Reactions to the Connecticut House and Senate votes last week to pass the omnibus housing bill HB 8002 in Hartford have been negative from its critics and celebratory from its supporters. And some see nuances.
The vote took place as the price of real estate soars, especially in Greenwich, and the state has both a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis, and homelessness is on the rise.
HB 8002 is 104-pages long and has 53 sections. It was intended to be a compromise after Governor Ned Lamont last June reluctantly vetoed HB 5002, a controversial housing bill that had also passed in both the Connecticut House and Senate, saying he would like to see an improved version of the bill.
The bill requires towns to create ‘housing growth plans.’ It eliminates minimum off-street parking requirements for developments with less than 16 units. It gives incentives for towns to allow more housing and expands fair rent commissions.
Governor Lamont, who formally announced his bid for a third term on Nov 14, has said he looks forward to signing HB 8002 into law.
In a Nov 14 release, Lamont said, “Connecticut’s housing shortage is among the most severe in the country. It is driving up costs for working families, deterring businesses from investing or growing, and worsening homelessness. Simply put, the status quo is unsustainable.”
“Over these last several months, I’ve consulted with state lawmakers, municipal leaders, housing advocates, and nonprofit partners to craft policies that will have a real-world impact and implement the tools we need to succeed in building more housing.”
The Governor’s release noted the bill was developed by his office and legislative leaders, with the input and cooperation of housing advocacy group and bipartisan municipal leaders and their representative organizations, including the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), the Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST), and the state’s regional councils of governments, “COGs.”
Among vocal critics of HB 8002 are Senator Ryan Fazio (R-36) and State Rep Tina Courpas (R-149).
They say the legislation is flawed, will strip towns of local control of zoning and create costly mandates.
On WGCH 1490am Thursday morning, Fazio noted the bill had no public hearing for constituents to give their input.
Further, he said, “The people who had to vote on it – the representatives and senators – didn’t really have an opportunity to digest what they were about to vote on…This was a historic erosion of local control of decision making.”
Examples of loss of local control he cited include the “ban of parking requirements” for developments under 16 units, as-of-right conversion of commercially zoned properties to residential, and a ban of “hostile architecture” in public places.
Fazio noted there would be little change to the state affordable housing statute, 8-30g, that has been law since 1990.
The new bill incorporates the principles of “Work Live Ride” to promote transit-oriented development to add housing near transit stations by offering incentives and providing a framework for towns to participate through opt-in programs that make them eligible for state funding.
The bill eliminates the process known as “fair share” that assigned every municipality a set number of housing units to plan and zone for.
Instead, the the Council of Governments, “COGs” will determine the number units each town needs to plan for, but towns can come up with their own plans rather than adopt the the plan from their particular COG.
Fazio said it was misleading to say municipalities will have the choice of whether or not to “opt in.”
“The biggest problems are a few comprehensive sections that assign a fair share of new housing units that towns and cities are supposed to allow to be built, or build themselves, and require that there be a ‘housing growth plan,’ or else the town misses out on the opportunity for millions of dollars of new funding,” Fazio told Tony Savino on WGCH.
“It requires that towns and cities re-zone around bus and train stations or else lose out on millions of dollars of new funding, including school construction funding,” he added.
Also on Thursday, State Rep Tina Courpas (R-149) said in an email: “The housing bill is new, but unfortunately not an ‘improved’ version of HB5002. It contains a form of ‘Fair Share,’ and ‘Work, Live, Ride,’ restricts towns’ ability to require parking spaces, and allows nearly as-of -right development of commercial properties into residences.”
“These policies don’t address the root of the housing issue in CT – affordability,” Courpas said. “And they will have unintended consequences. The bill was not bipartisan – the minority voted against it and was not included in the conversations. The bill was not democratic – certain important provisions received no public hearing. The bill pits the state against towns and towns against each other. It is not the long-lasting, moderate and collaborative policy that can really move a state forward, but is rather the product of a severely imbalanced legislature. I opposed it in the strongest possible terms and will work to revise it.”
While Courpas said the bill was not bipartisan, Democratic State Representative Steve Meskers (D-150) did vote against the bill.
On Thursday, Meskers said in an email, “I read the original bill and voted no when it appeared in regular session and again now in that special session. I spoke against and voted no on the revised bill when it was presented in special session.”
“There were some concession made in the revised bill, but it still left me with many questions. Greenwich is the town I call home. I support local control as I have stated time and again. I understand the need for more housing and I am not opposed to additional state resources to grow the economy of our wonderful state. As a policy I think that the solution and control still needs to be local. ”
From inside town hall, P&Z director Patrick LaRow responded to the legislation’s potential impact on Greenwich during an interview on WGCH 1490am last week.
“We only build capacity for development. We don’t create building permits and construction by creating laws. It takes a developer and property owners to come in and want to make use of our regulations to create an outcome. A lot of this puts a huge amount of stress, or importance onto zoning, but there is not a lot I see in here that will produce more units.”
LaRow echoed P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban’s letter last June, when he said Greenwich was already doing its part to address the issue of affordable housing.
“Since Covid and 2020, we’ve approved about 1,000 housing units in town with affordability ranging from 20% to 40% in each of those developments,” LaRow continued. “Only one is in the process of getting permits to get built. That has nothing to do with the town denying applications, or any town denying applications, rather the cost of doing business in the construction.”
In a joint statement, RPA and DesegregateCT, described the HB8002 as “Pro-Homes Legislation” that “establishes a new state and regional framework and funding process to help CT’s towns and cities build more homes in smart places, particularly along transit corridors, to help address the state’s crippling housing shortage.”
“HB 8002 provides a new framework for building more homes, including State technical support and funding to help communities build supportive infrastructure and limiting parking requirements that prevent communities from meeting their housing needs,” said Tom Wright, president of RPA in the joint statement with Desegregate CT on Nov 13.
The statement commended the provisions that retain the core of Work Live Ride.
“We have always believed that State planning capacity combined with the passion of local pro-homes leaders is the best way to get our state out of this housing shortage,” said Pete Harrison, Connecticut Director at RPA in the statement.
CT 169 Strong said on Twitter, “Unfortunately, we do not expect that it will improve affordability for CT’s residents and can do irreparable harm.”
Democratic State Rep Hector Arzeno (D-151) was out of the country for the vote, but had this to say on Thursday:
“I voted against the Housing Bill during the regular session. During the special session I was out of the country. However after consulting with our local authorities and my constituents, I would have voted against the bill,” Arzeno said.
“We all agree that Connecticut needs more housing, and I very much appreciate the efforts of our Governor and colleagues in the House to reach out and work with mayors, first selectmen from both sizes of the aisle, CCM and the COGs to eliminate the most conflicting parts of the bill. However I believe that the new bill requires input from the public. We can not build public trust by sidelining the public,” Arzeno added.
“The bill, while requiring the municipalities to prepare their housing plans, is adding more bureaucracy to the process and is not addressing important issues like construction costs that are a major barrier for many towns. I am a strong supporter of local control and the solution should be in our hands, it will be our challenge to work together and address our local needs, and defending our own housing plans. I will be working collaboratively to find the solutions that best address my town’s housing needs.”