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.  

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.  

“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.” 

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.

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.” 

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.  

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.  

Maine’s gambling landscape is set to expand after Gov. Janet Mills decided Thursday to let tribes offer online casino games, but numerous questions remain over the launch of the new market and how much it will benefit the Wabanaki Nations.

Namely, there is no concrete timeline for when the new gambling options that make Maine the eighth “iGaming” state will become available. Maine’s current sports betting market that has been dominated by the Passamaquoddy Tribe through its partnership with DraftKings is evidence that not all tribes may reap equal rewards.

A national anti-online gaming group also vowed to ask Maine voters to overturn the law via a people’s veto effort and cited its own poll finding a majority of Mainers oppose online casino gaming.

Here are the big remaining questions around iGaming.

1. When will iGaming go into effect?

The law takes effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns this year. Adjournment is slated for mid-April, but Mills spokesperson Ben Goodman noted it is not yet known when lawmakers will actually finish their work.

2. Where will the iGaming revenue go?

The iGaming law gives the state 18% of the gross receipts, which will translate into millions of dollars annually for gambling addiction and opioid use treatment funds, Maine veterans, school renovation loans and emergency housing relief.

Leaders of the four federally recognized tribes in Maine highlighted the “life-changing revenue” that will come thanks to the decision from Mills, a Democrat who has clashed with the Wabanaki Nations over the years over more sweeping tribal sovereignty measures.

But one chief went so far Thursday as to call her the “greatest ever” governor for “Wabanaki economic progress.”

3. What gaming companies will the tribes work with?

DraftKings has partnered with the Passamaquoddy to dominate Maine’s sports betting market, while the Penobscot Nation, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Mi’kmaq Nation have partnered with Caesars Entertainment to garner a smaller share of the revenue.

Wall Street analysts predicted the two companies will likely remain the major players in Maine’s iGaming market.

The partnership between the Passamaquoddy and DraftKings has brought in more than $100 million in gross revenue since 2024, but the Press Herald reported last month that some members of the tribe’s Sipayik reservation have criticized Chief Amkuwiposohehs “Pos” Bassett, saying they haven’t reaped enough benefits from the gambling money.

4. Has Mills always supported gambling measures?

The iGaming measure from Rep. Ambureen Rana, D-Bangor, factored into a long-running debate in Maine over gambling. In 2022, lawmakers and Mills legalized online sports betting and gave tribes the exclusive rights to offer it beginning in 2023.

But allowing online casino games such as poker and roulette in Maine looked less likely to become reality under Mills. Her administration had previously testified against the bill by arguing the games are addictive.

But Mills, who is in the final year of her tenure and is running in the high-profile U.S. Senate primary for the chance to unseat U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Thursday she would let the iGaming bill become law without her signature. She said she viewed iGaming as a way to “improve the lives and livelihoods of the Wabanaki Nations.”

5. Who is against iGaming?

Maine’s two casinos in Bangor and Oxford opposed the iGaming bill, as did Gambling Control Board Chair Steve Silver and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, among other opponents.

Silver noted Hollywood Casino Bangor and Oxford Casino employ nearly 1,000 Mainers, and he argued that giving tribes exclusive rights to iGaming will lead to job losses.

He also said in a Friday interview the new law will violate existing statutes by cutting out his board from iGaming oversight.

“I don’t think there’s anything the board can do at this point,” Silver said.

The National Association Against iGaming has pledged to mount an effort to overturn the law via a popular referendum process known as the “people’s veto.” But such attempts have a mixed record of success.

Andrew Mikula is chair of the Legalize Starter Homes ballot committee.

I came across Baxter Village after a Google Maps perusal of one of the country’s fastest-growing regions. Completed in 2014 and billed as a “traditional neighborhood development” with a walkable town center and intimate, tree-lined residential streets, the village is downright idyllic. The architecture is clearly inspired by early 20th-century New England — a Norman Rockwell-style vista of homes with raised front porches, wood clapboard siding, steep roofs, and dormer windows.

But Baxter Village isn’t located in New England. It’s in South Carolina, about 15 miles south of Charlotte.

The reality is that 15 miles outside of Boston, Worcester, or Lowell, Baxter Village would almost certainly be illegal, for a variety of reasons. First, the development’s home lots are small, often only slightly larger than a basketball court. Local zoning codes in suburban Massachusetts frequently preclude such small lots, and New England in particular has high minimum lot-size requirements for new homes, compared to most of the country.

Given that Massachusetts has the nation’s toughest home buying market for young adults, many voters are open to reducing these lot-size minimums. A May 2025 Abundant Housing Massachusetts/MassINC poll found that 78 percent of Massachusetts voters support “allowing homes to be built on smaller lots,” and 72 percent support allowing the subdivision of large lots into smaller lots. Doing so would open up more housing options in the suburbs, creating opportunities to build smaller, lower-cost homes suitable for first-time buyers and downsizing seniors, colloquially called “starter homes.”

That’s why 12 housing experts — urban planners, academics, land use attorneys, and advocates — and I recently filed a petition with the Massachusetts attorney general’s office that would make it legal to build on lots about the size of a basketball court (5,000 square feet) statewide. As long as the lot has access to public sewer and water service, as well as a 50-foot border with the street, the site could host a single-family home, although it may be subject to other regulations like wetlands protections and limits on short-term rentals.

Our committee — Legalize Starter Homes — cleared the first signature-gathering hurdle needed to place this measure on the ballot this year, and Secretary of State William Galvin’s recent certification has advanced this potential ballot question to the next step in the process.

Research has shown that Massachusetts’ large minimum lot-size requirements increase home prices and reduce new production. One Harvard study found that in Greater Boston, a quarter-acre increase in the minimum lot-size requirement was associated with 10 percent fewer homes permitted between 1980 and 2002. Separately, a 2011 study found that Eastern Massachusetts minimum lot-size requirements can increase home prices by as much as 20 percent or more and that these price effects tend to increase over time.

Other states have acted on such facts amid a nationwide housing crunch. In June, Maine capped minimum lot sizes in “designated growth areas” statewide at 5,000 square feet when served by public sewer and water systems. This is remarkable given that Maine has both a less severe housing shortage than Massachusetts and a much larger volume of undeveloped, inexpensive land.

The Massachusetts Legislature has tried to enhance the production of starter homes before, offering incentive payments under Chapter 40Y to municipalities to adopt new zoning districts that allow for them. But more than three years after Chapter 40Y was enacted, the state has yet to finalize regulations that would allow for these zoning districts to be created. Meanwhile, builders struggle to justify much new construction given high interest rates, tariffs on building materials, and labor shortages in the trades.

Our ballot petition creates a framework for allowing starter homes that is more easily implemented and doesn’t require municipalities to adopt new zoning. And unlike the MBTA Communities Act, it would solely allow for the creation of single-family homes, most of which would probably be owner-occupied.

Recent public polling data, research findings, precedents in other states, and the urgent and extreme nature of Massachusetts’ housing shortage all suggest that now is the right time to limit minimum lot sizes in places with sufficient infrastructure for new housing. The result could be a far-reaching expansion of opportunity for a new generation of homeowners in Massachusetts.