When multifamily housing is discussed during the public portion of Connecticut municipal agency meetings, the topic that attracts the most attention is parking.

The argument goes that residents of multifamily housing will need more automobile parking spaces than the agency anticipates and provision should be made for additional land to be allocated to parking. The corollary of this argument, of course, is that, given that the subject parcel of land has already been delimited, less of that land should be allowed for structural purposes and, it follows, fewer apartment dwellers should be accommodated.

Analysis of town zoning regulations in Connecticut demonstrates that towns have long applied rules that require significantly more real estate to be allocated for multifamily parking than is actually needed. The effect of this misallocation is to constrain the development of multifamily housing, raise its cost, and, overall, to make it a less desirable investment for potential developers.

I examined the parking rules, space sizes, and allocation rates for each of the 15 towns in the South Central Council of Governments. These towns include populations ranging from about 5,000 to 134,000 and land areas ranging from just under 11 square miles to over 47 square miles.  There appears no reason to believe that the SCCOG is other than a representative sample of most towns in Connecticut, especially so with regard to their parking space allocation rules.

Each town sets out not only its minimum parking space requirements for various purposes, such as single family, commercial, and in most cases, multifamily. Some towns exclude any general multifamily zoning rules, referencing the rural character of their enclave. Towns also specify the dimensions of what constitutes a parking space, generally ranging from 162 to 220 square feet.

Zoning regulations typically prescribe the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit, with two spaces required for each detached single family residence and some other number of spaces required for each multifamily dwelling unit. This number ranges from one in New Haven to as high as 2.5 in other towns. In some locations, the regulations require additional visitor parking be provided at a rate based on the number of resident spaces.

The number of occupied multifamily dwelling units ranges from none in one town to 29,000 in New Haven. My calculations take into account the number of parking spaces required, using each town’s individual algorithm. The number of required spaces translates into land area that must be allocated to parking for each use. Hence, with a constant requirement of two spaces for each single family residence and, in many cases, more than two spaces required for each apartment unit, we can begin to apprehend the latent inequality.

The number of automobiles owned (and, thereby, parking spaces required) by residents of single-family and multifamily dwellings is a matter of record and has been studied in detail. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has calculated that residents of single family homes own an average of 2.34 cars per household, while apartment dwellers own 1.36 cars. To put it concisely, municipal zoning rules require far fewer spaces than are actually needed for single family homes, but far more parking spaces than needed for multifamily homes.

The magnitude of the impact of the parking space allocation rules works out to present an extraordinary economic effect. Collectively the difference between the parking area the ITE calculates as actually needed for single family residences in the 15 towns in the SCCOG and the area required by the zoning rules is a negative 7.138 million square feet, or 164 acres. The difference between the parking area needed and the area required by zoning for apartments is 7.365 million square feet or 169.1 acres.

That this imbalance occurs on an almost one-for-one basis suggests that this outcome is not some unintended consequence of rule making, but, rather, a deliberate shift of the burden of this additional requirement away from single family homeowners and on to apartment dwellers. In effect, the towns impose a tax on renters.

To provide perspective, when we weight the average space by town land area, the weighted average excess land required for multifamily parking is 13 acres per town and the single family advantage is just over 11 acres. Again, the symmetry of the allocation suggests this outcome — that residents of apartments should subsidize the cost of real estate for homeowners — is not merely an arithmetic coincidence.

The advantage provided to residents of single family homes is realized by them not just in lower property costs, but in disproportionately low property taxes. Apartment tenants pay their share of the property tax in their rent and that share is demonstrably higher than that of other town residents, because, in large part, of their obligation to support excess parking spaces. Renters in each town might imagine the 13 acres of land in their town that they are paying for but whose value cannot be enjoyed by them. Elected municipal leaders might imagine how this excess space could be more productively deployed.

So long as zoning requirements inadequately related to the realities they purport to regulate are in effect, this unfair tax and brake on local economic development will continue.

Dan Smolnik is a tax attorney and a member of the Hamden Economic Development Commission. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Economic Development Association (CEDAS). The opinions expressed herein are solely his.