CT Senators Back Bipartisan Housing Bill to Cut Costs

Connecticut’s two U.S. senators voted Thursday to advance a sweeping bipartisan housing bill aimed at easing the country’s supply crunch and bringing down costs for buyers and renters alike, though the legislation faces a rocky road back through the House.

Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy both backed the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” which passed the Senate with broad support. Because the bill was revised from an earlier version that had already cleared both chambers, it returns to the House for another vote, where Republican opposition is expected to be stiffer this time around.

The bill addresses several pressure points in the housing market. It would make it easier to build new homes, create a pilot program to convert vacant and abandoned properties into residential use, and expand access to factory-built manufactured homes. Those measures align closely with what housing advocates in Connecticut have pushed for at the state level for years, as home prices in Fairfield County and beyond have outpaced what working families can afford.

The most politically charged piece of the legislation targets large institutional investors. The bill would bar investors controlling 350 or more housing units from purchasing additional single-family homes. Those investors could still build single-family rentals through build-to-rent arrangements, but they would be required to sell those properties after seven years and give existing renters the first opportunity to buy.

The provision has become a priority for President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order earlier this year directing federal agencies to prioritize individual homebuyers over institutional ones and highlighted the effort during his State of the Union address last month. Trump’s original push was tougher, targeting investors with 100 or more units rather than the 350-unit threshold that landed in the final bill.

Blumenthal framed the investor restrictions in stark terms while speaking on Park Street in Hartford earlier this week. “These corporate interests, unfortunately, have diminished the supply of housing, increased its cost and made it less accessible,” he said. “No longer should corporate institutions exploit single-family housing, raising the price of housing for everyone.”

Murphy’s path to a yes vote was more complicated. On several procedural votes leading up to final passage, he voted against the measure, not because of the bill’s substance but as a protest against the ongoing U.S. military engagement with Iran. Murphy eventually flipped those procedural votes and backed final passage.

“I’m voting for the bill on the merits, but I voted against the procedural motions because I wanted to send a message that our priority should be debating this illegal war as it spins out of control,” Murphy told reporters Wednesday after switching his position on two procedural votes.

The bill’s bipartisan support in the Senate is notable given how rarely the two parties agree on major legislation. The original versions of the bill drew overwhelming backing in both chambers. But the revised bill now faces fresh skepticism from House Republicans who want further changes. Trump’s focus has also shifted toward a voting bill he wants Congress to take up immediately, which could reduce the political momentum behind the housing measure.

For Connecticut residents, affordability is not an abstract concern. Home prices across Fairfield County have remained stubbornly high, and rental markets in cities like Bridgeport, Stamford, and New Haven have tightened significantly over the past several years. The federal bill, if it clears the House, would layer onto efforts at the state level to encourage denser construction and reduce zoning barriers.

Whether the House moves quickly is an open question. Republican members who supported earlier drafts have already signaled they want revisions before signing on again, and competing legislative priorities could push the housing bill down the calendar.

Blumenthal and Murphy would have to keep pressure on House counterparts to move the bill forward without gutting its core provisions. That includes the investor restrictions, which have become the legislation’s most visible selling point in a political environment where the cost of living has dominated voter concerns heading into the midterm cycle.