Connect with us

Connecticut

Connecticut housing crisis persists as Governor Lamont vetoes reform bill

Published

on

Connecticut housing crisis persists as Governor Lamont vetoes reform bill


play

A political stalemate in Connecticut is a stark reminder that the housing crisis engulfing the country is a local issue that leaves some policy proposals at the mercy of community residents who may have little incentive to change their own neighborhoods.

Connecticut lawmakers spent months working on House Bill 5002, along with the office of Governor Ned Lamont, a Democrat, and housing advocates from across the state. Among other things, it would have encouraged towns to rework their zoning laws to accommodate development for more-affordable housing.

Advertisement

The bill was approved by the legislature in June but when it landed on Lamont’s desk, several groups organized in opposition. At issue was the question of how much say each municipality would have in allowing that new development, with opponents claiming untruthfully that the state wanted to mandate specific quotas for new homes.

Lamont eventually vetoed the bill, saying, “I just don’t think that it works when it’s us against them.”

Local housing activists were surprised by the about-face – and left frustrated.

“Housing requires a long lead time and financing and a lot of different pieces – financial, physical, legal – that have to come together. So even on a good day, it’s a complicated process,” said Tim Hollister, a partner with Hartford-based law firm Hinckley Allen, who’s worked on behalf of all sides of development deals over his career and has written several op-eds in local papers supporting the goals of the Connecticut bill.

Advertisement

Years of underbuilding coupled with strict zoning in many parts of the country and, more recently, higher interest rates, have combined to create an acute shortage of housing and an affordability crisis.

In the Northeast in particular, Hollister said, the more open, participatory political process is “both our blessing and our curse. We have set up a system that makes opposition against housing real and consequential. So it’s hard to develop, and we have a system that encourages or allows restrictions and discrimination and opposition, all ladled on top of the regular difficulties.”

Connecticut has a housing crisis

One thing that all sides can agree on: Connecticut needs more housing. A 2025 report commissioned by the legislature concluded that the state is “the most constrained housing market in the country—measured as the number of units available for year-round occupancy per household.”

Advertisement

The state’s older housing stock and popularity among those seeking beachfront vacation homes or easy commutes into New York City contribute to the scarcity, the report added.

“Connecticut’s overall population is aging and in decline, as many younger families cannot afford to move into existing housing, while seniors wishing to downsize lack housing choice in size and variety,” the authors wrote. They estimated the need for more housing at between 120,000 and 380,000 additional units.

“If you talk to someone in the grocery store, they’re going to tell you that their kid is in their basement and that they don’t know what they’re going to do with their aging parent,” said Melissa Kaplan-Macey, the chief initiative officer at The Housing Collective, a nonpartisan homeless services organization.

“Noone is against affordable housing,” said Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, a Republican, in an interview. “Many of the communities that objected very loudly are communities that have taken it upon themselves to develop affordable housing.”

But Harding voted against the bill because, he said, “There was an arbitrary breakdown that designated how much affordable housing the community had to have and if you didn’t have that, the state would determine what your punishment was.”

Advertisement

Harding sees senior housing as a particular challenge. Many older residents want to stay in their communities, but downsize into a smaller, easier-to-maintain residence. But state zoning laws prioritize the construction of homes affordable to low- and moderate- income residents over senior housing, Harding said.

“That’s the problem with statewide zoning,” he said.

Towns want ‘local control’ over policy

Allowing the state to manage rulemaking, like zoning, was the main sticking point that derailed HB 5002.

The bill established a community-by-community allocation and encouraged cities and towns to develop new housing according to it. It would have prioritized state funding for those municipalities that complied, but states overtly that it would not have withheld aid or otherwise punished local communities.

But opponents, mostly representing wealthier communities, said the bill contained punitive requirements from the state. In a press conference after vetoing the bill, Lamont called it a “planning document” and not a mandate, but said the opposition influenced his decision to nix the bill anyway.

Advertisement

“The Governor ultimately did not sign the housing bill into law because of concerns he had around whether local leaders would be able to achieve the goals outlined in the bill,” a spokesperson for Lamont said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY.

“The Governor, working with the legislature over the past several years, has been actively working to put more financial resources into housing construction,” the statement continued. “One thing we have learned from that work is that local leaders need to be bought in to the solution – and it was clear that was not the case with this bill.”

Why can’t blue states build housing?

Some housing advocates see parallels between Connecticut’s experience and the challenges in neighboring Massachusetts, where the state in 2024 took one community to court when it refused to adhere to a law mandating planning for housing.

“I think some of it (getting policy made) is having a little bit more political courage to do things that may seem unpopular at first,” said Jonathan Berk, founder of the real estate and placemaking consultancy re:MAIN and a Massachusetts resident.

Advertisement

In the Bay State, legislators are now more “gun shy” about working in favor of additional housing measures because some constituents have said they don’t like the statewide legislation, Berk said. “A lot of that is despite polling that shows some of these reforms are actually popular, but it’s that vocal minority, passive majority situation that has played itself out in local housing decisions for decades across the Northeast.”

In Connecticut, some advocates are trying to see the silver lining.

“What is really fascinating about the way the conversation around this has changed over the last year is we are not talking as much about whether we need these goals or not, but what those goals should be, which is a giant shift,” said Erin Boggs, executive director of the Open Communities Alliance, a fair housing and affordable housing group.



Source link

Advertisement

Connecticut

Lawmakers again push to restore Shore Line East service to 2019 levels

Published

on

Lawmakers again push to restore Shore Line East service to 2019 levels


Connecticut lawmakers are again looking to restore Shore Line East rail service to its pre‑pandemic levels, a proposal that could add about 90 more trains per week.

Lawmakers are also weighing a separate cost‑saving proposal to shift the line from electric rail cars back to diesel.

The plan comes as ridership remains well below 2019 numbers, though state data shows those numbers have begun to climb.

The Department of Transportation provided the General Assembly’s transportation committee with the following data:

Advertisement
  • 132 trains per week today versus 222 trains per week in 2019, according to the CTDOT commissioner.
  • In 2019, most weekday SLE trains traveled between New Haven Union Station and Old Saybrook. This allowed SLE to operate with only five train sets in the morning and four train sets in the afternoon.
  • It should be noted that 2019 SLE service levels were very different due to constrained infrastructure; 2019 service levels had a reduced number of SLE trains serving New London (13 trains per day Monday through Friday, as opposed to 20 today), while other stations had increased service (36 trains per day Monday through Friday, as opposed to 20 today).

“2019 levels beyond Old Saybrook to New London would require more crews and more train sets than were used in 2019, requiring significantly more financial resources,” the department wrote in its written testimony.

The department said the governor’s FY2027 budget does not include funding for a full restoration. In other words, even if the legislature requires additional trains, the funds are not included in the current financial plan.

Governor Lamont said on Monday to remember that the state subsidizes the line more than any other rail right now.

“There’s not as much demand as there are for some of the other rail services in other parts of the state, so that’s the balance we’re trying to get right,” Lamont said.

At a public hearing on Monday, concerns about the line’s reliability and schedule were a central focus in the testimony.

“We’re making the line less attractive, some would say. The schedules are very, very difficult to manage,” said Sen. Christine Cohen of Guilford, the co-chair of the committee.

Advertisement

The current schedule for eastbound morning commuters is difficult. The train either arrives in New London just after 7 a.m. or after 9 a.m.

“So obviously not really … conducive to a typical workday,” Cohen said.

Cohen, who represents communities along the line, said she continues to reintroduce the bill to expand service year after year, pushing the state to do more with the line.

She thanked the department for the work it was able to do with the recent funding to establish a through train to Stamford.

“What do we need to do, and what are the challenges that you face in terms of expansion at this time?” Cohen asked.

Advertisement

Commissioner Garrett Eucalitto responded that the biggest hurdle is the cost of labor and access fees to Amtrak, which owns the territory.

“The cost to provide rail service is very expensive,” Eucalitto said.

He said CTDOT knows the current schedule is “not ideal,” but the economics of a work-from-home society are difficult.

“People expect 100% of the trains that they had in 2019, but they only want to take it two days a week,” Eucalitto said.

Asked about the eastbound schedule, the commissioner explained Shore Line East still operates on a model that sends trains toward New Haven in the morning rather than toward New London.

Advertisement

Changing that would require more equipment, more crews, and a second morning operations base, as well as negotiations with Amtrak, which owns the tracks.

Amtrak is “protecting their slots to be able to run increased Northeast Regional service as well as increased Acela service,” Eucallito said. “They’re going to look at us and question, ‘Well, how does that impact our need for Amtrak services?’ They’ll never give you an answer upfront, it’s always: ‘show us a proposal and then they’ll respond to it.’”

Cohen, who chairs the Transportation Committee, touted how a successful Shoreline East benefits the environment, development along the line, and reduces I-95 congestion.

“We need to start talking about how much money this costs us and think about all of the ancillary benefits,” Cohen said during the hearing.

Cohen said there is multi-state support for extending the line into Rhode Island.

Advertisement

“We will need some federal dollars. But as you say, there are other businesses up the line in New London,” Cohen said. “We’ve got Electric Boat. We’ve got Pfizer up that way. If we can get those employees on the transit line, we’re all the better for it.”

Rider advocates said the issue is familiar.

“I’d rather see solutions, and not things that are holding it back,” said Susan Feaster, founder of the Shore Line East Riders’ Advocacy Group.

She said she worries the line is facing a transit death spiral, with reduced service leading to lower ridership and falling fare revenue.

“They have to give us the money,” Feaster said. “It shouldn’t have to be profitable.”

Advertisement

Like other train lines across the country, Shore Line East relies on subsidies.

“We’re not asking for everything to be done overnight, but just incrementally,” Feaster said.

The line received $5 million two years ago, which increased service levels.

The proposal comes as the state reviews whether to return to diesel rail cars that are more than 30 years old.

The state says the switch would save about $9 million, but riders have said it would worsen the passenger experience.

Advertisement

NBC Connecticut asked Cohen whether she’ll ask DOT to reverse that proposal.

“I really want to,” Cohen said. “I appreciate what CTDOT was trying to do in terms of not cutting service as a result of trying to find savings elsewhere. This isn’t the way to do it.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Iranian Yale scholar in Connecticut celebrates fall of regime, calls for free elections

Published

on

Iranian Yale scholar in Connecticut celebrates fall of regime, calls for free elections


HARTFORD, Conn. (WFSB) – Thousands of Connecticut families with ties to Iran are watching and waiting as their home country undergoes a historic change.

Among them is Ramin Ahmadi, a Yale doctor, human rights activist and founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. He has spent decades advocating for freedom in Iran from his home in Connecticut.

Ahmadi moved to the United States when he was 18. On Saturday morning, he learned of military strikes in Iran and the death of the country’s supreme leader.

Ahmadi said protests for democracy and human rights in Iran intensified in December, drawing millions of participants — including his own family and friends.

Advertisement

“The situation in Iran was a humanitarian emergency and it needed an intervention,” Ahmadi said.

He said he celebrated when he heard the news Saturday morning.

“I was celebrating along with all other Iranians inside and outside the country,” Ahmadi said. “I do regret that we cannot bring him to a trial for crimes that he has committed against humanity.”

Ahmadi said he spoke with his sister in Iran after she celebrated in the streets. She was later told to return home for her safety.

He shared a message she relayed from those around her.

Advertisement

“They said do not let our death be exploited because worse than that is having to live with the criminals who have done this to us for the rest of our lives,” Ahmadi said. “We do not want to do that.”

For those questioning whether the conflict was America’s to engage in, Ahmadi offered a direct response.

“We will all be affected,” he said. “And to those that tell you that the U.S. and Israel are beating the drums of war in Iran, one has to remind them that it was not like before this Iranian people were listening to Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 in D minor. We had a war already declared on us by this regime. We were being slaughtered on a daily basis.”

Ahmadi said he believes the path forward begins with young military officers forcing out what remains of the regime, followed by free elections.

“Everyone’s life will be safer in the future and not just Iranians,” Ahmadi said.

Advertisement

Connecticut lawmakers are also responding to the U.S. strikes on Iran.



Source link

Continue Reading

Connecticut

Two people shot in New Haven restaurant Saturday evening

Published

on

Two people shot in New Haven restaurant Saturday evening


New Haven police say two people were shot at a restaurant on Grand Avenue Saturday evening.

One of the victims was a 22-year-old male from East Haven who was shot in the leg and was transported to Yale New Haven Hospital for treatment.

According to police, the second victim was a 17-year-old male and arrived shortly after.

While on scene, police confirmed one of the possible shooters was still inside the restaurant.

Advertisement

According to police, the victims were both inside the restaurant when the teen was approached by Naguea Bratton and another suspect.

They say a fight occurred which resulted in both victims being shot.

Police detained Bratton who was charged with carrying a pistol without a permit, two counts of illegal possession of a high-capacity magazine and larceny of a motor vehicle.

Bratton is being held on a $200,000 bond.

Both victims have non-life-threatening injuries police say.

Advertisement

They say additional arrests are expected to be completed by warrant.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending