
Lawmakers' clash over affordable housing stalls progress as clock running out
For decades, Connecticut residents have complained about the price of housing.
Whether a recent college graduate seeking an apartment or a young family trying to buy their first house, prices have been seen as too high.
With those problems as a backdrop, the state legislature is considering providing incentives to build more affordable housing as Democrats and Republicans have disagreed sharply over the best way of doing that.
They clashed last week over a 92-page omnibus bill with 51 sections that makes parking reforms, helps the homeless population, and offers incentives to build affordable housing. The measure relaxes parking requirements in order to spur new housing, but the two sides disagreed over whether that would solve the problem.
Lawmakers had expected to debate on Thursday, but the bill was being rewritten amid concerns from moderate Democrats and a threatened filibuster by Republicans that could have stretched overnight. The debate now has been postponed until Tuesday.
House majority leader Jason Rojas, an East Hartford Democrat, has worked on the issue for years as the prices of rental apartments and mortgages have continued to increase.
'I have been described as being impatient with the pace of change on housing policy, and I am because of what you see around our state in terms of the lack of affordability,' Rojas told reporters before the debate. 'For families that are stable in their housing, they are still paying a lot of money towards it. We obviously have a growing homeless population that I think we should all be concerned about. That's really what is driving me because if we don't do something today, 10 years from now, the situation will be far worse than it is today.'
Rojas added, 'It takes a long time to get housing built. … I'm really trying to meet everybody somewhere in the middle to advance a policy that helps us get more housing built.'
In the past, Rojas has described the housing progress as 'painfully incremental,' but he says now that his view is different this year.
'It's still incremental, but not painfully,' he said, adding that the latest measure is 'an incremental step in the right direction.'
The bill, Rojas said, reflects the priorities of Democrats in the House and Senate, along with Gov. Ned Lamont, who supports the measure. The legislation was named as House Bill 5002 to show that it is a high priority among House bills that start with the number 5000.
But Republicans are skeptical.
House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said the multi-pronged housing problem is much broader due to the legislature's past decisions on raising taxes and passing legislation that did not help the business climate.
'We've seen good-paying jobs leave the state of Connecticut,' Candelora told reporters. 'Large companies like GE and Lego move their headquarters out of our state, being replaced by Amazon warehouse workers. It is no longer affordable for those type of jobs for those individuals to live here. We certainly do have an affordability issue, but we've got to look more broadly at the policies they are passing to cause us to have economic loss in the state of Connecticut.'
A nonpartisan summary says the bill 'allows residential or mixed-use development on lots zoned for commercial use to be developed if it meets certain requirements.' Republicans are concerned about that idea, saying that housing should not be built in areas with gasoline stations, propane tanks, and polluted properties.
In addition, the bill 'prevents development applications from being rejected by local planning or zoning commissions on the basis that they do not conform with off-street parking requirements.'
A lack of minimum parking, lawmakers said, can lead to other problems in towns.
'Currently, towns across the state have minimum, mandatory parking requirements,' said Rep. Joe Zullo, an East Haven Republican. 'As I read the bill, that applies to commercial and residential uses. … Do you want a big box store or a busy restaurant or some other type of commercial use around the corner from you, and you not being able to tell them they have to have a certain amount of parking?'
Candelora said there was a similar problem in his hometown when the local planning and zoning commission granted an exemption to allow a pizza restaurant to open next to an elementary school without sufficient parking. The diners started parking in the school's parking lot, but eventually the restaurant closed due to the parking problems.
'This bill is going to make that story a common-day occurrence,' Candelora predicted.
Parking restrictions traditionally vary from town to town, thus blocking a one-size-fits-all solution. The parking concerns are starkly different from downtown Hartford to rural areas in Litchfield County or eastern Connecticut.
Lawmakers could not even agree on the impact of the bill. While Republicans maintained that the legislation would take away local control, Rojas said that was not true.
The debate could 'easily' have lasted 10 hours on the original bill as Rep. Doug Dubitsky, a Republican attorney, had filed 22 amendments alone, Candelora said. He had not seen an updated version of the bill but was hoping to view a new version over the holiday weekend in order to be prepared when the House reconvenes on Tuesday morning.
Besides the merits of the bill, top lawmakers are highly concerned about how many hours the debate will last because extra lengthy debates can crowd out the time that is needed to pass other key bills as lawmakers race toward the June 4 adjournment date.
House Speaker Matt Ritter, a Hartford Democrat who controls the agenda, keeps a close eye on the clock in the final days as numerous lawmakers want their bills on a wide variety of issues to pass in a scramble before the midnight adjournment.
'We've got a big bill every day that could be easily a big talker from now until we get out of here,' Ritter told reporters. 'Chairs have to understand. Sometimes I think the public has this perception that every bill that's not called was because Jason and I did not like it or there was a vote-count problem. Time is the enemy at this point. … We always take the hit for it, but sometimes it's just not ready for us to put on the board – or the amendment is not ready.'
Traditionally, the Republicans gain power in the final days of the session because they can delay bills through long debates.
'I'm going to try to assist them,' Candelora said. 'Look, we don't agree with what the Democrats are doing, and we're going to point out all the bad policies. But there's only so many bills that we're going to be able to do based on members of my caucus who are willing to fight these.'
Amid the back and forth, Lamont's spokesman, Rob Blanchard, said that he is on board with the original, detailed bill.
'The governor appreciates the legislature making accommodations to their housing bill to include some of his priorities, which include removing local barriers to housing development, while allowing municipalities the ability to maintain control,' Blanchard said. 'Connecticut's housing supply is constrained at a time when our housing needs should be keeping up with demand and affording families the opportunity for home ownership. As there is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the housing shortage, this legislation will encourage better collaboration between the private sector, who build residences, and local leadership.'
In efforts to address all levels of the housing crisis, Democrats are also calling for a pilot program for mobile, portable showers that would travel from town to town to help the homeless.
In addition, Rojas is pushing for helping public housing authorities that are controlled by local communities.
'For me, I'm going back to public housing,' Rojas told reporters. 'It's a policy that we've long forgotten about. … There's so much focus on local control. Housing authorities are made up of people who live in those communities. They are the ones who are truly building housing for that population of people that I'm most concerned about, which are families that are 0 to 30% of the area median income — the poorest of the poor.'
Rojas added, 'The private marketplace is not going to do anything for those individuals, and I think it's appropriate for the government to step in and try to secure housing for those people who are at the most vulnerability of being homeless.'
On the other end of the housing spectrum, prices have increased in recent years due to relatively few homes on the market with some buyers entering into bidding wars. The bidding has prompted buyers to pay above the asking price for Greenwich mansions to New Haven condominiums to Greater Hartford homes.
In Simsbury, a five-bedroom home with a three-car garage sold in April 2024 for nearly $800,000, which was $170,000 over the asking price. The homeowner received 27 offers, including many that were above the asking price, and the house was sold within one week to the highest bidder.
Regarding the answer to solving the problem, Republican Rep. Thomas O'Dea of New Canaan, one of the state's wealthiest and most expensive communities, said that towns should be allowed the right of first refusal to buy property that could be used for affordable housing. Prices can reach $1 million per acre in the upscale Fairfield County town, he said.
'There's no incentive to builders,' O'Dea said. 'The state has not helped us build affordable housing in New Canaan. We've had to do it all on our own. The state needs to incentivize towns and help them. … My proposal does work. That's the answer.'
Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.


Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."


Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Impeachment wars
Rep. Jasmine Crockett's mere mention of a possible impeachment inquiry into President Trump has touched off negative reactions from some colleagues. "I think she's going to turn off a lot more people than gain," a House Democrat told us. Why it matters: House Democratic leaders are staying neutral. But many Democrats are allergic to the word after they impeached Trump twice only for him to return to power with full control of the government. Crockett (D-Texas), asked in a local news interview if she would pursue impeachment if Democrats retook the House in 2026 and she became Oversight Committee chair, said she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry." The other three candidates for the ranking member job on Oversight, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), told us they wouldn't go that far. 👿 "Turning this ranker race into a proxy for impeachment is unhelpful and unfair to her colleagues," said a House Democrat who predicted Republicans will "try to motivate their base by saying that a Democratic majority will inevitably lead to impeachment." Crockett told us the term "impeachment inquiry" would stress to the public the "next level of gravity" of the subject matter — such as Trump's pardons for big money allies and the Qatari jet scandal. "A lot of times we as Democrats can overthink stuff," Crockett said. "A lot of people ... felt like [Oversight Committee chair] James Comer was an embarrassment. But at the end of the day, who won the House?" The bottom line: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deferred to House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), whose panel, he said, "has jurisdiction over impeachment."