Connect with us

Connecticut

Nearly 1 in 5 CT lawmakers are landlords. Could that affect policy?

Published

on

Nearly 1 in 5 CT lawmakers are landlords. Could that affect policy?


Editor’s note: We are now offering an audio version of our Sunday features. To access, click on the player above.

Nearly 1 in 5 Connecticut lawmakers are also landlords, far outweighing the number of renters in the General Assembly, according to an analysis by The Connecticut Mirror of the most recent financial disclosure reports.

While the majority of the 187 members of the state’s Legislature are property owners, the CT Mirror’s review shows that 35, or 18.7% of lawmakers, are also landlords. In the United States, closer to 7% of the population are landlords.

There are only 19 legislators who reported not owning any property, meaning they most likely rent. About a third of Connecticut residents are tenants.

Advertisement

The most recently available forms reflect last year’s legislature, although there are only 22 freshman lawmakers this session. Only four of those who left were landlords, and two were renters. It’s not clear which of the freshmen lawmakers are landlords because their financial disclosure reports won’t be available until May. 

Reps. Joe Polletta, Tony Scott, and Rob Sampson listen to testimony during a Housing Committee meeting. All three men are landlords. Credit: Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror

The landlord-tenant relationship has been one of the chief concerns of the Housing Committee for the past several legislative sessions. In 2023, adjustments that expanded renter protections accounted for most of the Democrats’ signature housing bill.

The issues have also drawn some of the fiercest debate and most-attended public hearings of the past three legislative sessions, with meetings lasting into early mornings. 

While lawmakers hold mixed opinions about whether and to what degree a legislator’s status as a landlord affects public policy, lawmakers from both parties have cited their experiences as landlords during discussion on bills that would alter the landlord-tenant relationship. 

Advertisement

Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, a landlord and Housing Committee ranking member, said he considers his experience an asset.

“I’ve got significant amount of experience in this,” Sampson said. “My interest is completely on the side of making good public policy. I’m not picking a winner or loser in this situation. I want all sides to prevail, and that, in my view, is less government intervention.”

Sampson has historically opposed bills that are supported by tenant union members and tenants rights advocates, such as bills to reform eviction law and cap annual rent increases. 

Meanwhile, some lawmakers said their colleagues who are landlords are prioritizing personal income over Connecticut residents.

“I was taken back. I just didn’t think there would be so many landlords voting on issues, voting to put profits over people,” said Housing Committee co-chair Sen. Martha Marx, D-New London. Marx said she asked to be put on the committee because, in her experience as a home health care worker, she’s seen many people living in bad conditions.

Advertisement

“When I voted on housing issues, it’s through their lens. Those are the people that I’m thinking of,” she said, adding that she doesn’t believe many of her colleagues are thinking of renters.

Lawmakers rarely mention their experiences as renters during public debate on housing bills, according to longtime members of the Housing Committee and advocates.

Housing Committee co-chair Sen. Martha Marx, D-New London, claps during Gov. Ned Lamont’s budget address on Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Hartford. Credit: Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror

Over the past couple of years, lawmakers have considered bills that would cap annual rent increases and another that would largely end no-fault evictions, which haven’t passed.

The evictions bill is back this session and passed the Housing Committee last month. It would end evictions that typically occur at the end of a lease for apartments with five or more units, if the renter has lived at the property for at least a year.

Advertisement

There is disagreement about whether this bill — and its amendments — is an example of pro-tenant or pro-landlord sentiment on the committee.

Committee ranking member Rep. Tony Scott, R-Monroe, pointed to the bill as a piece of pro-tenant legislation that has gotten attention over measures he thinks would be beneficial to landlords.

Marx said the fact that the bill also includes a caveat requiring a tenant to live at a property for a year before the protections kick in is an example of legislation that’s been watered down by landlords in the legislature.

Other lawmakers said the portions of the state’s tax code that benefit homeowners and a bill that would make it easier for police to quickly remove people from rental properties if they don’t have a lease are other examples of policies that prioritize property owners over renters. 

“If your financial interest depends on squeezing more rent out of the citizens of our state, then you’re not voting the way I think you should be voting,” Marx said. “Housing is a right. Everybody deserves stable housing, and everybody deserves a home.”

Advertisement

Financial disclosure forms

Lawmakers who own rental properties span across parties and chambers. Fourteen are Republicans, and 21 are Democrats. Nine are in the Senate, and 26 are in the House.

About 40% reported owning more than one property, including vacation homes and timeshares.

CT Mirror’s analysis classifies lawmakers who reported owning multiple properties and collecting rental income as landlords. CT Mirror also included lawmakers who report rental income, but their properties were listed as rentals on sites such as Zillow, and one who is a property manager.

Lawmakers who are involved in the real estate business or those who serve as attorneys for landlords are not classified as landlords in the CT Mirror analysis.

Advertisement

Lawmakers also varied widely in how thoroughly they filled out their financial disclosure forms. Some listed companies that own property but didn’t include the property on their forms, while others listed out each property and the income from that property individually. This could mean that there are rental properties that went unlisted on financial disclosure forms, in which case the CT Mirror’s analysis is an undercount.

Several lawmakers listed multiple properties in Connecticut but didn’t list rental income.

Luke Melonakos-Harrison, an organizer at CT Fair Housing, speaks at a press conference on housing policy at the Legislative Office Building on February 3, 2025. Credit: Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror

Advocates say the disproportionate number of landlords often means that tenants’ experiences don’t hold as much weight in public debate.

Advertisement

“There are so many conversations I’ve had with legislators where the first frame of reference is, ‘What I’m hearing from landlords,’ or, ‘My friend is a landlord,’ or ‘Myself as a landlord.’ Just anecdotally, that discourse is so often defaulting to a landlord perspective,” said Luke Melonakos-Harrison, vice president of the Connecticut Tenants Union.

State ethics rules require that lawmakers abstain from voting only if the legislation would disproportionately affect their business, compared to others in the industry. But advocates say public policy, particularly in the area of rental properties, is still shaped by the professional and financial goals of members of the General Assembly.

Advocacy groups that represent landlords and several legislators said they don’t think the impact is so obvious. They say state policy is usually more pro-tenant and that housing providers are best equipped as experts to craft policy.

The majority of landlords were also homeowners. For many legislators, it’s been years since they were last renters, and they might not know what it’s like to be a renter in today’s economy, advocates said.

“Much of the work that tenants have to do participating in the process is just providing a basic education of what it’s like to be a tenant,” Melonakos-Harrison said.

Advertisement
Housing Committee co-chair Rep. Antonio Felipe, D-Bridgeport, speaks to the press at a press conference on housing policy at the Legislative Office Building on February 3, 2025. Credit: Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror

Shaped by personal experience

Connecticut has a part-time legislature, meaning the elected officials are typically either retired or hold other jobs because lawmakers only meet for part of the year. Several said they can’t help but be shaped by their experiences, and those experiences help color policy debate.

“I would love to see those folks take a little bit more of a step back and understand it from a holistic perspective,” said Housing Committee co-chair Rep. Antonio Felipe, D-Bridgeport. Felipe is one of few renters in the legislature. “But when you have personal experience, that personal experience is going to weigh in, and I think it might have overweighed itself in certain situations, but it’s kind of the name of the game.”

Felipe added that a lawmaker’s salary at a base of $40,000 annually makes it hard for people who work hourly jobs or don’t have passive income to run for office. He added that he hopes lawmakers understand that access to passive income isn’t the typical experience for Connecticut residents.

“You cannot support a family, or let alone yourself, on a legislator’s salary without some other income, whether it’s pension, retirement benefits, or a second job,” he said. “You have to figure out a way to pay the bills.”

Advertisement

Scott said he’d talked to many landlords in the legislature who have said they think the legislation is “going against them.”

Rep. Geoff Luxenberg, D-Manchester, left, owns nearly 60 properties. Luxenberg is also a former chair of the Housing Committee. Credit: Yehyun Kim / CT Mirror

Former Housing Committee co-chair Rep. Geoff Luxenberg, D-Manchester, said separating from personal experience often comes down to research. Lawmakers are barraged with sometimes hundreds of bills to consider and often don’t have time to research all the topics, he said.

That means they often lean on their own experiences, he said.

“When you’re lacking expertise in a certain area, as an elected official, I think there’s a tendency to rely on your values, your experiences, your life experiences, to shape how you might view a particular issue,” he said. “And that’s probably where it seeps in the most.” 

Advertisement

Luxenberg reported owning close to 60 properties — the most in the legislature — and draws rental income from most of them. He said his policy views have been shaped by the number of people who come to him desperate for housing.

“It’s like a harrowing front row seat to the most painful part of the housing crisis,” he said.

He added that it can go the other way — that lawmakers shape policy without an understanding of what it’s like to be a landlord. But he thinks it more frequently disadvantages tenants.

“It has been my experience, frequently, that policies that specifically help renters economically face a hurdle in the legislature, and I suspect part of that hurdle is a disconnect between the lived experience of legislators and the lived experience of extremely large number of people in Connecticut who are struggling to pay their rent,” he said.

Advertisement
” data-medium-file=”https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-336×224.jpg” data-large-file=”https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-771×514.jpg” onerror=”if (typeof newspackHandleImageError === ‘function’) newspackHandleImageError(this);” alt=”” class=”wp-image-1117679″ srcset=”https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-771×514.jpg 771w, https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-336×224.jpg 336w, https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-768×512.jpg 768w, https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-1536×1025.jpg 1536w, https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-2048×1366.jpg 2048w, https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-1200×800.jpg 1200w, https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-1024×683.jpg 1024w, https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-2000×1334.jpg 2000w, https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-780×520.jpg 780w, https://ctmirror.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025_0409_SR_GillettNomination_089-400×267.jpg 400w” sizes=”auto, (max-width: 771px) 100vw, 771px”>
Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, watches the votes on a resolution roll in during a hearing on the nomination of Marissa Gillett as PURA commissioner on April 9, 2025. Credit: Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror

Legislation proposed

Luxenberg said he’s proposed policy that would offer tax relief to renters, and the attempts have been shut down. Most housing-related tax relief programs for residents aim to encourage homeownership in an effort to help people build wealth.

But researchers have said this approach essentially rewards wealth, offering tax breaks on mortgage interest to people who are able to afford to purchase a home, while people who rent are left without much aid.

“All the benefits in the tax codes at every level of government are for ownership,” he said. “All the things we discuss expanding or increasing are about real estate ownership.”

Lawmakers and advocates also pointed to a bill from Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, as one driven by her experience as a landlord. In her latest available financial disclosure form, Gonzalez, who is on the Housing Committee, reported that she owns three properties, including her own home.

She earned rental income from one, and her husband earned it from the other. During committee meetings, she’s talked frequently of an experience she described as a “nightmare.”

Advertisement

Gonzalez said she was driving by her rental home one night and saw that the lights were on, even though no one was supposed to be living there. She stopped by and found someone had moved in. 

It’s not clear why the person believed they had a right to be in the property, but Gonzalez says the person was squatting. It took her four hours to resolve it, and she’s since gotten out of the landlord business.

So, this session, she proposed a bill that would allow police to remove squatters from homes without going through a court eviction process.

“They’re not going to grow up, those people, they’re not going to have any responsibility at all,” Gonzalez said during a public hearing. “And it’s very hard to say, maybe very difficult for you to accept. Squatters are illegal, and it should be criminal, and they should be sent to jail.”

But attorneys, other Democrats and tenants rights advocates have raised concerns that the bill would violate due process. Some tenants say they have oral agreements with their landlords but nothing in writing, and it would be hard for police to decide who is telling the truth.

Advertisement

Rafie Podolsky, a longtime housing attorney, said the legal question isn’t whether breaking into a property is illegal but what to do in more complicated situations in which tenants don’t have a lease.

“There are also circumstances where people are living there on oral leases and do not have a single piece of paper that show that they are there with the landlord’s consent,” said Podolsky, during a public hearing. “And if a landlord says to the police, ‘I want this person out. I never agreed to this. Tell them to show you anything in writing,’ they may have nothing to show you, but it doesn’t resolve the question.”

The bill passed the Housing Committee 12-6, with several Democrats voting against it.

In response to the opposition, Gonzalez said in an interview that tenants should make sure they get written leases.

“We have to stop babysitting people,” she said in an interview. “We have to do what we’re supposed to do. Yes, let’s help people, if we have the way to help people, but allowing other people to go out there and take advantage? I don’t think it’s right.”

Advertisement
Housing Committee co-chair Sen. Martha Marx, D-New London, speaks at a tenant’s union rally at the Legislative Office Building on January 23, 2025. Credit: Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror

Eviction reform

Gonzalez also voted against the no-fault eviction bill and said in an interview that she doesn’t believe that there is a housing crisis. She often sees signs advertising apartments for rent or homes for sale, she said.

Data and research have shown that Connecticut lacks tens of thousands of units of housing that are affordable and available to its lowest-income renters and that thousands more across different socioeconomic lines are paying more than a third of their income to housing costs. Construction of new homes and availability of houses to purchase have also slowed.

Gonzalez said she thinks the issue isn’t related to supply but to rents that are too high. She favors capping annual rent increases, she said.

Marx said the no-fault eviction bill is an example of one that’s been watered down because of the perspective of landlords in the legislature.

Advertisement

“They watered down the affordable housing measures,” she said. “They watered down the tenants rights bills so that they don’t have any teeth, so that we really pass bills that just don’t do anything for the tenants, and life is just going to get harder for our lower and middle class citizens.”

The bill now includes a provision that says the protections against no-fault evictions don’t kick in until the tenant has lived at the property for a year. Marx says they should begin the moment a renter moves into a property.

The bill has been controversial, even within the Democratic party and among lawmakers who aren’t landlords.

Rep. Larry Butler, D-Waterbury, speaks during session at the state Capitol on March 5, 2025. Butler is a former Housing Committee chair and longstanding member. Credit: Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror

Rep. Larry Butler, D-Waterbury, a former Housing Committee chair and current member, said he doesn’t think it’s a balanced bill that considers the needs of landlords. He voted against it in committee.

Advertisement

“The legislation is like using a hammer instead of using a scalpel, in my opinion,” Butler said. Butler owns his home but didn’t report any rental income or ownership of other properties. He said he was surprised to learn that so many of his colleagues are landlords because he hears about it infrequently.

Republicans have objected to the bill, saying it would violate landlords’ rights and could push people to leave the rental business, taking homes off the market. Sampson said in an interview that he’d heard from friends who are also landlords who say they’re considering giving up their business.

“It’s concerning to me that the Connecticut legislature and the majority seems to think that they have a right to tell people what to do with property that they own, that they worked for and paid for,” Sampson said.

Tenant rights advocates say the concerns are overblown and that the bill is simply an extension of rights that already exist for seniors and people with disabilities. Other states have similar laws and haven’t seen significant harms to their rental market, they say.

Melonakos-Harrison said he thinks the concerns of landlords are considered with more seriousness because lawmakers tend to interact more frequently with landlords than renters.

Advertisement

“People’s perspective on housing is very much shaped through the social networks that they’re in, by people who own property and make money off of property,” he said. “It’s rare to hear any lawmakers speak about the opposite perspective. Renter issues tend to be talked about as more of something that people are not personally familiar with in any meaningful way.” 



Source link

Connecticut

Police investigating after Hartford ICE protest incidents

Published

on

Police investigating after Hartford ICE protest incidents


Hartford Police are investigating what led to a skirmish between protestors and possible federal employees during a protest outside a federal building on Thursday.  

The incident, captured on camera, occurred when protestors tried to prevent two vehicles from entering the Abraham A. Ribicoff building on Thursday evening.  

The vehicles, which Hartford officials believe were driven by federal employees, proceeded through the crowd.  

The mayor said a van struck one of the protestors in the process, and a separate person is captured on video smashing the back window of the van as it drove away.  

Advertisement

Separately, also captured on video, an unidentified person, whom the mayor says believes is affiliated with the federal government, is seen spraying pepper spray at the protestors.   

“We will be investigating what appears to be a hit and run incident with pepper spray being used on attendees of the vigil last night,” Mayor Arunan Arulampalam (D-Hartford) said during a press conference Friday at City Hall.  

Arulamapalam said Hartford police will investigate all aspects of the incident, including the driver who allegedly struck the protestor, the individual spraying what appeared to be pepper spray, and the individual who was seen smashing the window. 

They have not identified the driver, the person who was struck, the person who damaged the vehicle, or the person who was pepper-sprayed.

The event was one of many around the country that served as a vigil for Renee Good, the woman shot and killed by ICE in Minneapolis on Wednesday, as well as a protest against ICE.  

Advertisement

“What we saw last night was a peaceful vigil in the city of Hartford turned violent,” said Mayor Arunan Arulampalam, who said around 200 people were in attendance in total.

Debra Cohen, of Wethersfield, said she was at the vigil when she and others learned there was a potential federal van parked behind the Ribicoff building, and they were concerned ICE had someone detained in the vehicle.  

The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to NBC Connecticut’s request for comment. The agency has not said publicly whether the people were ICE agents or employees with any DHS agency, or whether the van was involved in immigration enforcement activities.  

Cohen said she and others went from Main Street to the back side of the building and hoped to block the van from leaving. 

She says people, whom she also believed were federal law enforcement, were “yelling at us to get back. To get back, to get back. We stood our ground. and that’s when the pepper spray came out.” 

Advertisement

Cohen says that the individual then sprayed them from behind the gate.

“It wasn’t so much a taste as a burning that I’ve never felt before,” she said, describing the spray. “It was not only in my eyes, and I seriously couldn’t open my eyes or see anything. It was all on my face, on my lips, which was really, really bad.” 

Video also captured some protestors trying to stop a car in front of the van from leaving the Ribicoff parking lot.  

Both vehicles continue through the crowd, at which point police said the van struck one of the protestors.  

The protestor denied medical attention, according to the City.

Advertisement

Gov. Ned Lamont, (D-Connecticut), said Friday he wants to wait for the investigation before making judgement, but he was critical of some of the protestors.  

Lamont, speaking at a separate press conference at the Legislative Office Building, said protestors who obstruct law enforcement shift the focus.  

“ICE took an open window and shot somebody in the head and shot her dead, and she was an innocent mother of three,” he said. I don’t want anything to distract from that.”  

Lamont pointed to frequent comments from President Donald Trump claiming Democrats and liberal-leaning voters engage in violent protests around the country.  

“You’re doing just what President Trump says,” Lamont said. “There’s a demonstration here in Hartford, a couple of people do what they shouldn’t do. All of a sudden, that distracts. That’s just what he wants.” 

Advertisement

Rep. Vincent Candelora, (R-Minority Leader), said he wanted to hear Lamont us strong language to tell protestors never to obstruct law enforcement.  

“I think we need to draw a hard line on people stepping into traffic and trying to obstruct that traffic,” he said. “We saw what happened in Minnesota, and we don’t want that to happen in Connecticut.”  

Candelora also believes that both sides need to tone down their rhetoric, objecting to how Democrats have talked about ICE and to how Vice President J.D. Vance and others in the Trump administration characterized Good.  

“I don’t like the use of the word terrorist to describe the victim as much as I didn’t like that word used to describe ICE,” he said. “I think that word has been cheapened, and we should be dialing back that rhetoric.”  

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), also speaking at the press conference in the LOB, said he wants an independent review of Good’s death, suggesting a task force of local, state, and federal law enforcement officials.  

Advertisement

He also supported Hartford’s efforts to investigate the conduct of federal agents.  

“There are state laws that apply; state authorities are not without jurisdiction,” he said. “They have authority.”  

Blumenthal separately wants more information on how ICE trains new employees, noting the agency has been hiring at a rapid rate as Trump looks to deliver on his campaign promise of ramped-up deportations.  

Blumenthal is the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which released a report last month about the conduct of ICE agents.  

Specifically, the report details the claims of 22 U.S. citizens who claim they were assaulted, and some detained, by ICE agents.  

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Connecticut

New Connecticut economic data: “It takes job seekers longer”

Published

on

New Connecticut economic data: “It takes job seekers longer”


The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected in December, capping what economists say was the weakest year for job creation since 2009, aside from 2020.

Data from October shows about 73,000 job openings in Connecticut, according to the Connecticut Business and Industry Association. The state’s unemployment rate stands at about 4%, which is historically low.

Here is the topline information from Connecticut’s October and November jobs report released this week, according to the state’s Labor Department (data was delayed due to the government shutdown):

  • Overall, Connecticut job growth is +1,800 from November 2024 to November 2025.
  • Private sector payrolls were up 1,900 in November after a 900 decline in October.
  • Health Care & Social Assistance is up 1,700 in November and recovered September losses.
  • Construction is at the highest level since August 2008, a trend expected to continue with infrastructure and housing initiatives.
  • Retail continues a slow downward trajectory. The sector was up 200 jobs in November, not enough to offset September and October losses.
  • Initial unemployment claims are just under 30,000, slightly higher than last year at this time when they were around 25,000.

In a press release, Connecticut Department of Labor Commissioner Danté Bartolomeo said: “After several years of strong job growth that created a job seekers’ market, the economy is now more competitive—it takes job seekers longer to find employment than it has in the recent past.”

Experts say the experience of finding a job can be very different for job seekers.

Advertisement

Dustin Nord, director of the CBIA Foundation for Economic Growth and Opportunity, said the state may be seeing what economists call frictional unemployment.

“We’re not seeing huge changes in hiring and quits,” Nord said, adding that it’s possible people who are losing positions are not necessarily seeing positions open in the field that they’re losing their job from.

Although unemployment remains relatively low, Nord said recent trends raise concerns about the direction of the labor market.

“There’s not that many people on the sidelines, but I’d say the trends are definitely not moving in the right direction,” Nord said.

Connecticut faces longer‑term workforce challenges. The state’s labor force has declined by about 19,600 people since January, according to the new data.

Advertisement

“Federal immigration policies may impact these numbers. Connecticut employers rely on an immigrant workforce to offset retirements in Connecticut’s aging workforce and the state’s low birthrate; 23% of Connecticut workers are born outside of the U.S.,” the state’s Department of Labor said.

Connecticut’s labor force participation rate of 64% is higher than the national rate of 62.5%, the Department of Labor said.

The CBIA said since the COVID‑19 pandemic, Connecticut’s labor force has grown just 0.2%, compared with 4.3% growth nationwide.

That gap is occurring even as wages rise. Average weekly earnings in Connecticut are up 5.4% since November 2024, outpacing inflation.

Still, the CBIA says those gains reinforce the need to address affordability across the state.

Advertisement

“If we take the right steps, especially over the next six months, to try to find ways to make it more affordable,” Nord said. “I think there’s no reason we can’t continue to see, at least steady economic activity in the state.”

Nord said those steps include addressing costs tied to housing, energy and childcare.

Overall, the data suggests Connecticut’s job growth has been largely stagnant. Looking ahead, what happens in 2026 will depend both on state‑level policy decisions and broader national economic trends.

Patrick Flaherty, director of research at the Connecticut Department of Labor, said in a review of the data that recent numbers suggest the pace of growth could continue, but at a slower rate.

“The November increase suggests modest job growth that Connecticut’s labor market has shown could continue into 2026, although at a slower pace, as long as the nation avoids a downturn,” Flaherty said.

Advertisement

See the state report here. Read the CBIA’s analysis here.



Source link

Continue Reading

Connecticut

Opinion: Three things CT must do to up its food game

Published

on

Opinion: Three things CT must do to up its food game


If you grew up in North Carolina, you don’t just eat fast food — you inherit it. The first time I walked into a Connecticut drive-thru, I realized something that shocked my younger self: I missed home because I missed the food. Connecticut may pride itself on being the Pizza Capital of the United States, but for anyone raised in the South, that crown doesn’t solve the state’s biggest problem — it lacks the fast-food culture that keeps everyday meals fun, comforting and quick. 

Before Nutmeggers fire their ovens to defend New Haven, let me acknowledge the obvious: Connecticut has world-class pizza. The state is so proud of it that the governor’s office issued a press release doubling down on the title, even noting that there are 1,376 pizza restaurants statewide and 63 in New Haven alone.

And yes, the pies are incredible. Many are handmade, cooked in old ovens and worth the wait. 

But that’s the point: You have to wait. A lot. 

Advertisement

Most weekends, you’ll stand in line at Pepe’s longer than it takes to drive from New Britain to Hartford. Connecticut pizza may be extraordinary, but it’s not fast food. And it can’t replace what the South does best: comfort meals you can get in minutes. 

As a North Carolina native now living in Connecticut, here are three things this state needs to truly level up its food game: 

  1. A legendary fast-food chain — ideally Bojangles.

Southerners don’t go to Bojangles. We return to it. It’s fried chicken that tastes like home, biscuits you can’t replicate, and seasoned fries that make road trips worth it. 

Max Frazier

Connecticut may not realize it, but people here miss it too. Some residents literally drive from Connecticut to North Carolina just for Bojangles, as shown in this Reddit thread from transplanted Southerners longing for a “Bojangles fix.” Another Reddit post raves about trying Bojangles for the first time. 

Even YouTube creators have jumped in, praising the chain with videos like this review of its famous chicken and biscuits. 

There’s also a full breakdown of the chain’s significance in “The Untold Truth of Bojangles,” which you can read here. For an outside perspective, a Connecticut-based writer included Bojangles in a ranking of the best Southern chains.

And recently, Bojangles made business news when reports suggested the company is up for sale — a reminder of how culturally important it is to its fans.

Advertisement

Bottom line: Bojangles has more than 800 locations across 17 states, a loyal fan base and a flavor profile the Northeast simply doesn’t match. 

  1. More variety. The South’s fast-food universe is huge.

A writer who lived in both New England and the South described the contrast clearly in this Business Insider piece: “The fast-food options are seemingly endless in the South.”

North Carolina has Cook Out, Zaxby’s, Biscuitville, Smithfield’s Chicken ’N Bar-B-Q, and more. Connecticut has far fewer regional chains, meaning fewer signature flavors and fewer low-cost comfort foods. It’s not just about fried chicken — it’s about choice. 

  1. A stronger culture of quick, flavorful meals.

Fast food in N.C. isn’t just food — it’s rhythm. It’s grabbing a Cajun Filet Biscuit before school, hitting Cook Out after a late game or stopping at Bojangles on road trips because you know exactly what that first bite will taste like. Connecticut leans heavily on sit-down meals and pizza culture. Great traditions, but not always practical for families, students or workers looking for fast, inexpensive meals on the go. 

The Counterargument: But Connecticut Has Pizza. 

True — Connecticut has some of the best pizza in the country, and locals love it fiercely. But pizza isn’t filling the same role Bojangles does in North Carolina. It’s not a drive-thru meal; it’s not a cultural touchstone, and it doesn’t come with a sweet tea strong enough to fix a bad day. Pizza can be phenomenal while still leaving a gap in the food landscape. 

The Solution 

Advertisement

It’s time for Connecticut to welcome a major Southern chain, ideally Bojangles, and embrace the culture that comes with it. Even a single location would bring new flavors, new customers, new jobs and maybe even a new sense of identity around quick comfort food. Connecticut doesn’t have to stop loving pizza. But it can expand its palate — and its drive-thru options. 

Because here’s the truth that no Connecticut resident wants to hear from a Southerner: Your pizza is amazing. But you have no idea how good life can be with a Bo-Berry Biscuit. 

Max Frazier is a sophomore, a Blue Devils basketball player and a proud North Carolinian studying communication at Central Connecticut State University. 

 

 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending