Submitted by Ed Dadakis
Greenwich is not Hartford. Our town’s character – its neighborhoods, its scale, its careful balance of development and quality of life – exists because our local zoning board, elected officials, and residents have long decided what gets built where. That authority is under sustained assault from a Democrat supermajority in the state legislature that treats local control as an inconvenience. Forcing “affordable housing” mandates on towns like Greenwich without regard to size, location, infrastructure, or community input is not housing policy. It is a power grab that strips decision-making from people who live here and hands it to bureaucrats who do not.
Democrat Jill Oberlander is running for the State Senate seat being vacated by Republican Senator Ryan Fazio. On the campaign trail she claims to support local control of zoning. That claim deserves scrutiny because the record of Hartford Democratsn and her own past actions-suggest otherwise.
Three years ago, Greenwich Democrats in the state House-Steve Meskers, Hector Arzeno, and Rachael Khanna-voted for HB 5390. That bill would have let developers build high-rise affordable housing close to train stations as a matter of right. The areas around Riverside, Old Greenwich, and Cos Cob stations would have been in the crosshairs. Picture a high-rise on Club Road in Riverside. That’s not abstract policy. It’s a concrete threat to established neighborhoods. While Fazio stopped the bill in the Senate, Greenwich’s own Democrat legislators chose the Hartford agenda over local authority.
Then came HB 8002, another supermajority measure further eroding local control. It was jammed through in an “emergency special session.” What was the emergency? The supermajority never explained it. Declaring an emergency short-circuits normal process, limits notice and denies citizens meaningful public hearings.
Greenwich’s Democrat legislators ultimately voted no on final passage, yet they did nothing effective to stop the bill. Their seat at the table proved worthless as they failed to protect Greenwich.
Oberlander previously served one term as Third Selectman. During that tenure the Board of Selectmen considered a joint statement affirming support for local zoning control – the very principle she now claims to champion. She refused to support it, insisting on more time. When an elected official in Greenwich had a clear chance to stand with residents against Hartford overreach, Oberlander said no. She did not lead. She delayed and withheld her support.
Voters must ask: if she wouldn’t back local control when she held office, why trust the campaign version of the same promise? Words on a website are not the same as a recorded position under the responsibilities of office.
The pattern is familiar – Democrats talk about balance and local input while voting for or failing to stop bills that centralize power in Hartford. Oberlander’s selectman record proves she will do the same.
Local control is the difference between a town that shapes its own future and one reshaped by Hartford mandates. Residents who invest in their homes, schools, and community deserve decision-makers who will fight for their authority. Fazio proved that resistance can succeed.
Oberlander’s campaign asserts fidelity to local zoning. Her earlier refusal undercuts that claim. On the most critical issue facing Greenwich, her record raises serious doubts. Can voters trust her to represent us properly in Hartford? I believe the answer is a resounding no.