Please do not leave this page until complete. This can take a few moments.
Democrats pushed back on Monday against what they called the misinformation and misconceptions that have for years swirled around a proposal to increase housing supply near public transit hubs.
The Planning and Development Committee on Monday had a public hearing on House Bill 6831, which would encourage denser development near train and bus stations. The bill has been dubbed “Work, Live, Ride” by Desegregate Connecticut, the group that has pushed for the measure.
Some version of a bill to build more homes near public transportation has been proposed every legislative session since 2020, and particularly over the past couple of years, advocates and lawmakers have dealt with misinformation and confusion about the idea.
Last year’s version of the bill passed the House, but wasn’t called in the Senate.
The bill would prioritize certain state infrastructure funding for towns that create transit districts within a half mile of bus stops or train stations. The districts would allow the development of multifamily housing of fewer than 10 units or the development of larger complexes, if at least 30% of the larger complex is set aside as affordable housing, without a public hearing.
It’s a concept known as transit-oriented development, which has grown in popularity across the country over the past few years. The idea is to build walkable neighborhoods with easy access to public transportation.
Advocates view it as a way to increase housing and benefit the environment by cutting down on sprawl and making it easier for people to avoid driving.
“These communities stimulate local economies, reduce commuting costs, and foster vibrant areas where people want to live, work, and visit,” wrote Alan Cavagnaro, deputy director of Desegregate CT, in public testimony. “As we continue to expand housing options around transit hubs, TOCs [transit oriented communities] can serve as engines for both economic and social progress in Connecticut.”
Meanwhile opponents fear that it would wrest power from local zoning boards and mean towns that don’t participate wouldn’t have access to state money they need.
“I’m opposed to the state coming in and essentially forcing towns to do things that don’t fit within the town,” said Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin.
Advocates say much of the opposition has sprung from groups spreading false information about the bill. In the past, Democratic leaders might have let that pass with little comment during a public hearing. On Monday, they frequently corrected speakers.
Kirk Carr, treasurer of CT 169 Strong, testified on many specific aspects of the bill, including the way the funding prioritization would work for towns and other technical details. He opposed the bill, as did others from the group.
Carr said it had changed in three ways that lawmakers who worked on the bill said weren’t true.
“It’s very frustrating to hear that you’ve actually mischaracterized the parts that have changed … ,” Planning and Development Committee co-chair Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw, D-Avon, said. “To continue these ongoing misleading talking points is becoming a little frustrating. And it’s not a difference of opinion, I just want to make that clear. This is an absolute difference and purposeful misinformation campaign.”
CT 169 Strong, an organization that has opposed bills to reform zoning, including Work, Live, Ride, has been accused of spreading misinformation in the past. But leaders from the group fired back Monday.
“We are a grassroots group of volunteers, not paid housing advocates, and we do not spread misinformation,” said 169 Strong co-founder Alexis Harrison. “We advocate for good bills that help our communities and against bad policies that disempower our towns and abilities to make decisions.”
The Democrats also had a lengthy exchange with Greenwich First Selectman Fred Camillo. Camillo has for many years opposed similar versions of the bill.
He said that it would take away local input, although Democrats and advocates said local officials would have to vote to adopt the district in the first place.
“‘You could opt in if you want, if you don’t know, no problem, no harm, no foul,’” Camillo said. “That’s not true. It’s semantics. That’s not true at all. It’s punitive and it’s threatening.”
“You’re saying that it doesn’t involve local folks, but it absolutely does,” Kavros DeGraw responded.
Co-chair Sen. MD Rahman engaged in a back-and-forth with Camillo about the price of housing in Greenwich. Camillo suggested that rent for a two-bedroom could cost as little as $1,200, with a lot of variety in cost. Rahman pushed back, saying that housing was inordinately expensive in the town.
A search of two of the most popular apartment listing websites showed studio apartments in Greenwich renting for a minimum $1,700, although those listings likely don’t account for public housing or other subsidized units.
House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, weighed in on the issue at a press conference earlier in the day.
“Just look at messaging that’s gone out this past weekend about Work, Live, Ride, that is being heard today in Planning and Development, using language that is just not accurate and [is] inconsistent,” Rojas said. “And it’s done intentionally. I think it’s done to raise the concerns of people who live in our communities about what it is what we are intending to do legislatively.”
In social media posts, emails and via texts, 169 Strong members raised particular concerns with the idea that towns that have already created transit districts wouldn’t be “grandfathered in.”
While the specific phrase isn’t in the bill, there is a section to ensure that towns that have already approved these districts are included in funding prioritization.
The bill would also push the state to help towns that don’t have planning capacity to plan their districts. It also allows towns that are adjacent to municipalities with public transit to participate.
“We know that creating a ‘post-sprawl’ future will take time and will involve many different policy interventions and innovations,” wrote Pete Harrison, Connecticut director of the Regional Plan Association, which is associated with Desegregate CT. “HB 6831 is designed to be a modest, necessary step in orienting our state towards this larger goal.”
The Hartford Business Journal 2025 Charity Event Guide is the annual resource publication highlighting the top charity events in 2025.
Learn moreHartford Business Journal provides the top coverage of news, trends, data, politics and personalities of the area’s business community. Get the news and information you need from the award-winning writers at HBJ. Don’t miss out - subscribe today.
SubscribeDelivering vital marketplace content and context to senior decision-makers throughout Connecticut ...
All Year Long!
The Hartford Business Journal 2025 Charity Event Guide is the annual resource publication highlighting the top charity events in 2025.
Hartford Business Journal provides the top coverage of news, trends, data, politics and personalities of the area’s business community. Get the news and information you need from the award-winning writers at HBJ. Don’t miss out - subscribe today.
Delivering vital marketplace content and context to senior decision-makers throughout Connecticut ...
All Year Long!
In order to use this feature, we need some information from you. You can also login or register for a free account.
By clicking submit you are agreeing to our cookie usage and Privacy Policy
Already have an account? Login
Already have an account? Login
Want to create an account? Register
In order to use this feature, we need some information from you. You can also login or register for a free account.
By clicking submit you are agreeing to our cookie usage and Privacy Policy
Already have an account? Login
Already have an account? Login
Want to create an account? Register
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Our privacy policy
To ensure the best experience on our website, articles cannot be read without allowing cookies. Please allow cookies to continue reading. Our privacy policy
0 Comments