Since the end of the legislative session on May 8, we’ve seen a few op/eds from lawmakers who are trying to defend their vote in favor of the unworkable DesegregateCT Work Live Ride bill, HB5390.
This bill was very dangerous for our towns and if passed into law, would have usurped our local land-use authority, ended public hearings, environmental protections and more. One of the basic tenets of legislating is “first, do no harm.” As a grassroots group, we would like to settle mistruths about the bill and share more on the internal workings of how the bill made it through the Connecticut House — and the harm it would have placed on our communities.
Bad bills should not make it out of committee, let alone get passed by the House. Period. We should not have House members who voted yes in the House later making excuses, deflections, and obfuscations by telling us they were then “working with the Senate leaders” to kill it in the Senate; instead, they should have killed it in the House in the first place — something that was totally in their control.
[RELATED: CT House passes ‘Work Live Ride’ bill; sends measure to Senate]
The Amended HB5390 that was passed became an opt in, but that alone did not make it a bill worth passing for the following reasons:
Only opt-ins are “prioritized” for transit-based funding sources. The Planning & Development Committee co-chair stated during the bill discussion that no towns are deprioritized if they do not opt-in, but is tortured logic as it is common sense that funding sources are always limited. Any prioritization is likely to impact other municipalities that are not “prioritized.” With limited funding pools, any towns not “prioritized” are, by definition, deprioritized.
Legislators ignored the testimony on HB5390 submitted by the Undersecretary of the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) that the bill is duplicative and may conflict with other current funding options, like the Governor’s 2023 Municipal Redevelopment Authority (MRDA) housing development bill. This is ironic considering that the Secretary of OPM is named over 30 times as the final arbiter of all municipal zoning related decisions in designated transit areas per the bill.
Legislators ignored the discussion from the Majority Leader’s Roundtable on Affordable Housing where the heads of Department of Housing and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority and even the majority leaders discussed that there are too many programs currently with conflicting requirements. These heads stated what they need is more flexibility, not more bills with new mandates on who can be funded and under what prioritization.
Two things can be true (and were) at the same time: CT Council of Municipalities (CCM), CT Council of Small Towns (COST), WestCOG and CT169Strong were all against the deceptive language in HB5390, which could opt towns in without their consent and subject them to a state bureaucrat deciding all local zoning decisions and require following state zoning mandates in the transit areas and were glad to see that the opt in language was removed. BUT it is also true that COST, WestCOG and CT169Strong provided testimony against the underlying bill from the very beginning and stated the bill was duplicative and unnecessary.
Legislators voting yes ignored that the new amended language that removed the opt in added back more controversial concepts including adding STEAP grants for “prioritization” and also now allowed an undefined, unelected, and unaccountable “consultant” to make decisions in place of OPM. Legislators voting yes ignored these concerns about the changes made during the bill’s discussion.
The Planning and Development Chair outrageously agreed to political handouts to cities and towns with existing transit-oriented developments to be “grandfathered” for prioritized transit funding and at the same time completely “exempted” them from any of the onerous as of right mandates and top down one size fits all state zoning codes that every other community would face when opting in. These verbal political favors or carrots went to existing transit-oriented developments while inequitable onerous sticks await any other municipalities seeking to opt in for funding.
The bill language did not detail anything about the verbal statements of “grandfathering” and “exemptions” of existing TOD towns! Did no one think to ask what lines in the bill indicated grandfathering or exempting existing TODs? Is this just a glaring example of nepotism and backroom deals that OPM could make as the final arbiter of all municipal decision making for towns that opt in? Do legislators have enough time to read what is in the bills or do they just rely on verbal promises?
Elections and votes have consequences. Your vote matters. Connecticut needs legislators who:
Focus on maintaining local control of zoning. Will not cede local, nuanced, collaborative and thoughtful strategic planning and land use review on site-specific high-density development projects.
Do not support bills with onerous unworkable concepts that pick winners and losers and cede away local decision making.
Inform constituents about the bad bills so they can also reach out and submit testimony.
Advocate with their fellow party members for workable legislation and are willing to vote consistently against bad bills.
Do not negotiate against themselves and their towns on bills with many bad part – they do not strike bad deals, and will still vote NO to unworkable bills even when slightly amended.
Do not “take a walk” during a final vote out of fear of retribution from their leadership. If leadership has not given them “permission” to vote no, some legislators are absent from voting although in the building and counted as “non-voting” because their leadership did not give them permission to vote no!
Why local oversight matters
Locally elected officials are most accountable, allow for site specific public hearings on projects and are the best equipped to make these decisions, rather than one size fits all policies from the state, creating high density rentals development, not affordability. Policies should not be focused on the developer-backed housing advocates who often lack the real-world municipal planning experience to understand why their bills are completely unworkable for all 169 municipalities. Only by collaboration with local municipal leaders and land use experts can CT get to workable solutions for improved affordability. Isn’t it time for real solutions and better policies that work for all the169 towns and cities in CT? Isn’t it about time for all of these locally elected leaders of communities of all shapes and sizes to have a seat at the table instead of the developer-backed housing advocates?
The fair share “study” passed in 2023 and we await the study’s municipal allocations – those allocations are conveniently not due until AFTER the November elections! The bill includes an onerous methodology for Fair Share allocations that only considers density developments of 3 or more units, excluding the very common gentle density of townhomes, row house, 2-unit multi-family that exists statewide. Many smaller towns lack adequate infrastructure, like sewers, wide roads for on-street parking, etc. to support higher density development. They have developed concentrated areas of density around town centers with townhomes, row houses, etc. These are completely excluded from the calculations in the intentional and clearly faulty drafting of Fair Share SB998 substitute language by the Majority leaders after midnight on a Saturday morning of the long session in 2023. That bill passed on a party line vote of only Democrats in both the House and Senate. Why are legislators passing bills that do not recognize existing density development and will lead to unworkable allocations? Do they even know what is in these bills?
Stay on top of your legislators and how they are voting. The winter of 2025 and the long session showdown on Fair Share is coming soon.
Alexis Harrison of Fairfield is a candidate for the 132nd District House. She and Maria Weingarten of New Canaan are founders of CT169Strong.