Open Letter to State Senator Ryan Fazio (R-36) Submitted by Steven C. Hall in response to (Fazio Issues Statement Urging Governor Lamont to Veto HB 5002 June 8, 2025)
Dear Senator Fazio:
As to the long standing unresolved issue of affordable housing in Connecticut the recently passed HB 5002 is on the desk of the Governor for signature that you and others want him to veto. As you well know the 8-30g statute that we all find objectionable was passed some 35 years ago in 1989.
In Greenwich while we do have Greenwich Communities housing it is far short of the 10% mandated by the state and a recent proposal was rejected for various reasons. We have done nothing ever to develop a town wide comprehensive plan to address the issue. Are we not way past time for the affordable housing can to stop being kicked into the future?
I have repeatedly asked over several years Fred Camillo, the 169 Strong group and yourself to come up with some solution, some plan, any idea no matter how sketchy. You have not even acknowledged that this might be a good idea. If nothing else it might have demonstrated good faith intent, but not even that was expressed. I do think that with your education and experience you should understand that coming up with a complicated plan for a town, actually a city of 63,518 requires professional planning and funding for the studies as well as for the housing itself.
You said, “Let’s go back to the drawing board, work together across the aisle, and find real solutions that address housing affordability—without gutting local control.”
Why after 35 years of doing nothing should we believe you will address and actually do anything about having a local plan? You and your cohorts have not answered a very first and basic starting simple question I have asked. What percentage of our total population should have affordable housing and how to be qualified for it?
From this answer a housing plan can be developed with professional help, in fact it was offered and refused. The town had that expertise available at no cost from the Regional Planning Association (RPA). It was discussed in a joint meeting that included the chairperson of the Planning Board. But that offer was rejected with opposition saying we should do our own planning and saying the RPA were tools for developers.
And just a thought to consider with that negative, who might I ask developed and built your home and others in Greenwich? And to cap this thought, how will affordable housing studies be funded? By the BET who has just defunded our schools, cost us millions in deferred maintenance, and millions more in school construction costs with project delays while at the same time refusing millions in savings from energy efficiency? I think not.
The only answers are a plethora of evasions that tells the real story – Greenwich and like towns do not want the “blight” of affordable housing and those who need it. They don’t care that our service economy and very own town staff workers commuting long distances costs both them and us more money as well as delivering poor air quality from commuting long distances. Despite all the signs around the round-a-bouts at election time warning of the other party creating high rise blight. Guess what? It is you and your party and the CT 169 Strong that are actually creating them from lack of interest, planning and policy for the least of those among us who need housing.
There has long been a unstated reason that rings true. Wealthy property owners long ago speaking with their wealth and large political donations said we don’t care how you manage the town just keep the mil rate low and our town pretty. That has the ring of unvarnished truth. Let’s put that to rest with responsible action.
I say the above as a longtime Greenwich resident and property owner. My comments above are made from both my education and a long career in project development and management dealing with many if not all of the issues above as well as from one of the morality of providing housing for all residents and especially for those who serve us in our town.
Respectfully,
Steven C. Hall