In my last column, I argued that Connecticut’s culture of reflexive opposition to development — NIMBYism — is undermining the state’s economic competitiveness.
It shows up across a wide range of proposals — from multifamily housing and warehouse and logistics projects to renewable energy installations, telecom infrastructure and data centers — developments with real economic upside and impacts that can often be managed.
Of course, identifying the problem is the easy part. Fixing it is harder.
There is no single policy lever that will suddenly turn every “no” into a “yes.” Local land-use decisions are inherently complicated, emotional and deeply tied to community identity.
But if Connecticut is serious about growth, there are practical steps that could help shift the system from obstruction toward problem-solving.
One place to start is with the people making the decisions.
Mike Goman, who leads advisory and development services at Goman+York Property Advisors LLC, has spent years working with communities in Connecticut and around the country on town center master plans and zoning updates. His firm’s work regularly puts it at the intersection of local boards, residents and developers — the front lines of land-use conflict.
He offered several recommendations aimed at making the local approval process more consistent and less adversarial.
In Connecticut, many land-use commissioners are volunteers with little or no formal background in planning, zoning law or economic development. Yet they are asked to interpret complex regulations, weigh expert testimony and make decisions with long-term consequences for a town’s tax base and housing supply.
Goman argues that stronger, more practical education for commissioners — particularly around economic impacts and the legal limits of local authority — could help boards avoid common procedural mistakes and reduce unnecessary conflict.
Connecticut law already requires planning and zoning commissioners and zoning board of appeals members to complete at least four hours of land-use training, including instruction on affordable and fair housing, a mandate that took effect in 2022.
Even still, Goman said some questionable practices persist simply because applicants are reluctant to challenge boards they may appear before again.
Another idea focuses not on boards, but on the broader public narrative around growth.
The state has invested in marketing campaigns to promote tourism, pizza and quality of life. Goman suggests Connecticut could also invest in a public-facing effort that explains the benefits of well-planned development: stronger town centers, a broader tax base, more housing options for young professionals and seniors, and the ability to support local services without leaning so heavily on homeowners.
That might sound like soft policy, but perception matters.
In many public hearings, growth is too often framed in terms of traffic, parking and change. Residents don’t always get a clear explanation of the fiscal and economic consequences of saying no — higher residential tax burdens, fewer local jobs and less vitality in commercial districts.
Developers, for their part, have been adapting. It’s increasingly common in Connecticut for project teams to include public relations or lobbying consultants — often working behind the scenes — alongside engineers and architects. Community outreach, message framing and political strategy have become standard line items.
That may help individual projects, but it also raises costs — costs that ultimately get built into rents, home prices or commercial lease rates. A system that requires political and PR spending just to get routine projects approved is not an efficient one.
At the policy level, the state has also begun to respond. The new housing law adopted last year requires municipalities to plan in advance for where housing should go, links some state funding to measurable progress and creates more predictable approval pathways in designated transit-oriented areas.
For example, within transit-oriented districts, towns must permit, as of right, the conversion of commercial properties into qualifying housing developments, reducing reliance on discretionary hearings. That shift is particularly relevant at a time when the office market is struggling and landlords are seeking new uses for underutilized properties.
Still, Connecticut’s tradition of local control isn’t going away, nor should it. Local knowledge matters, and not every project belongs everywhere.
But local control works best when it’s paired with a mindset of problem-solving rather than risk avoidance.
Training commissioners, improving the public conversation about growth and creating clearer, more predictable rules are not silver bullets. But they are steps toward a system where saying “yes, with conditions” becomes more common than saying “no” by default.
Editor’s note: This column has been updated to clarify that Connecticut law requires land-use training for planning and zoning commissioners and zoning board of appeals members.
