A revised version of a housing bill vetoed earlier this year by Gov. Ned Lamont took center stage Wednesday, on the first day of the legislative special session.
The omnibus housing bill, vetoed by Lamont in June, was largely criticized for its “fair share” policy, that would’ve required towns and cities to add a certain number of affordable homes to their community.
Republican lawmakers say they didn’t receive copies of the final housing bill draft until Wednesday morning and were unprepared to debate the bill in detail.
Republican Rep. Steve Weir, who represents several towns including Andover and Glastonbury, said the housing bill being considered in this special session isn’t bipartisan. Weir said the work was conducted privately by Democrats.
“Some of the best policies come with a little bit of pushback,” Weir said. “And we didn’t get that here today by any stretch of the imagination.”
The new version of the bill doesn’t include fair share, rather, an opt-in program run by the regional councils of government, determining what type of housing is needed for various locations across the state.
Before debate began Wednesday morning, Democratic House of Representatives Majority Leader Jason Rojas said Democrats tried to work with Republicans on the modified bill.
“We’ve long said local control, local officials being involved in decision making,” Rojas said. “We actually did that, compromised, and now they’re trying to find all sorts of other reasons to oppose a bill that is really important to the people in the state of Connecticut.”
Republicans take issue with a portion of the bill that would make it easier for new housing to be built on land that was once home to commercial properties.
Under the new bill, transforming former commercial space into housing must be approved “as of right” in communities that participate in the state’s “Work, Live, Ride” program. It incentivizes new housing construction near transit hubs.
The bill wouldn’t take away commercial properties that are functional, developers would still need to follow local zoning and building codes, according to Rojas.
“That assumes that someone who owns a revenue generating property is somehow going to pay to tear it down, displace those businesses so they can build nine units of housing. That doesn’t seem logical to me,” Rojas said.
Rep. Tony Scott, who represents parts of Easton, Trumbull and Monroe, is worried with the commercial to residential shift, homes may spring up near undesirable locations, like liquor stores or marijuana dispensaries.
“A residential place right next to a dispensary. There’s no thought process,” Scott said.
