In many places the housing shortage isn’t abstract—it’s in contentious public meetings. Easton and Trumbull, Connecticut, are the latest flashpoint. A developer is proposing a 70-unit apartment complex (and a few townhouses) under the state’s 8-30g affordable housing statute. Because that law lets developers bypass some local zoning restrictions in towns with under 10% affordable housing, it’s often used to force through much-needed housing. But locals are pushing back hard. Critics say the proposal is “excessively dense,” “out of place,” and damaging to character. They worry about traffic, visual mass, infrastructure strain, and potential environmental impacts. Supporters counter that the location—close to amenities and transit—makes it appropriate, and that the affordable component (30%) meets a real need. This clash gets to the heart of democratic planning: who decides what “affordable” looks like? Whose comfort holds weight when upzoning meets established place norms? More so, it raises the question: how can state laws like 8-30g be used more fairly, so towns aren’t forced to choose between generational affordability and preserving what they like about their neighborhoods? For planners, the lesson is clear: design and scale matter as much as legal leverage. An affordable project can fail public acceptance if it doesn’t respect context and visibly address impacts. Where laws force supply, good design and community engagement can make or break the outcome.

Read full article here.