A Housing Crisis Requires Collaboration, Not a Legislative Power Grab

There is no denying that Connecticut faces a serious housing crisis. Across our towns and cities, the need for diverse, affordable, accessible and workforce housing is real. I have long supported innovative and collaborative strategies to meet this need. But House Bill 5002 is not that solution, it is a flawed process cloaked in good intentions.

What began as a single-section bill to study homelessness quietly morphed into a 47-section omnibus overhaul of Connecticut’s housing law. This dramatic transformation occurred not through consensus or robust debate, but through a strike-all amendment that replaced the bill’s content entirely, without a public hearing or meaningful cognizant committee scrutiny. Such a maneuver undermines transparency, accountability, and the very principles of democratic lawmaking. It undermines trust in our government.
The stakes are too high to allow housing policy to be crafted in the shadows.

I opposed HB 5002 not because I oppose affordable housing, but because I believe how we legislate matters just as much as what we legislate. Our residents deserve better than a hastily assembled, top-down mandate that bypasses community voices.

This bill contains provisions that erode local zoning authority, pressure towns into meeting lofty “fair share” housing quotas, and remove long-standing parking requirements with little regard for traffic, infrastructure, public safety or disability access. It seeks to encourage “transit-oriented development” without first ensuring that the transit infrastructure actually exists, or that communities have the resources to support such density. It invites commercial property conversions into “middle housing” without understanding the long-term impact on schools, roads, water, and sewer systems is an untenable unfunded municipal mandate.

I have been clear in my opposition to one-size-fits-all mandates. Our towns are not the same. From coastal cities to rural farmland, from transit hubs to protected watershed areas, the needs and capacities of each municipality vary widely. This bill fails to reflect that complexity. Worse, it punishes thoughtful local planning and threatens our natural resources and environmental protections, especially in watershed communities like Easton, Redding, and Newtown.

Let’s be clear: Connecticut must act on housing. But that action must be guided by collaboration, not coercion. It must uplift local innovation, not override it. And it must be pursued through transparent, inclusive legislation, not political maneuvering.

Governor Ned Lamont has acknowledged the need for balance, stating his appreciation for legislative accommodations that include his priorities that includes municipal engagement, aiding and incentivizing to remove local barriers to housing development while allowing municipalities to maintain community, environmental and infrastructure control. He emphasized that “there is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the housing shortage,” highlighting the importance of collaboration between the private sector, local leadership and state and federal government.

I echo the Governor’s sentiments and advocate for a housing policy that respects the autonomy of local governments, ensures environmental protections, and considers infrastructure capacities. Our approach must be inclusive, transparent, and tailored to the specific needs of each community.

The Senate now has the responsibility to fix what the House has rushed. I urge my colleagues to slow this process down. Let’s return to open hearings, community dialogue, and smart, flexible housing solutions that honor our values and protect our future.

Connecticut’s housing future cannot be built on a foundation of legislative shortcuts.