Controversial housing bill heads to governor's desk
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) —The 2025 session of Connecticut's state legislature has been over for more than a week, but a major piece of housing legislation passed by majority Democrats continues to cause controversy — and a chorus of calls for Gov. Ned Lamont to veto it.
Connecticut House passes housing bill after 11-hour debate
The legislation, formally known as House Bill 5002, is the latest in a series of Democratic-led efforts to implement statewide policies that spur the development of more housing. Proponents of statewide housing reform have cited research showing Connecticut's housing stock is short by as many as 100,000 units.
Lawmakers clash over proposed affordable housing bill
'We know how imperative it is that we get more housing in the state,' Gov. Lamont said on Tuesday.
But as the governor and others look for ways to use public policy to encourage more development, they've encountered resistance from leaders on both sides of the aisle who say provisions of H.B. 5002 encroach on the authorities of local zoning boards.
Governor's Hartford residence to open for annual open house day
Three provisions in particular have drawn the ire of defenders of local control of zoning. First, the bill establishes a baseline for the amount of units, including affordable units, each municipality in Connecticut must plan for. Municipalities that hit the goals outlined in the bill will be prioritized for certain state grants.
Local leaders and legislators who oppose the bill have characterized that provision as a mandate.
'It absolutely is a mandate,' State Rep. Joe Zullo, a leading Republican opponent to 5002, said. 'It allocates to every town a certain amount of housing they have to build no matter what.'
Supporters of 5002 push back on this characterization of the legislation. On the affordable housing metrics, they say the bill seeks to set objective standards while providing measured incentives to communities that comply.
'Gasoline on the flames:' Lamont, Tong, Bysiewicz respond to Trump administration's use of National Guard in California
'Any time you want to have a policy outcome, there needs to be an accountability measure and that's what we're talking about here,' State Rep. Jason Rojas, the Democratic house majority leader, said of the concept in an interview conducted before the final passage of the bill. 'We can call it a stick, I call it accountability. We expect every other area of government to be accountable for something. Towns should be accountable, too.'
Another provision of 5002 takes aim at minimum parking requirements often imposed by municipalities on small towns. The third provision seeks to bypass planning and zoning hearings for the approval of conversions of certain commercial properties into residential units.
These measures have also drawn considerable criticism. In both instances, advocates say the bill seeks to remove onerous barriers, while opponents charge that local control of development is being deeply eroded.
H. B. 5002 passed through the legislature over the objections of every Republican and a relatively small but significant vocal faction of Democrats, mostly from the state's suburbs.
Now the bill is passed and on the governor's desk awaiting action, Lamont is faced with the decision to either veto or sign it. He has signaled that if he signs it, he would only do so after an agreement had been made with legislative leaders to make revisions before the bill goes into effect in October.
'I think they went too far in some areas of the bill and that's what we look to change,' Lamont said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

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


Hamilton Spectator
28 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered government agencies to consolidate their wildland firefighting into a single program, despite warnings from former federal officials that it could be costly and increase the risk of catastrophic blazes. The order aims to centralize firefighting efforts now split among five agencies and two Cabinet departments. Trump's proposed budget for next year calls for the creation of a new Federal Wildland Fire Service under the U.S. Interior Department. That would mean shifting thousands of personnel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service — where most federal firefighters now work — with fire season already underway . The administration has not disclosed how much the change could cost or save. Trump in his order cited the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January as highlighting a need for a quicker response to wildfires. 'Wildfires threaten every region, yet many local government entities continue to disregard commonsense preventive measures,' the order said. The Trump administration in its first months temporarily cut off money for wildfire prevention work and reduced the ranks of federal government firefighters through layoffs and retirement. The order makes no mention of climate change, which Trump has downplayed even as warming temperatures help stoke bigger and more destructive wildfires that churn out massive amounts of harmful pollution. More than 65,000 wildfires across the U.S. burned almost 9 million acres (3.6 million hectares) last year. Organizations representing firefighters and former Forest Service officials say it would be costly to restructure firefighting efforts and cause major disruptions in the midst of fire season. A group that includes several former Forest Service chiefs said in a recent letter to lawmakers that consolidation of firefighting work could 'actually increase the likelihood of more large catastrophic fires, putting more communities, firefighters and resources at risk.' Another destructive fire season is expected this year, driven by above-normal temperatures for most of the country, according to federal officials. A prior proposal to merge the Forest Service and Interior to improve firefighting was found to have significant drawbacks by the Congressional Research Service in a 2008 report. But the idea more recently got bipartisan support, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla and Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy sponsoring legislation that is similar to Trump's plan. Before his election last year, Sheehy founded an aerial firefighting company that relies heavily on federal contracts. In a separate action aimed at wildfires, the Trump administration last month rolled back environmental safeguards around future logging projects on more than half U.S. national forests. The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain primarily in the West but also in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Most of those forests are considered to have high wildfire risk, and many are in decline because of insects and disease .
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Geraldo Rivera: Sen. Padilla's removal a ‘bad look'
(NewsNation) — NewsNation correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera said Thursday he believes Democratic California Sen. Alex Padilla's removal from a DHS press briefing in Los Angeles was rough handling and was a 'bad look' for the law enforcement officers who restrained him. 'The United States senator has a right, even if it's a stunt, to get in front of a camera and have a dialogue with Kristi Noem,' Rivera said. Video shared of the incident shows Padilla being restrained by law enforcement and forced out of the room and him later being pushed to the ground and handcuffed. In the video, Padilla is seen interrupting the conference held by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, looking to ask her questions. FBI head Patel suing MSNBC columnist over nightclub hopping claims DHS accused Padilla of failing to identify himself and stated that he 'lunged toward' Noem. However, in the video, Padilla identifies himself as he moves toward the front of the room. FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said the agents who removed Padilla acted 'completely appropriately' in assisting Secret Service officials. Noem later said in a post on X that she and Padilla met for 15 minutes after the conference and exchanged phone numbers to talk more later. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge invokes monarchy talk while mulling Trump's National Guard deployment
A federal judge warned at a Thursday hearing that accepting the Trump administration's assertion he has no authority to review the president's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles is a slippery slope. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said he hoped to rule later in the day on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) request to immediately restrict the troops' power on the ground, suggesting federal law at minimum required President Trump to alert the governor. The judge repeatedly emphasized that Trump is exercising presidential authority — not a king's — and the role comes with limitations. 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George,' Breyer said. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and then it becomes it. It's a question of is a leader, a president or the governor, following the law as set forth in both the Constitution and statutes,' he continued. 'That's what a president, a governor or any leader must act under. Otherwise, they become something other than a constitutional officer.' Breyer seemed willing to agree with Newsom that Trump's deployment was legally defective, but it's still a question as to whether the judge will enjoin the president's directive or give the administration a chance to institute it the proper way. At the same time, Breyer appeared skeptical of blocking at this stage the 700 Marines sent to assist the several thousand guard members deployed. The Trump administration argues Breyer has no authority to review Trump's deployment of the National Guard because it is in the president's sole discretion. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate argued that Trump was not required to seek approval from Newsom in mobilizing the guard, calling the governor 'merely a conduit.' The president does not have to call up a governor and 'invite them to Camp David' for a negotiation summit to call up the National Guard in their state, he said. 'There is one commander in chief of the armed forces, and when the president makes a decision, the states are subservient to the president's decision,' Shumate said. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) contend that Trump was required to receive Newsom's consent before deploying the National Guard. 'They suggest, your honor, that there are no guardrails,' Nicholas Green, a lawyer for the state, said. Amid the legal battle, Trump said Thursday that he 'doesn't feel like a king.' He was responding to questions about 'No Kings' demonstrations expected around the country this weekend, which are set to coincide with a military parade marking the U.S. Army's 250th birthday. 'I have to go through hell to get stuff approved,' Trump said. Breyer during the hearing kept returning to monarchy talk, trying to determine how he could side with Trump without giving him unchecked power. 'What makes America great, different, is our Constitution and our robust discussion of views of the citizens,' the judge said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.