On June 23, Governor Ned Lamont (D) vetoed a contentious bill that would have significantly altered state policy on affordable housing; responses from local municipal leadership and housing advocates have run the gamut from gratified to frustrated.
“I’m disappointed by the result and I’m just disappointed by the process,” said State Rep. Maria Horn (D-64), positing that Lamont’s decision was influenced by naysayers who refused to find middle ground.
“Middle ground isn’t a glade in the forest that you suddenly come across,” she said. “Middle ground is something that you work at energetically.”
The bill in question was one of the most high-profile bills to be passed during the recently closed session, with the CT Mirror describing it as “the most significant piece of housing legislation to cross [Lamont’s] desk since he became governor in 2019.”
After being passed in early June, the bill was left in limbo for weeks as Lamont weighed outcry from a contingent of municipal leaders, reportedly particularly in Fairfield County, who claimed it would strip autonomy from town governments and interfere with zoning discretion.
Known as House Bill 5002, the omnibus proposed law called for a number of policy reforms regarding affordable housing, among which were the “fair share” housing and “Work, Live, Ride” models which saw large-scale pushback from Republicans and even drew a few nays from a handful of center-leaning Democrat lawmakers.
The “fair share” framework provides incentives for communities to install a minimum number of affordable housing units, while “Work, Live, Ride” prioritizes certain infrastructure improvement funding opportunities for towns that build affordable housing near public transit stations.
After Lamont’s veto, for which the Governor cited local autonomy as a primary reason, state Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding (R-30) issued a statement that referred to the bill as “anti-local control legislation,” saying that “our towns and cities deserve a seat at the table – not a mandate from Hartford.”
Several of the Northwest Hills Council of Government’s first selectmen have similarly voiced concern that the legislators who crafted the bill are out of touch with the needs of small towns, and that the approaches to affordable housing that it calls for would divert much-needed funding away from their towns, many of which don’t have any access to public transport options.
Proponents of the bill have repeatedly claimed that the strategies outlined are for planning purposes rather than mandates, and that other types of funding will not be replaced by housing-focused grants.
At the June meeting of the COG, Betsy Gara, executive director of the Connecticut Council of Small Towns, argued housing plans should be developed by the COG and its members themselves rather than have a “flawed methodology” foisted on the towns.”
COG Chair and New Hartford First Selectman Daniel Jerram agreed, as did Kent First Selectman Marty Lindenmayer, who advanced that an “economic development piece” needs to accompany housing legislation in small towns: “Are we going to send our middle-income residents to Danbury for jobs?”
Lindenmayer was pleased at Lamont’s decision to veto the bill. Speaking at the July 2 BOS meeting, Lindenmayer described the bill as stripping municipalities’ power to govern their downtowns. “I think the Governor recognized it could be done in a better way,” he said.
Back at the COG meeting, Cornwall First Selectman Gordon Ridgway took a different stance, stating that any push towards housing reform that would allow more people to live in town is welcome – and the need is urgent. He mentioned that there were five graduates from Cornwall Central School’s eighth grade this year, and he knew of more families who wanted to move to town but couldn’t because of housing costs.
In an interview after the veto, Ridgway doubled down that housing needed to stay front and center in legislators’ minds: “It’s critical to these towns that we keep working on this and not pretending it isn’t real.”
For his part — “We keep plugging away at it,” he said.
Horn similarly advocated for tenacity amongst housing advocates and urged lawmakers to try to find common ground as the bill comes back around, which it is expected to happen in the fall or spring. “Like any difficult piece of legislation,” she said, “you’re not going to suddenly discover nirvana.”
She added that though she had voted against an earlier iteration of “Work, Live, Ride,” fearing that her constituents would miss out on essential funding opportunities, housing leaders in the Northwest Corner had ameliorated those concerns regarding the newest version of the bill.
Our Home, Our Future: Keeping a multigenerational community