The Connecticut Bills That Didn’t Make It in 2025

The Connecticut State Capitol in Hartford, where key housing reform bills stalled during the 2025 legislative session.

As Connecticut’s housing crisis deepens, several high-profile efforts to expand tenant protections and reform local zoning laws failed to gain traction during the 2025 legislative session. Despite widespread recognition of the state’s growing housing shortfall—estimated at over 110,000 units—key bills that aimed to address affordability, stability, and accountability ultimately stalled.

Here’s a closer look at the most significant housing-related proposals that didn’t pass, how far they advanced, and the political dynamics that blocked them.

Just-Cause Eviction Protections

At the top of many tenant advocacy agendas was a bill to establish just-cause eviction protections, which would have prohibited landlords from removing tenants without a valid legal reason—such as nonpayment of rent or lease violations.

Progress: The measure was introduced and discussed in both chambers but never advanced to a full vote. Despite strong support from housing advocates, it encountered unified opposition from landlord groups who argued it infringed on property rights and could deter investment in rental housing.

Why it failed: Legislative leaders cited concerns about the bill’s potential to create legal ambiguity and unintended financial consequences. Without a compromise between landlord and tenant stakeholders, the proposal remained stuck in political limbo.

Fair Rent Commissions & Rental Assistance Expansion

Another proposal aimed to boost housing equity by mandating fair rent commissions in every municipality—building on a law that previously required them only in towns with populations over 25,000. The bill also included provisions to expand rental assistance and even pilot mortgage relief for student loan borrowers.

Progress: The bill cleared the Housing Committee but failed to gain further momentum.

Why it failed: Budgetary constraints and concerns about imposing state mandates on small towns without sufficient funding contributed to its downfall. Legislators also faced pushback from municipalities worried about administrative burdens and perceived loss of autonomy.

Affordable Housing Appeals Penalty (HB 6126)

This bill would have added enforcement teeth to the state's long-standing Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure (8-30g) by penalizing municipalities that repeatedly failed to meet housing development benchmarks.

Progress: Though discussed during early session debates, HB 6126 never advanced past the initial committee stage.

Why it failed: The proposal met fierce resistance from local governments and home-rule defenders who argued that state-imposed penalties would be punitive and counterproductive. There were also concerns about how such penalties would be implemented and adjudicated.

Multi-Family Zoning Protection

This bill sought to prevent municipalities from enacting blanket bans on multi-family housing developments, a key strategy to increase housing density and affordability.

Progress: The bill passed the House with a 94–54 vote but was never taken up in the Senate.

Why it failed: Intense pressure from local officials and homeowner groups, combined with legislative caution around zoning mandates, led to its quiet demise.

Mobile Home Resident Protections (HB 5428)

Targeted specifically at mobile home communities, HB 5428 aimed to enhance protections for residents by increasing relocation payments and requiring clearer disclosure of fees.

Progress: The House approved the bill after removing caps on miscellaneous fees, but the Senate did not act on it.

Why it failed: The bill’s scaled-down scope and lack of high-profile sponsorship likely contributed to its low priority in the Senate’s final agenda.

“Towns Take the Lead” Zoning Reform

This comprehensive zoning reform bill would have offered financial incentives to towns that pursued local housing reforms, including allowing mixed-use developments, removing minimum parking mandates, and promoting transit-oriented housing.

Progress: Despite support from housing advocates, the bill was delayed due to a threatened Republican filibuster and ultimately expired before a vote could be held.

Why it failed: The bill’s sweeping nature, combined with political friction and a crowded legislative calendar, made it too heavy a lift for 2025.

What These Failures Reveal

While each of these bills addressed different facets of Connecticut’s housing problem, they shared common obstacles:

• Strong resistance from local governments.

• Legislative reluctance to enforce mandates.

• Political fragmentation between House and Senate leaders.

Notably, many of the bills that failed had substantial public backing and the support of housing experts. Yet, in nearly every case, local control advocates prevailed.

Looking Ahead to 2026

Several of these measures are expected to return next year—possibly with revisions to ease political concerns. Rising public frustration, coupled with stagnant housing growth and affordability challenges, may drive a shift in legislative willingness to tackle structural reforms.

Conclusion

Connecticut’s 2025 legislative session offered no shortage of bold ideas to fix the housing crisis—but most of them never made it to law. As renters struggle, housing advocates regroup, and towns resist change, the battle for affordable, accessible housing is far from over.

Need help navigating Connecticut’s complex housing market? Whether you're renting, buying, selling, or investing, contact us below for expert assistance in finding your next home—or your next opportunity.