Last month’s special session in Connecticut saw the passage of HB 8002, a revised version of HB 5002, the omnibus housing bill Gov. Ned Lamont vetoed last June. The original bill passed both the House and Senate and made a number of sweeping changes to existing state law for the purpose of encouraging housing development, but was vetoed by Lamont, who wanted the bill to receive the support of municipalities.
In the lead-up to the special legislative session, Inside Investigator spoke to both advocates and opponents of the original bill. Advocates believed that prior state law left too much discretion in the hands of local zoning officials, handicapping the state’s effort to make a meaningful dent in its housing shortage. Opponents believed the original bill was too punitive to municipalities and would create a confusing web of intersecting and, at times contradictory, planning stipulations for towns to navigate.
Inside Investigator caught up with those same stakeholders to see what their thoughts are on HB 8002 now that the bill has been passed.
HB 5002 advocate, Peter Harrison, Connecticut’s Director of the Regional Plan Association, which runs advocacy group Desegregate CT, said that while the “ups and downs” of Lamont’s veto made the process of passing the bill “a grind” for housing advocates, he thought HB 8002 was “pretty good.” Harrison was joined by Nick Cantor, Desegregate CT’s Program Director.
“If you had told me back in January we would pass, Work, Live, Ride, really ambitious parking reform, get some kind of rational allotment implementation, affordable housing plan process, and a bunch of other stuff — I’d be very excited,” said Harrison. “So the fact that we’re there now, it’s exciting.”
Betsy Gara, Executive Director of the CT Council of Small Towns, an opponent of HB 5002, had similarly positive things to say about the compromises achieved in the revised bill.
“The reality is that given broad support in the state legislature for a housing bill; something was going to pass,” said Gara. “COST worked hard to mitigate some of the most onerous provisions in the bill to develop a more workable, balanced framework for addressing local and regional housing needs.”
HB 8002 includes many of the provisions of the original bill, but also includes a number of changes. While the original bill stipulated a near total elimination of parking requirements for housing developments, the revised bill stipulates that parking requirements are waived only for smaller housing developments. The bill also shifted the onus of setting municipal housing development goals from the state to regional councils of governments (COGs).
Under the revised bill, municipalities now have the choice to opt in to the plans developed by their regional COGs or to create their own housing growth plans, which must be approved by OPM officials every five years. It also removes some of the more punitive measures included in the original bills for ensuring town accountability to state housing goals, replacing them instead with several new grant programs to assist towns and COGs in developing more affordable housing.
Harrison, who has been an opponent of local control, shared trepidation regarding the ability of COGs to create plans that would meaningfully incentivize housing growth, but believed it could be achieved through proper state oversight and local cooperation.
“I do think with the right amount of oversight from the state, the right amount of oversight and collaboration from local governments and COGs, [it] can produce some really good plans and I think some reasonable, realistic goals,” said Harrison. “I think we as advocates, as the state, will have to be vigilant where there will be COGs, and there will be communities that do not really want to make any changes or ask more of their communities, and that’s still a possibility.”
Gara also showed support for the revised bill’s attempt at compromising between state oversight and local control in the development of affordable housing growth plans.
“The bill is certainly not perfect, but it makes more sense from a planning standpoint,” said Gara. “Our municipal leaders, as board members of their respective COGs, have already been discussing ways of promoting housing development, including affordable housing, in their regions.”
Harrison also supported the revised bill’s inclusion of grant funding, acknowledging that there have been municipalities acting in good faith who have had their housing growth limited by costly infrastructural restrictions in the past. However, he also said that questions remain regarding how much funding will be provided.
“I think we would have liked to have seen a clear sense statutorily about what these guidelines are and how much funding is available,” said Harrison. “We’re really just hearing promises about bonding authority and funding, and I suspect that to be true, but that, you know — how much money is actually going to be in its incentive pool is a real question.”
Gara also appreciated the inclusion of grants, a stipulation she believes is better than the original bill’s stipulations that towns receive lower priority for reception of Clean Water Act and Small Town Economic Assistance Program grants if they did not comply with state zoning mandates.
“This would have shut many small towns out of much-needed funding to address water pollution issues, expand wastewater capacity, and support vital economic and community development projects,” said Gara. “Instead, the bill creates a new housing growth fund which will assist municipalities in addressing water and wastewater issues and other local infrastructure projects needed to support development.”
Despite Harrison’s support for the additional grant funding, he did fear that the removal of the original bill’s stipulations that grant priority be provided to municipalities that made meaningful zoning reform has led some pro-housing advocates to, “ argue, I think accurately, that there really aren’t any sticks for towns, and that’s going to be something that will have to be looked at.”
“The only consequence right now is basically not getting an 8-30 G moratorium,” said Harrison. “[For] some towns that might be a big deal, some of them, that might not. So I do think there still needs to be more accountability.”
Gara provided a list of additional municipal concerns she felt were mitigated by the revised bill. This list included the revised bill’s elimination of “confusing and duplicative” planning requirements, elimination of as-of-right development for housing in commercial zones and for middle housing developments, its narrowing of the scope of the initial bills’ removal of minimum parking requirements, and its removal of a stipulation that would have required towns to pay attorney’s fees to developers upon a town’s loss of an 8-30g suit.
She also lauded the revised bill’s creation of a Homebuyer Savings Account plan and the creation of additional municipal grant programs.
“HB-8002 better reflects what is already happening,” said Gara. “Towns have been collaborating with local planners and regional Councils of Government to assess housing needs and develop and implement plans to promote more affordable housing, including housing near transit stations. By providing additional funding for the local infrastructure needed to support housing development, the bill will help build on these efforts.”
Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan (D-Bethel), a representative who has opposed significant alteration to municipalities’ ability to shape their own housing plans, maintained the same negative view of the revised bill as he did the original. Allie-Brennan ultimately voted against HB 8002.
“I share the goal of creating more affordable housing across Connecticut. But just like before, this proposal misses the mark,” said Allie-Brennan. “It adds more bureaucracy, gives Hartford more power, and takes decision-making further away from towns like Bethel, while claiming to ‘fix’ the problems that communities have been raising for years.”
Allie-Brennan criticized the bill’s Council for Housing Development as “another unelected housing council,” and said the bill added “massive new responsibilities with limited funding and no clear accountability” to COGs.
“That’s not reform, that’s bureaucracy with a new name,” said Allie-Brennan. “I want to thank the Governor and legislative leadership for listening to concerns and trying to improve this bill. But the version before us still doesn’t address what we’re experiencing in towns like Bethel, where residents want to grow responsibly and have a voice in how it’s done.”
Allie-Brennan said his no vote “wasn’t about partisanship,” but about representing his constituents’ concerns.
“As I said on the House floor, I’ll continue working with anyone, from either party, to get this right, because housing reform only works when it’s transparent, balanced, and built on trust,” said Allie-Brennan.
Ultimately, Harrison and Kantor said that proper implementation will be essential in ensuring the measures of the bill translate to real housing growth.
“I think implementation is going to be really important here, and there’s a lot of room that there’s gonna be worked out as well,” said Kantor. “The work really starts now. It doesn’t matter once it gets passed, it’s; how does it actually turn into homes for people?”
Gara hedged her enthusiasm with the acknowledgment that the bill “poses considerable challenges for small towns,” and said COST is “committed to working with our towns and COGs to help address these challenges moving forward, including revisiting certain provisions with the state legislature if they prove too burdensome.”
Harrison said that while the revised bill may include more compromises than pro-housing reform advocates would have originally liked to see, he believes the process allowed for the Governor and municipal stakeholders to finally acknowledge the severity of the state’s housing shortage.
“I think the compromise, to the extent that it got more local buy-in, which it definitely did judging by who came to the press conference and who’s been supporting the bill, I think is a very good step,” said Harrison. “I said this at the press conference, but having Betsy [Gara], CCM, all those people and the first selectmen from both parties there, as a really sincere acknowledgement that the status quo is not working — that’s progress. And we just need to hold those types of stakeholders to that sentiment, to really see that there’s real change in these plans.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
