NewCanaanite.com recently received the following letter to the editor. Send letters to editor@newcanaanite.com to have them published here.
***
I attended a “Special Session Housing Bill” in New Canaan recently which was a legislative update on the recently passed housing bill HB-8002. It was hosted by elected state officials representing some local districts. State Rep. Tom O’Dea whose district covers New Canaan, Darien, and Stamford, along with state Sen. Ryan Fazio (Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan), and Rep. Tina Courpas, a freshman legislator (Greenwich, Stamford), presented at this event.
Mr. Fazio started out the session lamenting the recent passage of HB-8002, the first significant housing bill to be passed in the state in decades, as one that became law with no input from the public, that the process lacked transparency and was therefore unfair. While the details emerging from HB-8002 are just now coming into focus in the general public, those who understand them best are essentially describing them as a watered-down version of HB-5002. In fact, many housing advocates describe it as having removed some of the key elements needed to make meaningful progress in addressing the housing affordability crisis in the state.
A quick refresher: HB-5002 was the original major housing bill that passed both the house and the senate earlier this year by a wide margin after lengthy, vigorous, and often contentious opposition and debate but was subsequently vetoed by the governor when it hit his desk. HB-8002 is essentially a dialed-down version of HB-5002.
Given this history of this recently enacted HB-8002 that the Governor just signed, it raises the question of how Mr. Fazio can claim an unsound process of how it was passed. In fact, late in the session I attended last week, during the Q&A period, Mr. Fazio even admitted that HB-8002 was essentially the same as HB-5002 but with some things taken out — meaning that it is in fact a dialed-down bill, not a brand new one passed in the dark of night. So, while Mr. Fazio might not agree with the original bill, or the modified toned-down bill, it is hard to argue that it did not go through the proper legislative procedures. To claim otherwise is what would be unfair, not the passing of it that he claims is unfair. In addition, the bolder bill passed the legislature by a significant margin. Is Mr. Fazio being unclear on this when using this messaging, or is he being disingenuous? Either way, a brief step back makes it easy to see through this misinformation.
Another theme that came up in the session is the idea of “local control” and how it should be preserved. This is a common theme coming from those that oppose more housing and it’s the idea that state housing laws are onerous and should not be imposed on local municipalities, that the state ought to let towns do things their own way. This, of course, ignores the fact that while local control has been the norm for a very long time, it is in fact the reason more housing has not been built – for very a long time. “Local control” has controlled (denied) more housing supply for decades and it is only because of state laws on the books that the relatively small amount of housing that has been built actually got built. Towns have only built housing, or allowed it to be built by others, because state housing laws are in place. Cries for “local control” conveniently ignore an uncomfortable historical truth that property deeds in the state (& in other parts of the country) routinely forbade any sale to individuals of certain religious and ethnic backgrounds. Many of those clauses still exist in deeds today, although state law now makes them illegal and unenforceable. But that is an example of the state properly stepping in and preventing unfair rule by “local control.” The same could be said of the time when local control unfairly prohibited public restroom use by individuals of certain ethnic backgrounds. And the state rightly came in to stop that from happening. This is part of the history of our state, and our nation. Local control is great, until it isn’t.
In this day and age, if we’re truly honest about it, local control is really about maintaining the status-quo, which translates to a “no” to more housing. And that status-quo has been the pinch point for so many years to prevent more housing. Given the economic principles of Mr. Fazio’s party, ones that I happen to embrace, one might initially think he could be pro-housing if you didn’t know his stance on the issue. Property owner’s rights, free market economics, the law of supply-and-demand, the engine of capitalism, deregulation, etc. But he, like so many others, abandon those principles and do an about face when it comes to housing. Basic economics at work have created the affordability crisis – a prolonged and artificial lack of supply. If we want to make any kind of headway on this issue we have to embrace, or at least accept, common-sense economic principles. It should surprise no one that housing affordability is in a better state in cities and states throughout the nation that have done so. Let’s make Connecticut one of those states by electing leaders who see this.
Paul Stone, New Canaan
Well said, Mr. Stone. Thank you.
“What are we afraid of?” – Matthew Desmond at the NC library, 5/10/23
What are we afraid of? (1) Malevolence (2) People who believe that misery should be equally distributed (3) Tall, ugly buildings being erected in historic neighborhoods (4) Increases in traffic, accidents, crime, and pollution/litter (5) An increase in the number of people who don’t value local customs and traditions.
I’m undoubtedly forgetting some things.
Thank you William. It is nothing more than disgused re- districting . Next we will have County government and County taxes. Thanks to Ned Lamont , Rojas and their Yale Law School carpetbaggers.
It should be noted that Mr. Stone works for Karp and their attorney on the 3 8-30g projects in New Canaan, Tim Hollister, wrote an oped recently that said it took him personally over a week to understand 8002, and he was one of the original crafters of 8-30g! He also has concerns with the bill.
As a member of CT169Strong.org, I have read the whole 104-page, 53 section bill, numerous times, and can say with certainty that 8002 contains a number of brand new concepts that never got a public hearing. The bill’s final language was kept secret by the supermajority Democratic party from the public and from any Republican legislators and not posted on the state website (publicly) until one hour before it was called for a vote on the floor of the house during a special “emergency” session on November 12th. Even the House Democrats that passed it on a party line vote, never got a chance to read the actual final bill before voting on it. This was not true collaboration or an open and transparent process on 8002 that those who sent messages to Governor Lamont about 5002 we’re hoping for. Many of the objectionable parts of the original 90+ page 5002, caused thousands statewide to reach out to the Governor for a veto, and many of the same concerns still remain in 8002. This is likely why the bill was not made available for public review.
8002 still includes an unworkable statewide top down mandate on parking where any projects of exactly 16 residential units cannot require any onsite parking at all, which was admitted by Democrat MD Rahman on the floor of the Senate to be a drafting error to be corrected. For any residential projects under 16 units, only 8 percent of New Canaan can have a designated “traffic mitigation area” where towns can require only the state mandated, one size fits all, on-site parking maximum: the LESSER of one space for a studio/1BR or 2 spaces for 2BR+ OR number of spaces determined by a developer bought parking study (which even New Canaan P&Z members have seen that developer studies can vary greatly from results of a parking study paid for by town consultants). In the remaining 92% area of town, no on-site parking can be required at all on any projects under 16 units! This “splitting the baby” by negotiated lowering the requirement from 24 units in 5002 to “less than 16 units” in 8002 does not make this policy any more workable – it’s nothing but a developer handout and a policy that does not exist statewide anywhere else in the U.S. It’s an unfunded mandate requiring new municipal lots to be built for lack of parking – it is subsidizing parking for developers with no requirements for affordability – it will be paid for by residents through escalating local property taxes. Above 16 units, it is the same state mandated on-site parking maximum criteria stated above. Parking is just one example of concerns that remain in 8002.
8002 still includes fair share – a top down OPM bureaucrat sets an arbitrary statewide “housing need” without criteria that considers local infrastructure constraints and divides that total among the 9 COGs. Both 8002 and 5002 stated the maximum affordable housing New Canaan may need to plan for is 20% (that is double the 8-30g threshold of 10%) of the current housing stock, or about 1,500 units, and that just for the next 10 years when that number will be reset yet again by OPM. This is fair share still, just under a doublespeak new name.
New in 8002: if a town’s affordable housing goal (fair share) and policy (zoning) changes are not approved, New Canaan cannot get a future moratorium – that concept never had a public hearing. Also new, in 5002, the exact fair share number was given to each town and city, but in 8002 our regional planning org, WestCOG, will calculate fair shares for all their municipalities based on a yet to be detailed state top down criteria to be decided by OPM and by whoever OPM decides they will consult with on that criteria – and we are hearing it will include developer paid for housing advocates like DesegregateCT.
OPM and/or a new Council on housing development has to approve 1) those COG set fair share numbers 2) or a fair share number our town chooses ourselves and 3) our local policy changes to meet that affordable housing goal. But if OPM and/or the Council disagrees with our town decided affordable numbers or policies, we cannot get a future moratorium or be eligible for state infrastructure funds. This is the state moving the bar once again on towns like New Canaan that have been doing the right thing and building the actual affordable. Remember, it took 3 attempts just to get our second moratorium from the state.
The deck is clearly stacked against all towns that seek a future moratorium. And make no mistake, this bill is a clear loss of property rights and local zoning discretion with top down mandates and ends local planning and zoning reviews and public hearings with many “as of right” and “summary review” provisions. Follow CT169Strong.org on FB and our website.
From my extensive personal experience on zoning bills in Hartford and on 8002, all three speakers: Fazio, O’Dea and Corpus were right on point. There is plenty for New Canaan to be concerned about regarding 8002 and many new regs and form based code to be quickly adopted by our local P&Z before the 7/1/2026 deadline, when the conversions statewide of any commercial into residential up to 9 units (this was in 5002 as well) and state top down parking mandates go into effect. As for fair share, that’s boiling a frog in lukewarm water – the badness is just starting and the full effects won’t be known until 2029 when WestCOG’s fair share allocations are due and we will see if our policy changes and plans are approved to be able to qualify for a future moratorium… or not.
Just remember New Canaan legislators O’Dea, Fazio and Constatine voted against 8002, Dathan and Maher vote in favor. Elections always have consequences.
Thank you for clarifying who Paul Stone is. Thank you for clarifying
a bill which is written in such a way to be confusing to most people. . Thank you for
for letting the people of New Canaan know exactly how bad this
bill is and under a false claim of affordable housing. Thank you explaining
the real problem with parking lots. And finally thank you for exposing the
developers of apartments that will be making large sums of money on
the false promise of “ affordability “. Affordable for some, but not
for the town, and tax payers.
Paul, as you and the Karp Associates team should know, “local control” is necessary to ensure large apartment complexes that look like mega cruise ships are not erected on small residential lots. Can your team propose housing that preserves the character of our small towns and are placed where the safety of our town is considered? Can you also please be transparent about your bottom line and your profit on these huge mega developments that your firm is proposing? Thank you.
Thank you for your comment on this Katherine. Well said.
The irony is the new law is not intended to increase home ownership in Connecticut suburbs. Quite the contrary, it will consolidate private property ownership with the big winners being the wealthy developers such as the one in which Mr. Stone works for. Connecticut has experience with state housing planning. It was state planners that mandated the housing projects in our large cities that became, among other things, irreparable impediments towards private property ownership among the inner-city community. It was what also drove middle class residents from the city to the suburbs to escape poorly performing public schools, crime, and congestion. Now, thousands of residents of the Connecticut suburbs, who know their community better than anyone, will be instructed by the same few “expert” state planners who condemned our inner cities to decades of malaise. The winners will be deep pocketed developers who purchase up available property and erect structures, unfettered by local laws, that will maximize profits with volume the key variable. These units will, of course, require the developer’s building management services in perpetuity. The law is a win-win for developers and incredibly destructive for Connecticut suburbs.