Rhode Island’s New Housing Laws Will Result in ‘Forced Over-Development’
April 21, 2025
Share
Rhode Island needs more housing, and I support that goal. But how we get there matters. Careful planning is essential to avoid unintended consequences that could create new problems. Growth has limits, and development must respect constraints, especially when it comes to access to clean drinking water.
About 50 new housing laws have been adopted within the past few years, with more pending this year. These laws ignore the limits to growth, constraints to development, or the need to conserve our farms and forests. The housing laws give exclusive priority to development at the expense of everything else. The outcome will be a haphazard development pattern that will encourage housing where it does not belong.
The failure to adequately plan a long-term, safe, steady supply of drinking water for new housing can have catastrophic impacts. This is a major challenge in towns that rely on on-site wells, which are suitable only for low-density development. These areas can’t support the higher densities mandated by new one-size-fits-all state housing laws.
Some areas are also not appropriate for high-density development, like groundwater aquifers, wellhead protection zones, and watersheds that feed reservoirs and provide drinking water for Rhode Islanders. Once these areas are contaminated or overdrawn, they can’t easily be restored and must be protected for both current and future generations. Other areas have poorly drained soils or are prone to flooding, risks which are only increasing with climate change. Wetlands should remain off-limits, and while prime farmland, important forests, and unique habitats aren’t protected under state law, we must take care to conserve them.
The state has regulations to minimize impacts to wetlands and water quality, but in my experience as a former Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management administrator, those regulations are not adequate. And there are no state-level protections for farms, forests, or habitats from development. That’s why municipal land use authority, recently stripped away by new housing laws, is critical. Local governments must be able to establish appropriate density and locations for housing that protects drinking water and conserves important natural resources.
Housing advocates say Rhode Island needs about 35,000 new housing units over the next decade, more than the current total in the city of Cranston. The critical challenge is how Rhode Island can build the housing it needs while carefully planning to accommodate this growth. Municipalities have carefully planned for growth to balance housing needs while avoiding negative impacts. The new housing laws override state-approved municipal comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances.
Some examples include:
In a suburban town where 13 homes would be allowed under current zoning, the new law would permit 155.
Or in a rural town where two homes could be built, it jumps to 27. Neither location has public water or sewer.
The number of houses increases by over 1,000% in both cases. This isn’t responsible growth. It’s forced over-development in places that can’t support it and it will impact all of Rhode Island.
Moreover, the law that allows high densities for affordable housing only requires the housing to remain affordable for 30 years. It also gives developers the ability to build more unaffordable market-rate housing than currently allowed. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for cities and towns to meet their state-required 10% affordable housing mandate.
Rhode Island needs responsible housing development that can be adequately served by municipal services. Moreover, new housing should not degrade the natural, cultural or recreational assets that make Rhode Island a special place to live.
It is possible for Rhode Island to meet its housing needs and avoid negative consequences. But cities and towns need technical and financial assistance from the state to implement housing plans that already exist. The state must also provide economic incentives to encourage housing where it’s appropriate and stop promoting development that will cause long-term problems. Housing should also remain affordable long-term.
Meeting Rhode Island’s housing needs will require the state to work collaboratively with municipal governments. Inflexible state mandates don’t build partnerships or encourage creative approaches. By working together, Rhode Island can solve the housing crisis in a way that avoids unintended consequences and appreciates the nuances of each community, preserving our beautiful state.
Scott Millar has more than 45 years of experience in assisting municipalities on land use. In addition to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, he worked at the Division of Statewide Planning and was a senior policy analyst at Grow Smart Rhode Island.
Categories
Join the Discussion
View CommentsRecent Comments
Leave a Reply
Your support keeps our reporters on the environmental beat.
Reader support is at the core of our nonprofit news model. Together, we can keep the environment in the headlines.
while Scott makes good points about potential rural “overdevelopment” he doesn’t offer much of a solution to housing needs. In my town of North Providence where we have sewers and public drinking water there are still concerns about “overdevelopment” as multifamily housing proposals generate opposition from potential increase in runoff and flooding, increase in noise, traffic and litter, increased school costs, and a decrease in adjacent property values from these issues. So opposition to more housing is based on rational self-interest, and there is a similar story in Johnston, Providence… Hard to overcome this at scale needed
The issue in East Greenwich remains that we do not have adequate infrastructure for large scale developments particularly west of Rt 2 – most of that area has no water or sewer hook up. As past drought experience has shown us, most RI residents have little to no experience of what drought conditions are like. RI esp. western RI which is heavily dependent on ground water and has little education on water conservation. The state should be educating people on the waste that happens in lawn care (watering the lawn and large pools) and the loss of trees, even suburban trees. Where is DEM with education, homes should use low flow toilets and showers, seek alternatives to lawns, to importance of trees to keep homes cooler and overall health of our groundwater situation.
Septic systems need periodic cleaning and reduce the use of bleach, anti bacterial etc. The septic system water eventually ends up in our ground water so fertilizers and other chemicals should be reduced or eliminated altogether. There is so much the state could and should be doing.
Most new housing should be built where it is already possible for people to live without a car or “car-lite” and where that will soon be possible.
Zoning in non-urban towns should guide new housing into walkable town centers connected by transit.
Stop promoting the construction of housing likely to remain 100% car dependent.
I’ve known Scott for about 40 years. As usual he hits the nail on the head. I’m not going to be as diplomatic as he is. The disorganized, lurching attempts by the state, primarily Speaker Shekarchi to address housing have been mostly ill-advised. Scott’s primary point is densification is not a one size fits all solution to the “housing crisis” as it brings with it all the societal impacts that he mentions. Much of the legislative housing initiatives would basically return development to pre-zoning conditions which would be a disaster. Zoning regulations originated not because regulators sat around thinking, how can we screw people today but instead, what do we have to do to prevent more bad behavior. Houses on top of houses with no consideration for secondary impacts.
Just so you don’t think I’m just blowing smoke, I’m a 38 year self employed civil engineer, with 18 years on a planning commission and an initial 14 years with the EPA. I’ve conservatively looked at 5000 houses, written Federal and municipal ordinances and testified in court. I’ve seen a lot of damage done to third parties due to development. What is particularly disturbing is when an aggrieved property owner is told by a permitting authority that their only remedy is to consult a lawyer. But I digress.
The “housing crisis” (did you notice everything is “crisis” these days) is not going to be solved by packing two pounds of development into a one pound bag. Granted housing is expensive. An average fifty year old, three bedroom ranch is $500,000 but a 2×4 is $5.00. Zoning however, is by no means the primary cause. Construction costs, commutability to work and the previously historic low mortgage rates all effect supply and demand. Scott also correctly notes the priorities of the (state approved) local Comprehensive Plans which basically frame the demeanor of development for a community. Over riding the goals of those plans is to thwart the desires of the citizens. And please don’t tell me it’s NIMBYism because as Scott points out, there are numerous collateral impacts which don’t rear their ugly heads until all the nails are banged and the Certifies of Occupancy are issued. At which point the municipalities are left to deal with them.
One solution I see to the affordable housing needs is for the state to assist in funding the conversion of vacant buildings, primarily old mills and schools into condominiums with 100 year deed restrictions as to affordability. Many of these buildings are adjacent to utility infrastructure, public transit and shopping and are a glove and hand fit for affordable housing.
The legislature needs to stop creating class warfare based on zoning and start focusing on solutions that are staring them in the face.
Thank you for addressing this issue! As a town, we have met with state representatives and sent bills to congress to address the matter. The development in the pike (thousands of new units) will consume the forest and fields the rest of the state (and neighboring states) come here to escape the bleak overcrowding of urban blight. By the way, the developers will be making massive profits and our small town will be left to foot a huge tax burden making the currently affordable homes in our town that much less so. The developers are not required to respect open space or install sidewalks, they can walk away before the promised amenities are built and sell the complex to owners that may not maintain the buildings. I would love to see the quiet towns with big land in our small state organize against this movement before it is too late.
Informative and absolutely accurate account. Developers are interested in profit, not making affordable houses, apartments and condos. Whenever one of these so called necessary housing developments pop up, you hear about how poor these developers are and they always just finagle more money from the sale of the units. Digging into the real issue of out of control real estate industry/prices going through the roof in RI and no thought to how to control this. How on earth does it seem sustainable that a house bought in 2015 is now worth 50% more money – that kind of equity used to be built up over more than 1 decade. I know people with full time jobs in relatively decent income brackets (drs, teachers…) who are finding it difficult to even find a starter home. And anytime you mention the word affordable people automatically get defensive and frankly, racist, and don’t understand that literally everyone needs affordable housing at this point. Both to buy or to rent. Building more housing that gets pegged as “luxury condos” which is basically what ends up happening is not addressing real needs of people in the state.
A good example of throwing the monkey wrench into things is the Potter Hill Mill Westerly , RI reconstruction project.
Professional designs an blueprints were payed for by the developer.
Housing, shop’s an more .they could even make their own power from existing infrastructure. Why wasn’t this prorized? An finished?
Similar project completed in Warren, RI at the Samsonite factory.
Here in Portsmouth RI a lot of Surplus Navy land will be come available for homes .. Again were is the spirit in essence.
Why does land have to be valued,?Can one just live on the land?
These opertunites should be made available to the majority an leave the banks out of it . .No value on the land is an interesting concept….Were do we go from here?……