A battle over how zoning should be handled in Connecticut is being viewed by one side as a means of correcting decades-long wrongs and on the other as an existential threat to municipalities’ home rule.
Given some of the actions surrounding a state government hearing on the zoning bills, the situation apparently has the potential of being a long-lived controversy.
On March 15, the state Planning and Development Committee discussed a number of bills, including:
The legislation receiving the most attention, however, is Senate Bill 1024, which essentially would require municipalities to build mixed-use developments with at least four apartments within a half-mile of transit stations or a quarter-mile of commercial corridors. It also would eliminate local control over certain types of housing and allow certain developments to occur without a local public hearing.
The legislation was built upon recommendations by Desegregate CT, which describes its members as “a coalition of neighbors and nonprofits who believes in creating abundant, diverse housing in service of equity, inclusive prosperity, and a cleaner environment.”
The group was founded by Sara Bronin, wife of Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin and a longtime land-use attorney and advocate who served as Hartford’s Planning and Zoning commissioner from 2014 to 2020.
At a news conference last summer, Bronin said that, “If you’re serious about Black and brown lives, if you’re serious about income inequality, social inequality, and racial inequality, please join us in helping tear down the legal barriers that make Connecticut one of the most segregated states in the country.”
Senate Bill 1024 “provides flexibility in how towns can achieve (the aforementioned) goals,” Bronin told the Business Journal. “And they’re goals we all share, including economic growth, environmental protection and making towns more affordable.”
But opponents see it as an attempt by the state to usurp powers long held by its 169 municipalities. On March 13, Greenwich First Selectman Fred Camillo (R) issued a statement opposing 1024 and the other bills as they “do not address social equity nor promote affordable housing.
“Those worthy goals are best accomplished through local authorities that are cognizant of its respective community needs,” he continued, “and are able to achieve those goals in a community-based collaboration that is most effective for the diverse populations they serve.”
State Rep. Kimberly Fiorello (R-Greenwich), who made her opposition to such efforts part of her platform in the 2020 election, said the system works fine the way it is.
“Zoning is so reliant on so many facets of information, including public hearings and local knowledge,” she told the Business Journal. “That’s why they gave the right to local zoning to the municipalities.”
Passed by the state in 1957, the Home Rule Act allows each municipality to write and adopt its own charter and allows amendment to existing charters.
“If we want effective, efficient government, then zoning has to be in the hands of the towns,” Fiorello said.
Along with 13 fellow Republicans, Fiorello is co-sponsor of House Joint Resolution 48, which would amend Connecticut’s constitution “to permit municipalities to enact and enforce zoning restrictions without regional or state interference.”
Fiorello stopped short of saying the issue is a partisan one, though she questioned whether it would be “worth the time” to lobby state Democrats to join in on anti-1024 efforts.
Another opponent is state Sen. Tony Hwang (R-Fairfield), ranking member of the Planning and Development Committee, who hosted a Zoom meeting on the issue on March 10. Acknowledging that one of 1024’s aims is to make housing around the state more equitable, especially for low-income families who often are minorities, Francis Pickering, executive director of the Western Connecticut Council of Governments (WestCOG), said there were better ways to approach affordable housing.
“Zoning is not just about housing,” Pickering said. “It’s also about water, it’s about habitat, it’s about jobs and it’s about transportation.” Of particular concern was the water question, he said; 1024 would increase by 50% the allowable gallons in local sewer systems. “These bills don’t really consider water quality.”
State Rep. Tami Zawistowski (R-Suffield) said local services could also be negatively impacted, as it would complicate “how to handle additional people without making significant improvements” at schools, emergency services and the like.
Senate Bill 1024 “pretty much upends any local zoning” rules, Zawistowski said. “If you don’t do what the state tells you to do, they’re just going to go ahead and do it.”
State Rep. Doug Dubitsky (R-47th) said that the bills could unfairly penalize small towns. He noted that of the nine towns he represents in eastern Connecticut, the largest consists of about 5,000 people; many of those towns are seeing a reduction in population, he said.
“We’re not like Fairfield County, where there’s no place for (new) houses,” he said. “We have plenty of land for sale and places to build houses. But nobody is moving to town and nobody is building houses here — and it has absolutely nothing to do with affordable housing.”
The idea that “zoning is somehow preventing people of color from moving into town simply is not true,” Zawistowski said.
Hwang noted that some towns in Fairfield County — including Fairfield, Westport and Greenwich — have already adopted some of the provisos of the bills, thus negating the state’s view that “We know better than you.”
The senator also noted House Bill 6611’s requirement that municipalities found by the state to be in noncompliance may take their case to court — but that they would be liable not only for mounting their defense but also for the other side’s legal fees, which he said would have “a significant, chilling effect for towns (looking) to stand up for themselves.”
The four presenters at the Zoom meeting all objected to the legislation’s “one size fits all” approach to the question, noting that each municipality has its own character and identity.
Speaking with the Business Journal, Bronin dismissed that point of view. “There is flexibility in how towns can achieve these goals,” she said. “There’s one for transit-oriented development, where you would need to develop at least 40 units within a half-mile of a train station, and there’s the ‘Main Street’ proposal.”
The latter asks for a town without a train station to select one “main street” and zone it for two- to four-family housing.
“Just a few weeks ago, the Massachusetts legislature nearly unanimously adopted transit-oriented development zoning similar to what we are proposing,” Bronin said, “and the Massachusetts bill was touted by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker as enabling smart housing investments that benefit the state economically.”
Fairfield County “stands to benefit tremendously from zoning reform,” Bronin said. “Current residents will have more opportunities to age in place and welcome their adult children back home. New residents will add vibrancy and vitality to towns and the small businesses in them.”
Public hearing uproar
Some 350 people were scheduled to offer testimony at the March 15 committee hearing, which stretched past the 24-hour mark. At its start, Hwang again expressed dissatisfaction with what he viewed as a lack of transparency and outreach from state Democrats. He also registered his disagreement with the committee’s decision to limit speakers to five minutes.
Noting that various special interest groups had been able to meet with Democrats to hammer out the bills’ language, Hwang called that situation “disappointing” and “deeply troubling to me.”
Hwang further said that Senate Bill 1024 would result in an increase in density and supply, but questioned how it would address racial inequalities. Sen. Derek Slap (D-West Hartford) replied that it would “inherently create, through market forces, more diverse communities” by redressing situations where “affordable housing” automatically means a particular part of town.
Dubitsky noted that, while proponents of the bill have maintained that it would encourage home ownership, its language is centered on apartments, which are rentals. Slap said that it would make single-home ownership “more attainable and more affordable” — something that Rep. Joe Zullo (R-East Haven) countered by saying it would only encourage more apartment renting.
Republicans’ ire over the issue burst into flames on the morning of March 16, when Planning and Development Chair Cristin McCarthy Vahey adjourned the public hearing as it hit the 24-hour mark. Approximately 120 of 340 people registered to testify were heard.
Hwang had pushed for the committee to recess and resume at a later time, invoking General Assembly Joint rules section 6(c)(5) so that those who had waited to testify could be heard. His motion was not approved.
Hwang then issued a statement reading: “I want to be on the record voicing my disappointment and concern about the state of government transparency and public input process with the chair’s restriction of exchange with those who made an effort to testify today. As the ranking member with experience as a past chairman of the Housing Committee, I am acutely aware of how the committee leadership can impact the effectiveness and flow of a meeting built to allow public input.
“Another example of skirting around transparency and collaboration is my on-the-record request at Planning and Development’s Jan. 22 Committee meeting to work together on bill language was completely ignored,” he continued.
In his own statement, Senate Republican Leader Kevin Kelly (R-Stratford) said: “CT Democrats have gone out of their way to find historically controversial issues and then use virtual technology to limit conversation, exclude people and suppress their voices. Almost 70% of the people who wanted to testify on these zoning bills that raise serious environmental and open space concerns were turned away. Legislators were limited to five minutes of questions, an atypical move that dramatically restricted discussion with the public.
“This is not the first time the public’s voices have been suppressed by CT Democrats this session,” Kelly continued. “A few weeks ago a Public Health Committee hearing turned away nearly 80% of the people who signed up to testify. This is a reoccurring theme.
“CT Democrats will bend over backwards to make sure they have your vote, but they don’t value your voice once elected,” Kelly said.
Meanwhile, Bronin told the Business Journal that she was somewhat mystified at how the issue has apparently become a partisan one, with most Democratic lawmakers in favor of Senate Bill 1024 and most Republicans against it.
Partly due to what she sees as a large amount of misinformation being disseminated about 1024, Bronin is continuing to tour the state to promote the legislation. She was scheduled to appear at a virtual discussion of Desegregate CT’s platform at the inaugural “New Canaan Talks Housing” series on March 18.
"control" - Google News
March 22, 2021 at 06:31PM
https://ift.tt/2Qufhgz
CT lawmakers debate who should control zoning: State or municipalities? - Westfair Online
"control" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3bY2j0m
https://ift.tt/2KQD83I
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "CT lawmakers debate who should control zoning: State or municipalities? - Westfair Online"
Post a Comment