It was a long day – and a late night – in Hartford.

The Connecticut House of Representatives approved a controversial, 92-page affordable housing proposal after a nearly 12-hour Republican filibuster on Tuesday – four days after supporters were forced to postpone an original vote amid opposition among some suburban Democrats.

Despite numerous changes to the legislation, opponents still say it could lead to overbuilding in towns across the state.

Most people say that Connecticut has a severe housing shortage.

The state needs at least 150,000 units of affordable housing, according to a new study from the Connecticut Business and Industry Association.

“The economic consequences of this housing deficit are substantial – likely in the tens of billions of dollars per year,” said CBIA Foundation director Dustin Nord. “The lack of housing not only reduces options for workers, but creates workforce mismatches, impairs business competitiveness and ultimately constrains economic growth.”

The report blames restrictive zoning laws, including large-lot zoning requirements and complicated approval processes.

To address the housing crisis, top Democrats are proposing sweeping changes to local zoning and parking requirements.

“You can’t solve this crisis one step at a time,” said state Rep. Antonio Felipe (D-Bridgeport). “We need a big move that makes progress.”

The proposal passed the Connecticut House by an 84-67 margin, with 18 Democrats – mostly from Fairfield Co. – joining every Republican in voting no.

Supporters had to make 13 pages of changes over the weekend to keep the legislation alive, after opponents promised a lengthy filibuster last Thursday.

“We didn’t want to keep people here till midnight, one, two o’clock in the morning. Obviously, there were some concerns that they had,” said House Democratic leader Jason Rojas (D-East Hartford). “And I thought that was reasonable, right? I think more information is always better than less.”

The wide-ranging legislation tackles three areas – zoning, rentals and homelessness.

To build more homes, wealthier communities would have to plan and zone for a “Fair Share” housing quota – or justify why they can’t meet it. Cities and towns could decide how and where to build it, but the housing must include 25% rentals, and half of the units must fit a family.

Local communities would also have to approve most “middle housing” of up to nine units (including duplexes and triplexes) on commercially zoned land.

Critics said it will lead to mass overdevelopment.

“When you actually back out these numbers, you’re talking about thousands of units in some scenarios in towns,” said state Rep. Joe Zullo (R-East Haven). “It’s just not attainable. It’s not realistic.”

One of the most controversial sections involves parking spaces. The bill scraps minimum parking requirements for apartment complexes with up to 24 units – unless the development poses a “public health and safety” risk.

“I think we can all point to areas where we know that parking is wildly underused,” said state Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw (D-Avon). “If you have a building that’s, say, next to a train station, you might not need one car per bedroom.”

The legislation also makes it harder for neighbors to challenge a zoning decision on new developments.

Supporters made concessions on minimum parking spaces (the new rules would only apply to residential developments, not businesses) and commercial building conversion. They also dropped a requirement that towns approve conversions of unused and underused parcels to residential housing.

Additionally, cities and towns would also face looser “Fair Share” quotas – and they could challenge their quota. And the bill's new version no longer ties school construction bonuses to affordable housing, after Gov. Ned Lamont objected.

But even with the changes, critics said it’s a free pass for developers.

“It’s going to roll back parking minimums in our towns. It requires high-density housing mandates, top-down affordable housing quotas, more increased bureaucracy,” said Alexis Harrison with CT169Strong, a grass-roots group fighting the changes. “Really stripping people like you and me of the power to enact local zoning changes within our towns.”

Tenants would see new protections, too.

The legislation bans landlords from using algorithms to set rental rates, and towns with more than 15,000 people (up from the current 25,000) would have to establish a Fair Rent Commission. The original bill required all communities to establish one.

Multifamily buildings would have to undergo elevator inspections once a year. Legislative analysts estimate the state would have to hire two new inspectors at a cost of $288,000 a year.

And the state attorney general would get new powers to sue property owners for discrimination.

But the package falls far short of what tenants’ rights groups asked for.

They wanted a ban on “no cause” evictions, which would have required property owners to renew a lease unless the tenant doesn’t pay the rent, violates the lease terms or keeps the unit unclean and unsafe. The rules would have applied to any complex with five or more units.

Dozens of apartment dwellers told lawmakers they were forced to swallow massive rent hikes – or move out.

“Guess what? We’re not going to renew your lease and here’s a form for vacate. You’ve got to leave," said José Benitez, of New Britain. “A lot of the tenants had to leave because of the flipping, just because of the flipping – the rent increases that are happening.”

“No cause” eviction bans have failed for several years. Property owners argued that they infringe on private property rights and force landlords to pull units off the market.

“It will now be harder to get rid of a bad tenant than it is to divorce a spouse should this pass,” said property owner Adam Bonoff. “’Cause’ is a very difficult thing to prove and can take years and courts to reach a conclusion. A drug dealer may be a very good payer, but very bad for a building – as is a child molester, thief or other type of intimidator.”

Also left out of the housing bill? A proposal limiting security deposits to one month’s rent.

“In Norwalk, Connecticut, a studio is $3,500,” said state Rep. Kadeem Roberts (D-Norwalk). “So we’ve got to be honest and understand, like, no one has $10,000 to put up.”

On the homelessness front, structures designed to keep people from sitting or sleeping on public property would be banned.

The state would also launch a pilot program in three cities for portable showers and laundry.

“To try to just recognize the humanity of people who are experiencing homelessness and would like to take a shower more often,” Rojas said.

The pilot program would cost at least $500,000 over the next two years, according to the nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis.

The massive housing bill still has to pass the state Senate by next Wednesday, when the General Assembly session ends. Lawmakers also have to pass a new state budget, which could happen as early as Friday.

Lamont’s office said on Friday that he is likely to support the legislation.

“The Governor appreciates the legislature making accommodations to their housing bill to include some of his priorities, which include removing local barriers to housing development, while allowing municipalities the ability to maintain control,” spokesman Rob Blanchard said in a statement. “Connecticut’s housing supply is constrained at a time when our housing needs should be keeping up with demand and affording families the opportunity for home ownership. As there is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the housing shortage, this legislation will encourage better collaboration between the private sector, who build residences, and local leadership.”