Even a fairly short drive along the side roads and byways of any suburban town in the region reveals the predominant state of housing in southeastern Connecticut and much of the state. Neighborhoods of large houses separated from one another by vast lawns.

For those who live in such neighborhoods, large homes on large lots may seem the epitome of the American Dream. The uglier truth, however, is that too many Connecticut residents for too long have been shut out of home ownership and too many struggle to pay market-rate rents. This is largely because of restrictive zoning that encourages large-lot, single-family development. It results in much of the state’s housing being a financial pipe dream for low- and even moderate-income residents. This includes many young people who may want to live in the town in which they grew up, and those who work in such vital professions as teaching, firefighting and law enforcement.

High property costs and restrictive zoning regulations make it next to impossible, even should developers desire to do so, to build more affordable housing such as duplex and multi-family units, clustered housing or smaller homes on smaller lots.

Affordable housing in Connecticut remains overwhelmingly concentrated in urban centers and poorer communities.

Despite a more than 30-year-old law mandating that 10% of each town’s housing qualify as affordable, proposals to develop such housing consistently face stiff opposition from neighbors. Often such opposition — pointing to concerns about traffic, or a drag on property values, or increased demand for town services — is only thinly veiled racism and classism.

We’ve long advocated for municipal officials to do the right thing by supporting the development of affordable housing in their communities. We’ve also editorialized in favor of several specific development proposals in towns ranging from Old Lyme to Stonington. So, we are heartened that affordable housing advocates are again bringing the problem of Connecticut’s housing haves and have-nots to the forefront. Perhaps one of these efforts may finally provide town officials the motivation to identify appropriate places in their communities for affordable housing and to actively advocate for its development.

The Open Communities Alliance, for example, has developed what it’s calling a Fair Share Housing model. The group has calculated the specific number of affordable housing units each town in the state should work toward developing over a 10-year period. The calculations are based on a formula that looks at factors including poverty rates and median income levels and show that almost every town has much work to do.

Another group, called Desegregate Connecticut, has transformed volumes of data on zoning regulations into a state map that quickly illustrates how zoning regulations throughout the state make it difficult, if not impossible, to develop affordable housing in most towns.

Gov. Lamont and the legislature could use these reports and ideas to fuel a conversation about affordable housing this session.

However, the problem we see with both these efforts, and with past ones, is that an effective incentive for local officials to do the right thing is missing, as are penalties for failing to do so. Only if the legislature includes enticements, such as the promise of financial support, and penalties enforceable by the attorney general, might these measures result in actual housing for real people.

And then there is the power of the courts.

The Open Communities Alliance is involved in a court case against the town of Woodbridge that gets at the crux of restrictive land-use regulations. Open Communities Trust has purchased property in the town located northwest of New Haven and is seeking to build a small development offering a mix of affordable and market-rate housing. The Alliance, in partnership with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services organization at Yale Law School, in September submitted an application to the town’s zoning board asking that zoning regulations and the Plan of Conservation and Development be amended to allow multi-family housing.

If the application is rejected locally, the Alliance will have a court case and the potential for a ruling that could enforce the state’s long-standing, but so far ineffective, affordable housing law.

Opponents fear the case could have a broad-based impact on local control of development issues. This is all the more reason to adopt workable affordable housing policies before the courts force compliance.

But perhaps a court directive is the only way to actually get more affordable housing in Connecticut.

In the meantime, we urge lawmakers to seriously consider steps that could finally give low- and moderate-income families some housing relief. We likewise urge local officials to end their knee-jerk opposition to such efforts.

The Day editorial board meets with political, business and community leaders to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Timothy Dwyer, Executive Editor Izaskun E. Larraneta, Owen Poole, copy editor, and Lisa McGinley, retired deputy managing editor. The board operates independently from The Day newsroom.