially for middle and affordable housing), rents and home-price growth may continue upward, which will feature in candidates’ platforms.

• Local control vs state mandates: This tension will shape many campaigns. Municipalities want autonomy; the state is pushing for more housing supply. Candidates’ positions on that balance matter.

• Transit-oriented / infill construction will get attention: Projects near bus/rail (e.g., New Britain) illustrate where the growth focus is. Candidates may highlight support for such developments.

• Developer pipelines matter: If builders see greater regulatory risk or cost, they may pull back, reducing supply. That has policy implications—candidates promising “more housing” will need credible pipelines, not just rhetoric.

• Election outcomes may affect zoning and housing policy regime: A legislature or set of municipal officials aligned with pro-housing reform could see faster approvals; oppositional ones could slow things.

Key Candidates and Their Housing Positions

With the 2026 mid-terms approaching, there are several key races and emerging candidates in Connecticut that bear watching on housing. While many campaign platforms are still taking shape, the available statements and recent actions provide a window into where they stand.

1. Ned Lamont (Incumbent Governor, Democrat)

• Lamont has indicated he is strongly considering a run for a third term in 2026. Connecticut Public+1

• On housing, Lamont has made clear: “We have a lot of unfinished business … a need for more affordable housing in the state.” Connecticut Public+1

• That said, Lamont vetoed HB 5002 despite negotiating it, citing concerns that municipalities must “buy in” and that local control matters. 

• In public comments (July 2025) with potential Republican contender Erin Stewart, he said their housing ideas overlapped—particularly around local control.

• Summary of stance: Pro–housing supply and affordable housing efforts, but cautious about heavy state mandates or interfering with local zoning autonomy.

• Implication: Under a Lamont re-election scenario, policy may continue along moderate reform lines—larger supply incentives, but incremental rather than sweeping. For candidates running as his alternative, they may stake out stronger or different positions.

2. Erin Stewart (May­or of New Britain, Republican potential gubernatorial contender)

• Stewart has formed an exploratory committee for a possible 2026 run. NBC Connecticut+1

• On housing: At an event with Lamont in July 2025, Stewart emphasized transit-oriented development in New Britain, rehabbing a factory into housing for families earning $30 k–$80 k. CT Mirror

• Stewart also emphasized that local control must remain—that policies need to respect the 169 municipalities in CT and their differences. 

• Summary: Republican, pro-housing (especially workforce housing), but emphasizes local discretion over state mandates.

• Implication: Stewart could appeal to voters who want more housing built but worry about state over-reach in zoning.

3. Jen Tooker (First Selectwoman of Westport, Republican candidate for Governor)

• Tooker has already announced her candidacy for governor in 2026.

• Housing: She explicitly hailed Lamont’s veto of HB 5002 as a “victory” and criticized the bill for diluting local control. CT Mirror

• Summary: Emphasises protecting municipal autonomy, skeptical of top-down housing mandates; may take a more cautious or restrictive approach to zoning reform.

• Implication: For voters concerned about density or local development impacts, Tooker may be the candidate of choice; for those prioritizing aggressive housing supply, this stance may be seen as limiting.

4. Candidates for U.S. House:

In the federal election context for Connecticut’s five congressional districts, several candidates are already declared. While federal representatives have less direct zoning authority, their stance on housing (tax policy, federal housing support, transportation infrastructure) still matters.

• District 1: Incumbent Democrat John Larson plus challengers: Luke Bronin (Democrat), Ruth Fortune (Democrat), Jillian Gilchrest (Democrat), Jack Perry (Democrat) and Amy Chai (Republican) are declared as of now.

• District 2: Incumbent Joe Courtney (D) plus Republican challengers including George Austin, Mike France, Sean Randall.

• District 3: Incumbent Rosa DeLauro (D) plus challengers Damjan DeNoble (D) and Andrew Rice (D) and Christopher Lancia (R).

• District 4 and 5 also have declared candidates.

• Housing stance: Specific detailed housing policy positions for each have not been widely published yet. However, given the state‐level housing dynamics, we expect themes like housing affordability, federal housing subsidies, and infrastructure support (e.g., transit) to feature.

5. State Legislative Candidates – Local Races That Matter

Even more important for housing policy than federal seats are state legislative seats and municipal offices (zoning, planning, housing authorities). Here are some noteworthy individuals:

• Kara Rochelle (D), State House Rep (District 104) and Vice Chair of the Housing Committee. Her committee assignment means she will likely influence housing policy and any future zoning/affordability legislation.

• Joe Polletta (R), State House Rep (District 68) and ranking member of the Housing Committee.

• These committee positions are critical because housing (zoning, multi‐family, affordable housing) will likely be shaped in legislative sessions by such members.

What Candidates Are Saying – Themes & Policy Approaches

Although many campaign platforms are still in flux, several themes have emerged in Connecticut’s housing debate—and candidate statements reflect them in varying ways.

Theme 1: Building More Housing / Increasing Supply

• The urgency is clear: Connecticut is short tens of thousands of affordable units.

• On the state‐level side, HB 5002 targeted new construction by streamlining zoning procedures, incentivizing municipalities that create more units, particularly “middle housing” (2–9 units). Connecticut House Democrats+1

• Candidates supportive of aggressive supply increases will likely commit to:

  • Incentives to municipalities for approving housing.

  • Reform of exclusionary zoning (e.g., allow multi‐family where only singled‐family now permitted).

  • More state funding for housing authorities and new construction.

• On the flip side, candidates cautious of large supply pushes emphasize local control, neighborhood concerns, parking, infrastructure impacts, school load.

Theme 2: Affordable / Workforce Housing

• Beyond just more housing, the focus is shifting to units that middle‐income families can afford (e.g., $30 k–$80 k household incomes) rather than only low‐income or luxury units. The New Britain example illustrates this.

• Legislation such as HB 5002 included large annual grants (≈$50 million) to housing authorities for lowest-income residents. Connecticut House Democrats

• Candidates may differ on how state funds should be directed: rental vs homeownership, tax credits vs direct subsidies, new construction vs preservation of existing affordable units.

Theme 3: Zoning Reform & Local Control Conflict

• One of the most politically charged issues is the tension between state‐level mandates (or incentives) and municipal zoning autonomy. Connecticut has 169 municipalities, each with its own planning and zoning board.

• Many suburban municipalities have resisted reforms that would allow denser housing or reduce parking/parking mandates.

• In July 2025, Lamont and Stewart appeared publicly together, both pointing to a shared belief that “local control” must remain central.

• The bill HB 5002 attempted to require municipalities to allow “middle housing” in commercial zones as a right (“by-right”) and prohibit rejecting developments solely for parking non-conformance. 

• Candidates vary:

  • Some favor strong zoning reform and enforcement of housing supply obligations.

  • Others emphasize preserving municipal discretion and resisting top‐down mandates.

Theme 4: Transit & Infrastructure-Oriented Housing

• Sustainable housing is increasingly seen as housing near transit, walkable neighborhoods, redevelopment of industrial or commercial properties. The New Britain example: former factory converted to 154-unit workforce housing near bus/rail. 

• Candidates supportive of this approach will emphasize transit-oriented development (TOD), improved public transit infrastructure, mixed-use zoning.

• Others may caution about cost and tax effects of such development, or advocate for growth in less‐dense areas.

Theme 5: Preservation & Maintaining Affordability

• Building new units is only part of the story; preserving existing affordable housing and ensuring it remains affordable is also an issue. Many municipalities struggle with older properties losing affordability or being converted.

• Candidates may propose: tax‐incentives for landlords to maintain affordability, tougher rent protections, investment in public housing authority stock, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings.

Theme 6: Accountability & Metrics

• As in the framework above, many policy advocates emphasize tracking metrics: number of units built, average approval times, percentage of municipal housing stock that is affordable, days from permit to occupancy.

• Some candidates promise transparency dashboards, regular reporting of housing supply metrics, and performance-based grants to towns.

• Others may avoid detailed metrics and focus instead on broad goals (e.g., “affordable housing for all”). The difference is likely to show in how credible their policy proposals are.

How the 2026 Elections Could Affect Housing in Connecticut

Scenario A: “Pro-Supply Reform” Outcome

If voters elect a governor (or legislature) committed to aggressive supply reform (e.g., candidates backed by the former HB 5002 framework), then we could expect:

• Municipalities under state incentive pressure to meet housing stock goals (e.g., build X new units in next Y years).

• Reforms to zoning laws, especially for middle housing/shared multifamily units.

• Increased state grants and tax credits for affordable/workforce housing, especially near transit.

• Possibly faster approval/permit timelines and increased construction starts—raising supply and easing upward pressure on rents and home-prices.

This would correspond to improved “metrics” in our framework: higher permit volume, reduced processing times, fewer bottlenecks, stronger developer pipelines.

Scenario B: “Local Control First” Outcome

If the election delivers a governor or legislature more wary of state mandates, emphasizing municipal autonomy (e.g., candidates like Tooker or those emphasizing zoning discretion), then housing policy may tilt toward:

• More modest reform, incremental changes rather than sweeping mandates.

• More incentives and less state-enforced targets.

• Possibly slower expansion of multi-unit housing in more suburban or zoning-resistant towns.

• Approval times may remain long in some jurisdictions; permit volume may rise only in friendly municipalities.

Here, the metrics might show uneven improvement: strong growth in some municipalities, stagnation in others, continued affordability pressure in towns resistant to change.

What Happens Regardless of Outcome

• The underlying affordability crisis will persist unless supply meaningfully expands—and many candidates across the spectrum acknowledge this.

• Municipal collateral issues (infrastructure, schools, parking) will remain part of the debate; no candidate can ignore local resident concerns.

• Housing will be a differentiator in the 2026 campaign—voters are increasingly aware of supply constraints, rent pressures and local zoning battles. As one article noted: “There remains a huge disconnect between what people are experiencing … and how elected officials are dealing with it.” 

• Because housing policy is multi‐level (state/municipal), success will depend on coordination—state funding + municipal zoning + developer pipeline + builder capital. Candidates will need to show an integrated vision, not just a slogan.

A Closer Look: Candidate Comparisons on Housing

Flashpoint issues

• Will the successful candidate push for “by-right” zoning of multi-family units or preserve more discretionary review?

• How much pressure will the state exert on municipalities to hit housing stock targets (10 %, etc.)?

• Will there be expanded state grants/tax credits for affordable/workforce housing and if so, how large and where targeted?

• How will municipal concerns (parking, schools, infrastructure) be balanced with housing expansion?

• What will the timeline for housing approvals be: will we see reforms reducing permit/approval times meaningfully?

What Voters & Stakeholders Should Ask Candidates

If you’re a voter, a housing-consumer, a developer or a community organizer, here are specific questions to pose to candidates in 2026:

1. Supply metrics: What target do you set for additional housing units in Connecticut (next 5 years)? How many will be affordable/workforce units?

2. Permit/approval timelines: Will you reform the housing approval process? What is your goal for average approval time (municipal to start of construction)?

3. Zoning reform: Will you require or incentivize municipalities to allow multi-unit housing (middle housing) as a right? What about parking/height restrictions?

4. Affordable/workforce housing: How will you fund it? What percentage of your housing plan will target households earning $30 k-$80 k/year?

5. Transit/infill focus: How will you direct housing to transit‐oriented zones or under-utilised commercial/industrial sites?

6. Local vs state control: Will municipalities be required to meet housing stock targets? If so, what happens if they don’t?

7. Accountability and data: Will you support a publicly-accessible housing dashboard (permit volume, unit completions, affordability stock)?

8. Preservation of existing units: What is your plan to keep existing affordable housing from being converted out of affordability?

9. Municipal infrastructure burden: How will you address concerns about impact on schools, roads, utilities when housing expands?

10. Stakeholder buy-in: How will your policy engage developers, municipalities, neighborhood groups and renters/homebuyers?

The 2026 mid-term elections in Connecticut will offer a real inflection point for housing policy. Because the supply of housing—particularly affordable and workforce units—is so constrained, the candidate who can credibly articulate how to build more units, shorten approval timelines, maintain municipal buy-in and keep housing affordable will have a strong argument.

From the metrics side: we will watch closely for signs of increased permit filings, shorter processing times, fewer bottlenecks and stronger developer pipelines. From the policy side: we will see how much municipal autonomy is preserved vs how much state mandates or incentives push change.

For Connecticut residents, anywhere from Fairfield County to rural Litchfield, the question is: Will housing become more accessible, more timely, and more affordable? Or will regulatory and zoning inertia continue to slow supply?

As the campaigns unfold, keep one eye on the numbers (units, approvals, timelines) and the other on the promises. Because housing isn’t just a campaign slogan—it affects where people live, how much they pay, and what sort of communities we build for the next generation.