Lawmakers on Wednesday moved forward with a bill that would encourage more housing near public transportation hubs, one of the more contentious bills of the session.
House Bill 6831, also known as Work, Live, Ride, passed through the Planning and Development Committee with a party-line vote. A similar version of the bill passed the House last session, but the measure wasn’t called in the Senate.
“I would like to believe that we all agree that people should have adequate housing, and we do not currently have adequate housing in the state of Connecticut, and that’s what this bill seeks to achieve,” said committee co-chair Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw, D-Avon.
The bill would prioritize certain infrastructure funding for towns that adopt “transit-oriented districts,” or areas near train and bus stations that have denser housing development. The bill outlines ways to qualify as a transit-oriented district, including by allowing the development of multifamily housing of fewer than 10 units or the development of larger complexes, if at least 30% of the larger complex is set aside as affordable housing, without a public hearing.
Towns that neighbor municipalities with public transit stations could also qualify for prioritization under the bill. It’s a concept known as transit-oriented development, which aims to create walkable neighborhoods near public transportation. The idea has grown in popularity globally over the past few years.
Republicans introduced several amendments, all of which were struck down by the majority party. The bill is one of the most controversial expected to come out of the Planning and Development Committee this session.
The bill comes from advocacy group Desegregate Connecticut, a program of the Regional Plan Association. They’ve said it would boost housing supply and benefit the environment by encouraging people to use public transportation.
“We are going through and experiencing that housing shortage, in all areas,” said Planning and Development co-chair Sen. MD Rahman, D-Manchester.
Nick Kantor, director of Desegregate Connecticut, said in public testimony that in his experience as a planning and zoning commissioner in Norwalk, he’s seen the need for a bill like Work, Live, Ride.
“Even in a pro-growth community, we struggle to address housing shortages for working families while confronting the climate crisis,” Kantor wrote in his testimony. “Despite strong leadership at all levels, we can’t do it alone. We need the state to step up.”
Several committee Republicans objected to the bill, saying they feared it would mean that towns that don’t opt to create these districts can’t access funds they need.
Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, told the committee about a situation in one of the towns he represents where a bridge was uneven, and officials were waiting on money from the Small Town Economic Assistance Program to repair it. Prioritization of those funds would be impacted under the bill, he said.
Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Gordon, R-Woodstock, pointed to the town of Union as an example.
They “do not have any ability at this point in time to even think in the short term of doing anything relative to setting up a transit-oriented district,” Gordon said. “They have no downtown. There’s no significant public transportation. There’s no infrastructure, really.”
Kavros DeGraw pointed out that the guidelines for such grants already highlights transit-oriented development as a priority.
Gordon said he also worries that small towns, some of which don’t have access to transit, would be affected.
Dubitsky proposed an amendment that would establish a working group in lieu of making changes to funding priority. He said he thinks the impact on small towns in particular hasn’t been considered enough. He likened what he said was a lack of consideration on the proposal to a lack of research done before the construction of large public housing towers, which he said have “turned into hellholes.”
Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven, told Dubitsky that there had already been working groups, studies, panels and conversations for years about this bill. They have enough information and have compromised enough, he said.
“Opening up the doors,” to the transit hubs to more communities “by allowing a very small, small change to the local zoning,” would ensure public dollars are spent wisely, Lemar said.
During the public hearing, some of the most vehement opposition came from the group Connecticut 169 Strong. Members said they feared that, although the bill contains a provision that allows towns with pre-existing transit districts to be grandfathered in, the bill proponents weren’t telling the truth about the details of the measure because another section of the law includes a list of some of the requirements needed for a district to qualify. Group members said they worried that even if a town were grandfathered in, they would have to change some of their zoning to comply with that list of qualifications.
Lawmakers didn’t discuss these concerns during Wednesday’s debate.
Democrats pushed back against what they said was misinformation during the public hearing and said that the bill language does allow towns to be grandfathered in. Kavros DeGraw said in an interview that the bill allows flexibility for the state to work with towns.
“They can be grandfathered in if they so choose,” Kavros DeGraw said. “That’s the bottom line, because the whole goal is to have more transit-oriented districts, not less. The whole goal is to include the people who want to be included. So why would anyone make it more onerous if they didn’t have to?”
Republicans raised a commonly heard refrain, arguing that the bill would dilute local control.
“It seriously shows a lack of interest in having people have a say in how they live, and being able to choose the type of environment they want to live in,” Dubitsky said. “If we want to force every town and city in this state to be like Hartford, let’s just abandon zoning altogether.”
Lemar, who voted in favor of the bill, said he was tired of seeing what he called “country club train stations,” placed in neighborhoods with mostly housing that wealthy people can afford. The bill, he said, would help open up choices for people with lower incomes.
“In terms of allowing people to decide where and how they live, I think we really should be thinking about what this bill is trying to get at, which is affordable housing, and the fact that we have people who cannot currently determine their own futures, and where they would like to live because of the lack of affordability in this state,” Kavros DeGraw said.
The bill will next head to the House for a vote.