"I swore this would never happen to me," is what a young friend prefaced to me before she announced that she was buying a house in Montville. I've had similar conversations like this. I'll ask, "Would you ever move back to Montville?" An instantaneous look of "Are you kidding me?" smacks onto their faces as they tell me they could never do it. They won't ever do it.

Young people have a problem with Montville. And Montville has a problem without young people.

In Montville, the population aged between 25 and 34 has been declining. According to our 2021 town plan, between the years 1990 and 2010, this age group declined by 47%. During that same period, the number of people aged 75-84 more than doubled, while the number of people aged 85 and above nearly quadrupled. Meanwhile, Montville's school population has declined significantly — a trend that continues today.

These demographic shifts should be troubling. Montville should be welcoming to people of all ages, including the elderly. But it should make a more concerted effort to attract young people. Young adults bring economic opportunity, local businesses, and their children's school enrollment numbers. If we don't seek to attract this population, we ultimately limit the town's prosperity.

So, what's turning young people off? It's the lack of a town center, my friends tell me, or the fact that we don't have a walkable shopping district. We'll talk about the littering of Route 32 with multiple versions of the same unhealthy fast-food chains. But the point that we always come back to is the lack of affordable housing. The state Department of Housing reports that only 5.48% of Montville's housing stock is affordable. Without affordable housing, young people will never be able to afford to live in Montville.

Last week, the Planning and Zoning Commission had a chance to address these concerns. At that meeting, the commission addressed a provision in Public Act 21-29, a new law requiring towns to advance equity in their zoning laws and permit accessory dwelling units. The bill was put forth by DesegregateCT, a coalition advocating for more equitable, affordable, and sustainable land use policies in Connecticut. One of the things the state law did was legalize accessory dwelling units (or ADUs).

ADUs are independent living spaces within or detached from single family homes. ADUs are significantly relevant to Montville because the vast majority of occupied housing stock is comprised of single-family housing, and 81% of all housing is owner-occupied. ADUs can help homeowners increase their real estate value. At the same time, they can broaden the town's tax base while providing more housing opportunities in space already occupied.

Instead of embracing the spirit and purpose of the law, the commission voted to opt out of the law promoting accessory dwelling units. At the same time, Town Planner Liz Burdick accused a young pro-homes advocate of "trolling" the commission, a comment she has since walked back.

I reached out to Town Planner Burdick about the decision, and she relayed to me the decision was made due to a recommendation from the town attorney, who found the provision too vague. That reasoning seemed strange since Montville's ADU law is nearly identical to the state law, according to the Connecticut Zoning Atlas. She also told me that her office is working diligently to advance the cause of affordable housing, a fact that is evident by Montville's adoption of policies designed to increase the supply of affordable and workforce housing.  But I was really disappointed in the disdain towards the advocate, and the fact that the commission took their vote without having a single member of the public speak.

If Montville seeks to attain a younger population, it needs to continue its focus on zoning reform and attracting an array of developers to the area that will build homes and developments that young people want to live in and around. It should increase its public outreach and projects devoted towards attracting young people, like creating more walkable spaces, or providing incentives to local business owners instead of permitting corporations from cluttering Route 32.

I'd also like to see an increase in transparency by communicating through social media the development and decisions Montville has been making. We shouldn't have to hear about important decisions affecting the future of the town after the fact.

However, the onus is not all on the town. Younger people who seek to live here must take on a stronger role in advocating for their future as it relates to affordable housing and creating a desirable living community. An abysmal 28.22% of registered voters in Montville voted in last year's municipal election, and I bet only a few of them were under age 50. If young people do not vocalize their opinions and get more politically involved, Montville will remain stagnant. We have to be louder than those who don't care that they're driving us away.

Becca Carroll is a 25-year-old resident of Montville.