Connecticut · individual fact

Connecticut housing and borrowing

Home values, gross rent, homeownership, housing cost burdens, and the pressure from prices and incomes.

Median owner-occupied home value$366.9K2020–2024 · #18 of 50 · highest first
Median gross rent$1.49K2020–2024 · #16 of 50 · highest first
Homeownership rate66.5%2020–2024 · #35 of 50 · highest first

Connecticut over time

Explore Connecticut readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Connecticut officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Connecticut effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Connecticut change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

Home-price growth since 2016 Connecticut · source units
ConnecticutPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

Home-price growth since 20162025: +79.8%-9.6%+39.9%+89.4%Connecticut, 2016: +0%Connecticut, 2017: +1.2%Connecticut, 2018: +2.6%Connecticut, 2019: +5.5%Connecticut, 2020: +10.7%Connecticut, 2021: +26.7%Connecticut, 2022: +43.9%Connecticut, 2023: +56.5%Connecticut, 2024: +70.6%Connecticut, 2025: +79.8%201620202025
✦ Major events & context · 26National context · Housing downturn and the Great Recession · 2007-12-01Great RecessionNational context · Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conservatorships announced · 2008-09-07Mortgage conservatorshipNational context · Federal Reserve announces agency mortgage-bond purchases · 2008-11-25Mortgage-bond purchasesNational context · Making Home Affordable modification guidelines released · 2009-03-04Mortgage relief guidelinesNational context · Federal Reserve announces another round of mortgage-bond purchases · 2012-09-13Further mortgage supportNational context · Federal Reserve announces slower bond purchases · 2013-12-18Bond purchases slowNational context · Ability-to-Repay mortgage standards take effect · 2014-01-10Mortgage lending standardsNational context · Federal Reserve raises its target above the near-zero range · 2015-12-16Rates leave near zeroNational context · Pandemic shock and emergency mortgage-market support · 2020-03-15COVID-19 / Fed responseNational context · CARES Act introduces mortgage and renter protections · 2020-03-27CARES housing reliefNational context · CDC eviction moratorium takes effect · 2020-09-04CDC eviction protectionsNational context · Treasury launches Emergency Rental Assistance · 2021-01-05Rental assistance launchesNational context · American Rescue Plan funds additional housing assistance · 2021-03-11Additional housing reliefNational context · Supreme Court blocks the renewed CDC eviction moratorium · 2021-08-26CDC moratorium blockedNational context · Federal Reserve begins the 2022 rate-increase cycle · 2022-03-16Rate increases beginNational context · Federal Reserve begins reducing its securities holdings · 2022-06-01Fed holdings begin shrinkingNational context · Freddie Mac changes mortgage-rate measurement · 2022-11-17Mortgage survey updateNational context · Average 30-year mortgage rate reaches 7.79% · 2023-10-26Mortgage rates reach 7.79%National context · Federal Reserve lowers its policy-rate target · 2024-09-18Policy-rate cutNational context · Federal Reserve ends the reduction of total securities holdings · 2025-12-01Fed runoff endsNational context · Federal Reserve cuts its target to 3.50–3.75% · 2025-12-10Further policy-rate cutNational context · Executive order targets federal support for institutional home purchases · 2026-01-20Institutional-buyer orderNational context · Executive order directs review of home-construction barriers · 2026-03-13Home-construction reviewNational context · Executive order directs review of mortgage-credit rules · 2026-03-13Mortgage-credit reviewNational context · 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act becomes law · 2026-07-11ROAD housing lawNational context · Federal Reserve holds its target at 3.50–3.75% · 2026-07-29Policy rate held steady● Connecticut Legislature · 2● U.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · 2◆ Governor · 2■ Connecticut agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2007-12-012026-07-31

6 of 6 reviewed Connecticut actions match · 6 date markers shown. 26 major events shown separately.

Connecticut · 2025: +79.8% · Rank #33 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: Not available

FactVote averages the four quarterly, not-seasonally-adjusted FHFA all-transactions HPI observations for each year. It compares that series with BEA annual per-capita personal income distributed by FRED, then rebases both to 100 in 2016. This is a pressure indicator, not a home-price-to-income ratio and not a measure of monthly mortgage affordability. Both series are nominal; neither is adjusted for inflation. Per-capita personal income includes earnings, property income, and transfers and is not median household income. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
Connecticut Home-price growth since 2016 · source units
PeriodConnecticutRankU.S. benchmark
2025+79.8%#33 of 50Not available
2024+70.6%#32 of 50Not available
2023+56.5%#39 of 50Not available
2022+43.9%#42 of 50Not available
2021+26.7%#43 of 50Not available
2020+10.7%#45 of 50Not available
2019+5.5%#49 of 50Not available
2018+2.6%#48 of 50Not available
2017+1.2%#47 of 50Not available
2016+0%#1 of 50Not available
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

Connecticut · state comparison

Home values, rent, and homeownership

Census values are estimates for occupied housing, rather than current listing or sale prices.

Connecticut · 2020–2024$366,900
Connecticut rank#18among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$332,700Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Median owner-occupied home value

Median reported value of owner-occupied housing.

2024 dollars; a higher value can benefit owners and make buying harder.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.

Lower value · $162.6KHigher value · $839.1KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Connecticut · $366,9002020–2024 · Rank #18 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Median owner-occupied home value · 2020–2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Hawaii$839,100—
#2California$734,700—
#3Washington$564,600—
#4Massachusetts$562,100—
#5Colorado$539,400—
#6Utah$489,400—
#7Oregon$477,600—
#8New Jersey$454,400—
#9Nevada$435,400—
#10New York$423,800—
#11Maryland$419,900—
#12Idaho$418,600—
#13Rhode Island$404,200—
#14New Hampshire$402,500—
#15Arizona$394,500—
#16Virginia$383,700—
#17Montana$375,800—
#18Connecticut · your comparison$366,900—
#19Florida$359,000—
#20Alaska$352,900—
#21Delaware$352,000—
#22Minnesota$329,300—
#23Vermont$316,600—
#24Wyoming$309,700—
#25Georgia$303,300—
#26Maine$296,600—
#27North Carolina$288,900—
#28Tennessee$286,700—
#29Texas$283,800—
#30Wisconsin$266,500—
#31Illinois$263,300—
#32South Carolina$259,000—
#33South Dakota$257,400—
#34Pennsylvania$254,500—
#35North Dakota$249,900—
#36New Mexico$248,100—
#37Nebraska$238,600—
#38Michigan$231,600—
#39Missouri$230,300—
#40Indiana$218,200—
#41Kansas$217,200—
#42Louisiana$216,500—
#43Ohio$214,800—
#44Alabama$209,900—
#45Iowa$208,000—
#46Kentucky$205,600—
#47Oklahoma$199,800—
#48Arkansas$188,000—
#49Mississippi$169,800—
#50West Virginia$162,600—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Median gross rent

$1,488/month2020–2024 estimate

Median monthly gross rent for renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent, including contract rent plus estimated average utility and fuel costs paid by the renter.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the American Community Survey 2020–2024 five-year estimate and expressed in 2024 dollars.

  • This is a multi-year statewide estimate, not a current asking-rent measure.
  • The median obscures differences by location, unit size, housing quality, and renter circumstances.
Connecticut · state comparison

How much income goes toward housing?

Compare moderate-or-severe and severe housing cost burdens for three distinct housing groups.

Connecticut · 2020–202452.6%
Connecticut rank#7among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark51.1%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Renters · spending at least 30% of income

Housing costs as a share of household income, excluding households for which a ratio cannot be computed.

Renters and owners have separate denominators. Ratios use the Census computed-income universe.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.

Lower value · 38.9%Higher value · 60.1%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Connecticut · 52.6%2020–2024 · Rank #7 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Renters · spending at least 30% of income · 2020–2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Florida60.1%—
#2Hawaii56.7%—
#3Nevada55.9%—
#4California55.3%—
#5Louisiana54.8%—
#6Colorado52.9%—
#7Connecticut · your comparison52.6%—
#8Oregon52.5%—
#9Georgia52.4%—
#10South Carolina52.1%—
#11New York52.1%—
#12Massachusetts51.8%—
#13Texas51.7%—
#14New Jersey51.6%—
#15Maryland51.5%—
#16Arizona51.4%—
#17Mississippi51.3%—
#18Michigan50.4%—
#19New Mexico50.2%—
#20Washington49.9%—
#21Delaware49.6%—
#22North Carolina48.9%—
#23West Virginia48.9%—
#24Tennessee48.8%—
#25Alabama48.8%—
#26Virginia48.5%—
#27Maine48.4%—
#28Vermont48.4%—
#29New Hampshire48.2%—
#30Pennsylvania48.2%—
#31Minnesota48.1%—
#32Indiana48.1%—
#33Rhode Island48%—
#34Illinois47.9%—
#35Utah47.2%—
#36Idaho46.9%—
#37Oklahoma46.3%—
#38Ohio45.9%—
#39Missouri45.6%—
#40Kentucky45.4%—
#41Nebraska45.1%—
#42Arkansas44.8%—
#43Montana44.8%—
#44Alaska44.6%—
#45Iowa43.9%—
#46Wisconsin43.7%—
#47Kansas43.5%—
#48Wyoming43.1%—
#49South Dakota39.8%—
#50North Dakota38.9%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Connecticut · state comparison

Home prices versus income growth

Both series start at 100 in 2016. The gap describes price pressure; it is not a mortgage payment or a price-to-income ratio.

Connecticut · 2025+79.8%
Connecticut rank#33among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Home-price growth since 2016

FactVote averages the four quarterly, not-seasonally-adjusted FHFA all-transactions HPI observations for each year. It compares that series with BEA annual per-capita personal income distributed by FRED, then rebases both to 100 in 2016.

This is a pressure indicator, not a home-price-to-income ratio and not a measure of monthly mortgage affordability. Both series are nominal; neither is adjusted for inflation. Per-capita personal income includes earnings, property income, and transfers and is not median household income.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Connecticut
Home-price growth since 2016 history in Connecticut-12%+39.9%+91.8%20162025
2025 · Connecticut: +79.8% · Rank #33 of 50, highest first · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Connecticut Home-price growth since 2016 history
PeriodConnecticutCompare
2016+0%
2017+1.2%
2018+2.6%
2019+5.5%
2020+10.7%
2021+26.7%
2022+43.9%
2023+56.5%
2024+70.6%
2025+79.8%

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.

Lower value · +38.2%Higher value · +141.7%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Connecticut · +79.8%2025 · Rank #33 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at the index base (0% growth); #1 means the highest value.

Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Home-price growth since 2016 · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Idaho+141.7%—
#2Florida+114.5%—
#3Maine+113.7%—
#4Utah+113.6%—
#5Tennessee+112.4%—
#6Arizona+112.3%—
#7New Hampshire+110.1%—
#8Rhode Island+108%—
#9Georgia+107.6%—
#10North Carolina+107.1%—
#11Montana+106.7%—
#12Nevada+106.1%—
#13South Carolina+105.5%—
#14Washington+100.2%—
#15Indiana+94.5%—
#16Wisconsin+94%—
#17Michigan+93.7%—
#18Ohio+93.3%—
#19Vermont+92.6%—
#20New Jersey+88.9%—
#21Missouri+86.9%—
#22New York+85.9%—
#23Nebraska+84.6%—
#24Massachusetts+84.3%—
#24South Dakota+84.3%—
#26Texas+83.3%—
#27Kentucky+83.2%—
#28Colorado+83.1%—
#29Kansas+82.5%—
#30New Mexico+82.3%—
#31Alabama+81.3%—
#32Arkansas+80.8%—
#33Connecticut · your comparison+79.8%—
#34Pennsylvania+78.4%—
#35Virginia+76.5%—
#36Delaware+75.4%—
#37Oregon+74.7%—
#38California+72.7%—
#39Oklahoma+71.9%—
#40Minnesota+70%—
#41Wyoming+69.3%—
#42Illinois+65.3%—
#43Iowa+64.2%—
#44Mississippi+63.9%—
#45Hawaii+63%—
#46Maryland+59.4%—
#47West Virginia+58.6%—
#48Alaska+51.9%—
#49North Dakota+45.9%—
#50Louisiana+38.2%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Connecticut · state comparison

Construction, availability, and borrowing

State building activity, vacant units, mortgage performance, and borrowing rates are different measures.

Connecticut · 20257,273
Connecticut rank#38among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark1,431,616Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Total housing units authorized

New privately owned housing units authorized by building permits; final annual, not seasonally adjusted.

A permit is authorization, not a start or completed home. Absolute counts reflect the size of a state. Units in permit-issuing places; excludes public housing.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.

Lower value · 848Higher value · 210,217Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Connecticut · 7,2732025 · Rank #38 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Total housing units authorized · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas210,217—
#2Florida178,297—
#3California103,856—
#4North Carolina86,167—
#5Georgia61,196—
#6Arizona51,532—
#7South Carolina45,862—
#8Tennessee43,374—
#9New York38,667—
#10Washington34,913—
#11Colorado33,754—
#12Ohio33,640—
#13Virginia33,094—
#14Indiana29,076—
#15New Jersey27,661—
#16Utah26,775—
#17Pennsylvania25,709—
#18Wisconsin25,569—
#19Michigan23,075—
#20Minnesota20,947—
#21Alabama19,061—
#22Illinois18,551—
#23Nevada18,540—
#24Idaho17,944—
#25Missouri17,474—
#26Oklahoma15,513—
#27Arkansas15,492—
#28Kentucky14,940—
#29Oregon14,839—
#30Louisiana14,203—
#31Iowa13,664—
#32Maryland13,358—
#33Massachusetts12,477—
#34Nebraska10,596—
#35Kansas10,299—
#36Mississippi8,405—
#37New Mexico7,747—
#38Connecticut · your comparison7,273—
#39Maine6,979—
#40Delaware6,468—
#41South Dakota5,305—
#42Montana5,258—
#43New Hampshire5,030—
#44West Virginia3,962—
#45Hawaii3,708—
#46North Dakota2,440—
#47Vermont2,294—
#48Wyoming2,238—
#49Rhode Island1,738—
#50Alaska848—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about housing, rent, homeownership and borrowing costs from FactVote’s Connecticut candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

28 statements from 12 candidates

2026 Connecticut Attorney General — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

William Tong

1 statement

Democratic · Attorney General · CT

Housing & homeownership

Attorney General William Tong today joined a bipartisan coalition of 16 other attorneys general in opposing the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (Clarity Act). In a letter sent to Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren, Chair and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Page 1 of 108

Candidate campaign source

Attorney General William Tong today joined a bipartisan coalition of 16 other attorneys general in opposing the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (Clarity Act). In a letter sent to Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren, Chair and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Attorney General Tong and the coalition warn that the Clarity Act would jeopardize their ability to protect investors from rampant digital cryptocurrency fraud and scams.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

William Tong campaign source 6 ↗

2026 Connecticut Governor — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 7 statements

Ned Lamont

5 statements

Democratic · Governor · CT

Housing & homeownership

Supporting workforce and middle-income housing

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing affordability

Candidate campaign source

Supporting workforce and middle-income housing

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Ned Lamont — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
View 4 more statements from Ned Lamont
Housing & homeownership

Housing affordability is one of the biggest challenges facing Connecticut families. Governor Lamont is committed to increasing housing opportunities while working collaboratively with communities to ensure smart, responsible growth. More housing means lower costs for all Connecticut residents.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing affordability

Candidate campaign source

Housing affordability is one of the biggest challenges facing Connecticut families. Governor Lamont is committed to increasing housing opportunities while working collaboratively with communities to ensure smart, responsible growth. More housing means lower costs for all Connecticut residents.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Ned Lamont — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Housing & homeownership

Reduce transportation emissions, combining electrification whenever possible with Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). We are rethinking our cities, helping towns build dense, walkable, mixed-income housing around our major rail and bus hubs.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing affordability

Candidate campaign source

Reduce transportation emissions, combining electrification whenever possible with Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). We are rethinking our cities, helping towns build dense, walkable, mixed-income housing around our major rail and bus hubs.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Ned Lamont — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Housing & homeownership

Governor Lamont’s forward agenda will continue focusing on lowering costs and making life more affordable for working families across Connecticut. Childcare, healthcare, housing, and education are essential building blocks for a strong economy and stronger communities.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Governor Lamont’s forward agenda will continue focusing on lowering costs and making life more affordable for working families across Connecticut. Childcare, healthcare, housing, and education are essential building blocks for a strong economy and stronger communities.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Ned Lamont — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Housing & homeownership

Expanding housing supply near transit and job centers

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing affordability

Candidate campaign source

Expanding housing supply near transit and job centers

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Ned Lamont — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

Ryan Fazio

2 statements

Republican · Governor · CT

Housing & homeownership

Connecticut is home to over 130,000 veterans, yet progress on veteran homelessness, healthcare access, and job training has stalled. Ryan will streamline veteran services, reduce costs, cut fees, recognize out-of-state licenses, and support employment opportunities for those who served.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Connecticut is home to over 130,000 veterans, yet progress on veteran homelessness, healthcare access, and job training has stalled. Ryan will streamline veteran services, reduce costs, cut fees, recognize out-of-state licenses, and support employment opportunities for those who served.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Ryan Fazio — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
View 1 more statement from Ryan Fazio
Housing & homeownership

Ryan advocates for local control while improving housing affordability. His approach reduces construction costs and enables middle-income housing — including accessory dwelling units and mixed-use residential areas — while reducing licensing taxes on trade workers and making it easier to enter appre…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing affordability

Candidate campaign source

Ryan advocates for local control while improving housing affordability. His approach reduces construction costs and enables middle-income housing — including accessory dwelling units and mixed-use residential areas — while reducing licensing taxes on trade workers and making it easier to enter apprenticeships.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Ryan Fazio — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

2026 Connecticut State Comptroller — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Republican · State Comptroller · CT

Housing & homeownership

Jen moved to Connecticut for the quality of life: a beautiful place to live, a reasonable cost of living, and plentiful career opportunities. But for too many families, that’s no longer the reality. Housing, food, energy, and everyday expenses have climbed, and businesses face an economic landscape …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing affordability

Candidate campaign source

Jen moved to Connecticut for the quality of life: a beautiful place to live, a reasonable cost of living, and plentiful career opportunities. But for too many families, that’s no longer the reality. Housing, food, energy, and everyday expenses have climbed, and businesses face an economic landscape that makes it harder to grow. Jen believes affordability starts with honest fiscal leadership: running government with the same discipline households and employers use every day.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Jennifer S. Tooker — candidate-owned primary source ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected

This section matches specific housing, rent, homeownership and borrowing costs terms in retained, attributed source text from published Connecticut candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

Connecticut incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Connecticut legislators and Connecticut’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Connecticut’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

2 matching sponsorships or proposals · 2 Connecticut incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Sen. Christopher Murphy

U.S. Senate, Connecticut · D–CT

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Christopher Murphy
U.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · S 595

Office of Gun Violence Prevention Act of 2025

Feb 13, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Christopher Murphy · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 595 would establish an Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the Justice Department to coordinate prevention work. Its definition expressly includes firearm homicide, violent crime, domestic violence, suicide, and unintentional injury. Each relationship concerns the relevant firearm component, not all homicide or all FBI violent offenses.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

The proposed office coordinates programs, data, evaluation and policy. This administrative connection concerns the firearm-related component of the linked mortality or FBI violent-crime measure; its broader gun-violence definition is not a substitute for the statistical definition. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.

Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths · Homicide deaths · Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(3)Gun violenceThe term gun violence includes homicide, violent crime, domestic violence, attempted suicide, suicide, and unintentional death or injury involving a firearm.(4)OfficeThe term Office means the Office of Gun Violence Prevention established under section 3(a).3.Office of Gun Violence Prevention(a)Establishment(1)In generalThe Attorney General shall establish within the Office of Legal Policy of the Department of Justice the Office of Gun Violence Prevention.(2)DirectorThe Attorney General shall appoint a Director to be the head of the Office.(b)Duties(1)In generalThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall coordinate, integrate, and maximize the efficacy of each responsibility, program, and service relating to gun violence prevention administered by the Attorney General to maximize an integrated approach to reducing gun violence and serving victims of gun violence, including—(A)the responsibilities of the heads of the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the Department of Justice, the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, each United States Attorney, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, the Director of the Office of Victims of Crime, and the Director of the Office of Justice Programs; and(B)the administration of the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901). (2)EvaluationThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall evaluate laws, regulations, Federal programs, offices, data sources, and grant programs relating to gun violence prevention administered by the Attorney General to assess how each such law, regulation, Federal program, office, data source, and grant program can be maximized, modernized, and coordinated to reduce gun violence.(3)Policy recommendationsThe Director shall recommend to Congress and the President legislative and executive policy options to promote evidence-based gun violence prevention strategies, including the implementation of existing laws, regulations, and grant programs.(4)DataThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall—(A)identify gaps in available data needed for gun violence prevention research, policy development, and the implementation of evidence-based gun violence prevention strategies; and(B)develop a plan to collect and analyze the data described in subparagraph (A).(5)AssessmentThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall assess ongoing research efforts of the Department of Justice relating to gun violence to establish a comprehensive research agenda on the causes and solutions of gun violence.(6)EducationThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall educate the general public about Federal laws, regulations, and grant programs relating to gun violence prevention, including by conducting education and awareness campaigns—(A)directed at—(i)owners of firearms;(ii)parents and legal guardians of minors; and(iii)professionals who provide services to individuals and communities disproportionately impacted by gun violence; and(B)that include education relating to the secure storage or firearms and suicide prevention.(7)Crisis responseThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall assist communities that have experienced gun violence (such as a mass shooting, a school shooting, a gang-related shooting, or a domestic violence shooting) with crisis response activities, including providing information about and increasing access to—(A)mental health services for members of the community;(B)anti-gun trafficking activities;(C)crisis response training for first responders and offices of gun violence prevention serving the community; and(D)suicide prevention services for members of the community.(8)CoordinationIn carrying out the duties under this subsection, the Director shall coordinate with Federal agencies and commissions that have jurisdiction over gun violence prevention, including— (A)the Department of Health and Human Services;(B)the Department of Veterans Affairs;(C)the Department of Education;(D)the Department of Housing and Urban Development;(E)the Department of Commerce;(F)the Department of Homeland Security;(G)the Department of Defense;(H)the Department of the Interior;(I)the Department of Labor;(J)the Department of Agriculture;(K)the Small Business Administration; (L)the Consumer Product Safety Commission;(M)the Federal Trade Commission; and(N)the United States Sentencing Commission.(9)Annual reportNot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress a report that includes—(A)information on the state of gun violence in the United States;(B)recommendations for policy initiatives and legislation to reduce gun violence in the United States; and(C)a description of the efforts of the Director to carry out the duties under this subsection.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Richard Blumenthal

U.S. Senate, Connecticut · D–CT

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Richard Blumenthal
U.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · S 889

Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act of 2025

Mar 6, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Richard Blumenthal · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 889 would authorize grants supporting qualifying state and tribal extreme-risk protection-order laws. Eligibility requires substantially similar procedures, including notice and a hearing within 30 days, a finding of danger supported by a preponderance of evidence or a higher standard, and limits on temporary ex parte orders. Return of firearms remains subject to legal eligibility. Funding authorization does not issue an order against anyone or establish a reduction in deaths.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(b)Grant program established(1)In generalThe Attorney General shall establish a program under which, from amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General may make grants to eligible entities to assist in carrying out the provisions of the legislation described in subsection (c).(2)Use of fundsFunds awarded under this subsection may be used by an applicant to—(A)enhance the capacity of law enforcement agencies and the courts of a State, unit of local government, or Indian Tribe by providing personnel, training, technical assistance, data collection, and other resources to carry out enacted legislation described in subsection (c);(B)train judges, court personnel, health care and legal professionals, and law enforcement officers to more accurately identify individuals whose access to firearms poses a danger of causing harm to themselves or others by increasing the risk of firearms suicide or interpersonal violence;(C)develop and implement law enforcement and court protocols, forms, and orders so that law enforcement agencies and the courts may carry out the provisions of the enacted legislation described in subsection (c) in a safe, equitable, and effective manner, including through the removal and storage of firearms pursuant to extreme risk protection orders under the enacted legislation; and(D)raise public awareness and understanding of the enacted legislation described in subsection (c), including through subgrants to community-based organizations for the training of community members, so that extreme risk protection orders may be issued in appropriate situations to reduce the risk of firearms-related death and injury.(3)ApplicationAn eligible entity desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit to the Attorney General an application at such time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.(4)Training(A)In generalA recipient of a grant under this subsection shall provide training to law enforcement officers, including officers of relevant Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, in the safe, impartial, effective, and equitable use and administration of extreme risk protection orders, including training to address—(i)bias based on race and racism, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, language proficiency, mental health condition, disability, and classism in the use and administration of extreme risk protection orders;(ii)the appropriate use of extreme risk protection orders in cases of domestic violence, including the applicability of other policies and protocols to address domestic violence in situations that may also involve extreme risk protection orders and the necessity of safety planning with the victim before a law enforcement officer petitions for and executes an extreme risk protection order, if applicable;(iii)interacting with persons with a mental illness or emotional distress, including de-escalation and crisis intervention; and(iv)best practices for referring persons subject to extreme risk protection orders and associated victims of violence to social service providers that may be available in the jurisdiction and appropriate for those individuals, including health care, mental health, substance abuse, and legal services, employment and vocational services, housing assistance, case management, and veterans and disability benefits.(B)Consultation with expertsA recipient of a grant under this subsection, in developing law enforcement training required under subparagraph (A), shall seek advice from domestic violence service providers (including culturally specific (as defined in section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291)) organizations), social service providers, suicide prevention advocates, violence intervention specialists, law enforcement agencies, mental health disability experts, and other community groups working to reduce suicides and violence, including domestic violence, within the State or the territory under the jurisdiction of the Indian Tribe, as applicable, that enacted the legislation described in subsection (c) that enabled the grant recipient to be an eligible entity.(5)Authorization of appropriationsThere are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this subsection.(c)Eligibility for extreme risk protection order grant program(1)RequirementsLegislation described in this subsection is legislation that establishes requirements that are substantially similar to the following:(A)Petition for extreme risk protection orderA petitioner, including a law enforcement officer, may submit a petition to a State or Tribal court, on a form designed by the court or a State or Tribal agency, that—(i)describes the facts and circumstances justifying that an extreme risk protection order be issued against the named individual; and(ii)is signed by the applicant, under oath.(B)Notice and due processThe individual named in a petition for an extreme risk protection order as described in subparagraph (A) shall be given written notice of the petition and an opportunity to be heard on the matter in accordance with this paragraph.(C)Issuance of extreme risk protection orders(i)Hearing(I)In generalUpon receipt of a petition described in subparagraph (A) or request of an individual named in such a petition, the court shall order a hearing to be held within a reasonable time, and not later than 30 days after the date of the petition or request.(II)DeterminationIf the court finds at the hearing ordered under subclause (I), by a preponderance of the evidence or according to a higher evidentiary standard established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having access to a firearm, the court may issue an extreme risk protection order.(ii)Duration of extreme risk protection orderAn extreme risk protection order shall be in effect—(I)until an order terminating or superseding the extreme risk protection order is issued; or(II)for a set period of time.(D)Ex parte extreme risk protection orders(i)In generalUpon receipt of a petition described in subparagraph (A), the court may issue an ex parte extreme risk protection order, if—(I)the petition for an extreme risk protection order alleges that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having access to a firearm; and(II)the court finds there is probable cause to believe, or makes a finding according to a higher evidentiary standard established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having access to a firearm.(ii)Duration of ex parte extreme risk protection orderAn ex parte extreme risk protection order shall remain in effect only until the hearing required under subparagraph (C)(i).(E)Storage of removed firearms(i)Availability for returnAll firearms removed or surrendered pursuant to an extreme risk protection order shall only be available for return to the named individual when the individual has regained eligibility under Federal and State law and, where applicable, Tribal law to possess firearms.(ii)Consent required for disposal or destructionFirearms owned by a named individual may not be disposed of or destroyed during the period of the extreme risk protection order without the consent of the named individual.(F)Notification(i)In general(I)RequirementA State or Tribal court that issues an extreme risk protection order shall notify the Attorney General or the comparable State or Tribal agency, as applicable, of the order as soon as practicable or within a designated period of time.(II)Form and mannerA State or Tribal court shall submit a notification under subclause (I) in an electronic format, in a manner prescribed by the Attorney General or the comparable State or Tribal agency.(ii)Update of databases by State or Tribal agencyAs soon as practicable or within the time period designated by State or Tribal law after receiving a notification under clause (i), the comparable State or Tribal agency shall ensure that the extreme risk protection order is reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.(2)Additional provisionsLegislation described in this subsection may—(A)provide procedures for the termination of an extreme risk protection order;(B)provide procedures for the renewal of an extreme risk protection order;(C)establish burdens and standards of proof for issuance of orders described in paragraph (1) that are substantially similar to or higher than the burdens and standards of proof set forth in that paragraph;(D)limit the individuals who may submit a petition described in paragraph (1), provided that, at a minimum, 1 or more law enforcement officers are authorized to do so; and(E)include any other authorizations or requirements that the State or Tribal authorities determine appropriate.(3)Attorney General responsibilities(A)Manner of submitting notification to Attorney GeneralThe Attorney General shall prescribe the manner in which a State or Tribal court shall submit a notification to the Attorney General under a provision of State or Tribal law that is substantially similar to paragraph (1)(F)(i).(B)Update of databasesAs soon as practicable, and in any event not later than 30 days, after receiving a notification under a provision of State or Tribal law that is substantially similar to paragraph (1)(F)(i), the Attorney General shall ensure that the extreme risk protection order is reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.(4)Annual reportNot later than 1 year after the date on which an eligible entity receives a grant under subsection (b), and annually thereafter for the duration of the grant period, the entity shall submit to the Attorney General a report that includes, with respect to the preceding year—(A)the number of petitions for ex parte extreme risk protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the number denied, disaggregated by—(i)the jurisdiction;(ii)the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the relationship of the individual to the respondent; and(iii)the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;(B)the number of petitions for extreme risk protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the number denied, disaggregated by—(i)the jurisdiction;(ii)the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the relationship of the individual to the respondent; and(iii)the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;(C)the number of petitions for renewals of extreme risk protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the number denied;(D)the number of cases in which a court imposed a penalty for false reporting or frivolous petitions;(E)demographic data of petitioners, including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, and English language proficiency, if available;(F)demographic data of respondents, including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, and English language proficiency, if available; and(G)the number of firearms removed, if available.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Connecticut officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Connecticut statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.