Connect with us

Connecticut

Hamden Town Council deliberates over Gaza ceasefire resolution

Published

on

Hamden Town Council deliberates over Gaza ceasefire resolution


Hamden’s Legislative Council may be the latest municipality in Connecticut to pass a nonbinding ceasefire resolution in Gaza.

The council held a public hearing which lasted into the overnight hours Tuesday and went into recess. And while no decision was made, the resolution has proven to be divisive within the town.

Former town councilman Justin Farmer supports the ceasefire and said Hamden residents are indirectly funding Israeli assaults on Gaza, which have killed thousands of civilians.

“It’s a question of what are our taxpayer dollars going to, what is our moral obligation to that,” Farmer said.

Advertisement

The resolution, which is nonbinding, is largely ceremonial, but advocates say passing one would put pressure on elected officials to support a ceasefire within the federal government which continues to support military aid to Israel.

If Hamden passes a resolution, it would follow the communities of Bridgeport and Windsor, the only two municipalities in the state which have passed ceasefire resolutions.

But opponents, many of them Jewish Americans or Israeli Americans, oppose the resolution due to seeing it as a distraction from town issues or as an antisemitic act.

Hamden Mayor Lauren Garrett, a democrat, has not publicly said if she supports or opposes the resolution.

Dominique Baez, president of the town’s legislative council told CT Public it would take a recess to further discuss the resolution after an at times contentious multi-hour public speaking session.

Advertisement

Many who spoke at the session, like Benjamin Scolnic, the Rabbi at the Temple Beth Sholom in Hamden, opposed the resolution. Scolnic said a municipal council has little knowledge of foreign affairs, a common view among opponents, and would only pit Hamden residents against each other.

He also struck a conciliatory tone with supporters of the resolution. He said he wants to engage with and understand them.

“You are in pain,” Scolnic said. Let us hear and respect that pain. But you must understand that we are in terrible pain, too,” Scolnic said.

The resolution itself, introduced by councilmember Abdul Osmanu says various actions the Israeli military has taken since the October 7th attacks, could plausibly be considered a genocide, citinga recent U.S. District Courtorder, and the International Court of Justice.

Advertisement

Eddy Martinez

/

Connecticut Public

Dr. Benjamin Edidin Scolnic speaks in opposition Hamden’s proposed Gaza ceasefire resolution.

But while the language of the resolution also condemns antisemitic acts such as threats made against the Mishkan Israel Synagogue, and Islamophobic and anti-Arab American attacks, the document has been controversial for supporters of Israel.

Some protesters carried banners saying peace is possible if Hamas, which attacked Israel on October 7th, killing at least 1,200 Israelis, surrenders its weapons.

Advertisement

But the attacks are also part of a long running conflict which intensified after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and has led to tit-for-tat killings of Israeli and Palestinian civilians.

Opponents said the resolution does nothing, but at least one supporter, Francesca Maria, a member of the Connecticut Democratic Socialists of America, said doing so sends a message to the president.

“We’re hoping that these local efforts can apply pressure on our federal electeds and the Biden Administration and show them the will of the people and public opinion has turned and that their position is untenable,” Maria said.

Ceasefire supporters throughout the country have previously said they would withhold support for the Democrats in a presidential election year if the administration continues to supply military aid to Israel.

While opponents and supporters spoke and sometimes shouted each other down, other officials have yet to make definite comments. Mayor Garrett issued a carefully worded statement calling for understanding.

Advertisement

“I believe this is the start, not the end, of an important community conversation,” Garrett said. I am working with a facilitator to bring Faith and Community leaders together to have this essential conversation.”





Source link

Connecticut

Connecticut Deserves Better than the Housing Bill That Arrived Overnight

Published

on

Connecticut Deserves Better than the Housing Bill That Arrived Overnight


Last week’s special session was supposed to be simple, a short return to Hartford to make sure families relying on SNAP and essential programs could continue putting food on their tables. Our food banks are now reporting levels of demand higher than at any time in recent memory, which should have been the primary focus of the session. But as often happens, something else was slipped into the spotlight. Gov. Ned Lamont reintroduced a housing bill he had already vetoed once, and in the span of three rushed days, from Wednesday to Friday, HB 8002 was pushed through with almost no time for the public or legislators to meaningfully digest what was inside.

The bill is being presented as a solution to Connecticut’s housing crisis, homelessness, and affordability collapse. But let us say what so many residents, advocates, and even legislators know but hesitate to say publicly. This is not a homelessness bill. This is not an affordability bill. This is, once again, a development and zoning bill that continues the same pattern we have seen for years in Connecticut, a pattern where developers walk away smiling while our seniors, working class families, and lower income communities continue to fall into homelessness or displacement.

Months ago, I wrote about the Fair Share and Transit Oriented Development agenda and why it was being misrepresented as a form of housing justice. HB 8002 recycles many of the same concepts, just under new headings. Yes, some pieces of the bill include positive ideas. But the core structure is still a one size fits all approach that weakens public process, expands “as of right” zoning, ties municipal funding to compliance with state preferred planning models, and does very little to create truly affordable housing for those who need it most.

A bill built for suburbs, not cities

Let us be real. HB 8002 is aimed squarely at smaller towns. It creates penalties for municipalities that refuse to opt into regional housing plans or fail to submit required housing growth frameworks. It ties access to state grants to adherence with zoning models that many suburban towns have resisted for decades. The intention is to push “exclusive” municipalities to participate in housing growth, which is a fair goal in principle.

Advertisement

But the mechanism matters. And here, the mechanism is coercion through funding, the weakening of protest petitions, and the removal of public process in key zoning decisions. “As of right” development in transit areas, summary review for certain middle housing types, and restrictions on who can object to zoning changes combine to silence residents, especially those in communities vulnerable to displacement.

The impact of these reforms is wildly different in a town that builds one multifamily project per decade compared to a city like Stamford that has undergone one of the fastest and most aggressive building booms in the state. Stamford does not need this bill. Stamford is not a town refusing to build. Stamford has been flooded with development for fifteen years. We have built to the point of destabilizing entire neighborhoods, especially in the South End and West Side.

Families were pushed out by property taxes inflated by surrounding “luxury” buildings. Developers bought affordable homes, let them rot for years, then declared them blight to replace them with high priced rentals. Our seniors were priced out, our retirees pushed to Bridgeport, and our working class made invisible by glossy marketing brochures calling $2,500 one bedrooms “attainable.”

When the Fair Share and TOD lobbyists told us that Stamford was not building enough, many of us laughed at the absurdity. Stamford already exceeds the numbers they spent years waving in our faces. What we lack is not units. What we lack is affordability, stability, and protections for the people most at risk of becoming homeless.

Yet none of that is the focus of HB 8002.

Advertisement

What Is good in the bill

To be fair and honest, the bill does contain provisions worth supporting. We can acknowledge them without pretending the overall direction is right.

First, the ban on hostile architecture is long overdue. Spikes, anti-sleeping benches, aggressive landscaping to keep people away, these tools dehumanize the unhoused and create a culture of cruelty. Banning them is a moral victory.

Second, the portable shower and laundry pilot for people experiencing homelessness is a humane step forward, though still too small for the need.

Third, Section 32 prohibits the use of revenue management software that manipulates rental prices. Companies like RealPage artificially inflate rents statewide through algorithmic collusion. This measure is genuinely important.

Fourth, the bill expands Fair Rent Commissions to every municipality with at least 15,000 residents, which is crucial for tenant protection, although municipal enforcement without state oversight remains inconsistent.

Advertisement

Fifth, landlords can no longer evict tenants for late payment if their online rent payment system malfunctions, a small but meaningful safeguard that prevents avoidable homelessness.

Sixth, Section 43 allows housing authorities and nonprofits to purchase existing buildings and deed restrict them as affordable. This could help preserve affordability in places where speculation has turned housing into a casino.

Seventh, new safety requirements like annual elevator inspections and mobile home park fire hydrant reporting help protect elderly tenants and low income families living in neglected complexes.

All of these are good steps. But we cannot confuse these elements with the bill’s central function.

The problem at the center

Once again, the bill’s heart is a planning and zoning framework meant to accelerate development, expand “as of right” approvals, and reduce the public’s ability to contest projects that may not serve their communities.

Advertisement

Section 24, which weakens protest petitions, is clearly aimed at places like Stamford. Paired with “as of right” language in transit districts, it effectively removes one of the strongest tools residents have to slow or challenge harmful development. And when you combine that with the influence of groups like People Friendly Stamford, whose leadership has been tied to developer law firms that spent years suing the Board of Representatives and losing, it becomes impossible to ignore what is happening. These groups claim to care about trees and sidewalks while supporting the eminent domain taking of a Haitian family’s home after forty years of paying taxes.

Now, the state has handed these same interests a stronger legal framework and stripped residents of procedural tools that were essential in protecting neighborhoods for decades.

The Housing Crisis is not a zoning issue it’s a housing issue

If the Governor and leadership were serious about addressing homelessness, this bill would have included policies that actually prevent homelessness.

Where is the cap on rent increases, the single most effective way to prevent displacement?

Where is Just Cause eviction, which stops landlords from evicting tenants for profit.

Advertisement

Where is the mandate that all new construction include deeply affordable units at meaningful percentages?

Where is state-funded support for seniors and retirees on fixed incomes?

Where are anti-displacement protections for long time residents in gentrifying neighborhoods?

Where is the requirement to use vacant state-owned or city-owned buildings for housing?

Where is a statewide homelessness prevention fund?

Advertisement

Where is the restructuring of affordability requirements to begin with the lowest income tiers?

Where is the real commitment to ending family homelessness?

And perhaps most importantly, where is statewide funding for the Homeless to Housing (H2H) model, a pilot program under DMHAS that has shown remarkable success. H2H recognizes that anyone who has been homeless for six months has endured trauma that traditional shelter based pathways only worsen. Instead of forcing people through the shelter pipeline and then into a multi year-wait for Section 8, followed by an additional wait to find vacancy to use it, H2H places people directly into housing with supportive services. This approach bypasses bureaucratic delays, stabilizes individuals more quickly, and treats homelessness as the trauma crisis it is. HB 8002 should have funded H2H statewide. It did not.

Development over people, again

The bill creates grants, loans, and financial incentives for municipalities, but only if they play by the state’s zoning and planning rules. This is not collaboration. This is coercion. And it is not designed to help cities like Stamford that have already built more than our share. It is aimed at the suburbs, but in doing so, it strips urban residents of public process and hands developers a smoother, faster path to approval.

It is no wonder that lobbyists showed up this session with renewed energy. It is no wonder that what failed repeatedly in full sessions suddenly sailed through in a special session when legislators received the bill the day before voting. There was no deep caucus discussion, no chance to bring concerns forward, no opportunity for public testimony to shape the outcome.

Advertisement

This should concern every resident of Connecticut. The process was rushed, opaque, and tilted toward special interests, not toward public good.

Where do we go from here

We can no longer pretend that this pattern is accidental. Connecticut has allowed development interests to shape policy for nearly four decades, and the cost has been the slow erasure of working class communities, Black and Brown neighborhoods, and the elderly who built our cities long before developers discovered them. HB 8002 continues this trend. It gives more leverage to those who already dominate planning decisions and further marginalizes the residents who live with the consequences.

Housing justice is not achieved by fast tracking luxury apartments near train stations and calling them progress. It is not achieved by weakening public process. It is not achieved by handing out grants to municipalities only if they deregulate their zoning codes. And it is certainly not achieved by passing a one hundred page bill in a special session with less than twenty four hours for legislators to review it.

Connecticut’s housing crisis is not a crisis of zoning. It is a crisis born of political decisions that prioritize developers over people, revenue over human dignity, and “units produced” over stability and belonging. We can build all the transit adjacent towers we want, but if our seniors are still getting evicted, if our families are still being priced out, if our retirees are still sleeping in cars, then we have failed. Period.

Real leadership means confronting the interests that have captured our housing policy. It means capping rents, protecting tenants, funding H2H statewide, and mandating deeply affordable units in every major development. It means putting the lives of our most vulnerable residents ahead of the profit margins of the most powerful players in the room.

Advertisement

Connecticut stands at a crossroads. We can continue down the path of developer driven policy dressed up as equity, or we can finally choose the harder, more honest path, the one that puts people before profit and communities before speculation. HB 8002 chose the wrong path. It is now up to the rest of us to demand better.

Because if we do not fight for real housing justice, no one else will.


David Michel was a state representative for the 146th district from 2019 to 2025, a part of Stamford that includes the South End, Downtown, and Shippan.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Five Guys shutters Orange location

Published

on

Five Guys shutters Orange location


A popular fast food restaurant has closed the doors of one of its Connecticut locations.

The Five Guys location on Boston Post Road in Orange posted an announcement of the closure on its front door.

While there aren’t any other Five Guys locations in the town of Orange, other nearby Five Guys restaurants include the locations on Amity Road in New Haven and Bridgeport Avenue in Shelton.

NBC Connecticut has reached out to Five Guys and the town of Orange, but they have not responded to our request for comment.

Advertisement

It is unclear how many employees were impacted by the closure and if they were offered any opportunities to work at nearby locations.



Source link

Continue Reading

Connecticut

Crews battle barn fire in East Windsor

Published

on

Crews battle barn fire in East Windsor


Multiple roads in East Windsor were closed for several hours as crews fought an early morning barn fire.

According to the Broad Brook Fire Department, a large barn fire broke out a 365 North Road around 1:30 Friday morning.

Mutual aid from multiple towns are assisting at the scene.

The fire department had route 140 shut down between Harrington Rd and the old Herb Holden Trucking on Broad Brook Rd. closed due to hydrant lines across the street. Main St at Wesley Rd was also blocked.

Advertisement

The fire was knocked down and roads reopened around 5 a.m.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending