HARTFORD, Conn. — Nearly five months after a controversial veto by Gov. Ned Lamont, state legislators battled again Wednesday over the best ways to generate affordable housing in a state with some of the highest real estate prices in the country.

Lawmakers have been clashing for years because of slow growth despite the high rental and home prices across the state. After Lamont’s veto, Democrats drafting a new housing bill in both chambers eventually reached an agreement with Lamont on the legislation as various aspects of the complicated measure were changed.

One of the most significant measures in the bill would allow developers to convert commercial buildings into residential structures “as of right,” meaning that they would not need approval from the local zoning commission.

Republicans blasted the idea Wednesday at the state Capitol as taking away local control by dodging zoning commissions. But Democrats countered that the developers would still need to follow all regulations that include setbacks from property lines and other traditional rules of zoning.

House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, an East Hartford Democrat who spearheaded the bill during twists and turns in recent years, said the state will make progress on housing by taking “underutilized commercial property” to create apartments that residents have been clamoring for.

“We’re not taking anything away,” Rojas said when asked by The Courant. “The market is going to determine whether a commercial property is changed in terms of its use. It is as of right. … It means you still have to submit an application to the town. You still have to get sign-off from the planning department, the engineering department, and the zoning department. What it avoids is having to go through a public hearing to essentially have reuse of an existing property. So it’s not going to result in all commercial property going away.”

The trend toward changing commercial property has already started with huge shifts in the retail industry and in commercial office buildings due to online shopping and working from home.

In Simsbury, a developer has proposed knocking down a Chili’s restaurant and various stores in order to build as many as 300 apartments in a commercial area. In Farmington, a developer moved forward with a plan to convert the former 381-room Marriott hotel off Interstate 84 into more than 250 apartments.

When asked about the criticisms of the bill, Rojas said, “I kind of ignore it because they’re anonymous Facebook groups, and the primary driver behind it actually lost her planning and zoning seat in Fairfield in this last election. So I think it says a lot about the value of their opinions.”

But Republicans spoke passionately against the bill for nearly seven hours Wednesday during a special legislative session in Hartford.

State Rep. Tony Scott, the ranking House Republican on the legislature’s housing committee, said the new, 104-page version is “a slightly better bill” than the 99-page version that Lamont vetoed in June. But Scott said the new bill still represents “lipstick on a pig.”

In an impassioned speech, Scott referred to the bill on the House floor as a “pile of crap.”

“I’m just super frustrated that this is the process,” Scott said. “I don’t know how somebody can put their head on the pillow at night and say we did a good job.”

Scott complained that 85% of the new bill is the same as the bill that Lamont vetoed.

“He’s being exposed like the Wizard of Oz,” Scott said of Lamont. “Now that the election is over, he’s going to run to the left. … The governor caved.”

When key fiscal information on the bill was not available online in the legislature’s system, Scott became more agitated.

“Come on, guys. Get your crap together,” Scott said. “This is a joke.”

Scott’s harsh comments prompted House Speaker Matt Ritter to make a rare move to return to the chamber during the middle of a debate and admonish a colleague. Citing the longtime traditions of the House that have lasted for decades, Ritter said lawmakers should not question the motives of other legislators or single out other lawmakers for direct criticism.

As the debate proceeded, Republicans continued their criticism. State Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, a conservative from Wolcott, said the bill was lopsided and did not help landlords.

“Is there anything in this bill that protects landlords?” Mastrofrancesco asked on the House floor.

“I don’t think so,” replied Rep. Antonio Felipe, a Bridgeport Democrat who co-chairs the housing committee.

Mastrofrancesco later responded, “It’s really tough to be a landlord today.”

Mastrofrancesco asked numerous questions, saying the bill had not been properly explained on the House floor and that many Republicans had not had enough time to read the Democratic-written legislation.

“I clearly don’t know what’s in this bill — what’s different from 5002,” said Mastrofrancesco, referring to the original bill that Lamont vetoed.

Rep. Joe Zullo, an East Haven Republican, said the bill represented “a giant step backward for our communities.”

Another key element in the bill concerns parking. Democrats wanted to relax parking requirements in order to spur housing, saying that the number of units is often decided based on the number of parking spaces.

In the original bill that Lamont vetoed, lawmakers voted to eliminate mandatory minimum parking requirements in developments with 24 units or less in order to make it easier to build more housing. That number was lowered to 16 in the latest version, meaning that developments beyond 16 units would need to provide parking.

In addition, the words “fair share” were removed from the bill, representing a controversial topic for years that called for the towns to provide their “fair share” in battling the state shortage of affordable housing.

The language on fair share was removed because it had been a “sticking point” that led to Lamont’s veto, Felipe said.

CCM and COST in favor

Two of the most influential lobbying groups for cities and towns, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and the Council of Small Towns, had both helped convince Lamont to veto the original bill. But, citing the changes, both groups endorsed the new version.

The small towns released a statement that the new bill had addressed their concerns, “including replacing the flawed “fair share” housing mandates with a housing goal informed by critical factors such as a town’s water and wastewater capacity, buildable land capacity, and proximity to transportation hubs.”

COST added, “In addition, the bill eliminates the duplicative planning requirement under HB-5002 and, instead, directs municipalities to develop a housing growth plan that considers their community’s housing needs. Moreover, the bill no longer ties access to critical funding, including Clean Water Act funds and the Small Town Economic Assistance Program (STEAP), to zoning compliance. Instead, the bill creates a new housing growth fund which will assist municipalities in addressing water and wastewater issues and other local infrastructure needed to support housing.”

The statement, released by executive director Betsy Gara, said, “The bill is not perfect, but it is a much more workable, balanced approach to addressing the state’s housing needs than HB-5002.”

CCM also endorsed the bill.

Democrats against

State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, a veteran lawmaker from Hartford, was among the few Democrats who spoke against the bill. She rejected the idea that the legislation was bipartisan, saying that Republicans seemed to be unanimously against the measure.

“I want to commend the governor for having the courage to veto House Bill 5002,” Gonzalez said, adding that she opposed both versions of the bill. “This bill hasn’t changed. They tweaked it a little bit. It is almost the same bad bill.”

The measure, Gonzalez said, will not help the low-income families in her poverty-stricken district in Hartford.

“Affordable housing for poor people?” Gonzalez asked on the House floor. “That is a joke. It is not true. … They are living in their cars, under the bridge. … We should not pretend otherwise. … They are using the poor people. They are making them believe this bill will help them.”

Saying she has been on welfare in the past, Gonzalez said she has walked in the shoes of fellow Hartford residents who currently struggle with housing. She added that the legislation would not solve the problem.

“Nothing is going to happen!” Gonzalez thundered on the floor. “Vote no on this bill.”

At the other end of the economic spectrum from Hartford is New Canaan, the town with the highest average adjusted gross income per tax filer in Connecticut in 2023. The town’s representative, Rep. Thomas O’Dea, was opposed to the bill like Gonzalez. O’Dea was highly concerned about little Republican input in the legislation.

“Today is one of the lowest points in my political career,” said O’Dea, who has served in the legislature for nearly 14 years. “I was disappointed. … There were very little conversations with this side of the aisle. … In Connecticut, if you can’t get one Yankee Republican to vote for your bill, it’s a bad bill.”

One of the key ways to resolve the problem, O’Dea said, is that towns should be allowed the right of first refusal to buy property that could be used for affordable housing. Prices can reach $1 million per acre in the upscale Fairfield County town.

“Just because you can do a bill without an R, doesn’t mean that you should,” O’Dea said, referring to Republicans. “I hope today is the last day that I feel ignored in this building.”

Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding, who will be debating the measure in the Senate on Thursday, described the bill as “this shady, non-transparent, partisan legislation which won’t lower Connecticut’s housing costs and won’t increase homeownership.”

Harding added, “This legislation removes local decision making in the zoning process. It upends zoning as we know it. It allows any state property to be converted into residential housing. Local decision-making? Kiss it goodbye, Connecticut property taxpayers.”

_____

©2025 Hartford Courant. Visit courant.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.