Using the pretext of providing more affordable housing for struggling Connecticut residents, the Connecticut General Assembly seems primed to trigger a full-frontal assault aimed at municipal planning and zoning commissions, the integrity of urban neighborhoods, and local control.
In the best tradition of “Trumpian Tomfoolery” the Hartford Democratic Leadership is conspiring to concoct one “Big, Beautiful Bill” which will demolish home rule and neighborhood integrity, while bestowing a financial bonanza on real estate speculators and developers.
The legislative leaders hope to cobble together an unholy alliance between greed and good intentions, by using the seductive rhetoric of affordable housing as a vehicle for camouflaging their ill-conceived legislation.
One component of this strategy is a bill that would prohibit a municipal planning and zoning commission from adopting zoning regulations which mandate minimum off-street parking requirements. This results in greater density and greater profits for speculators and developers, while compelling neighborhood residents to scavenge for on-street parking which is often many blocks from their residence.
A recent proposal in my hometown of Bridgeport illustrates the folly of this no off-street parking approach.
Under cover of COVID, Bridgeport adopted zoning regulations which do not provide for minimum off-street parking. Community activists and members of the City Council have been imploring the Bridgeport Planning and Zoning Commission to reconsider its decision and amend its regulations.
Current Connecticut law allows a municipal Planning and Zoning Commission to enable “no more than one parking space for each studio or one bedroom dwelling unit or more than two parking spaces for each dwelling unit with two or more bedrooms.”
Raised Bill 7061, which will probably be incorporated into the omnibus “Big, Beautiful Bill,” would take that power away from municipal planning commissions.
Because of Bridgeport’s existing zoning regulations, the Planning and Zoning Commission was rendered powerless, when confronted by a proposal calling for a building containing 900 square feet of commercial space, along with 74 dwelling units.
The dwelling units consist of 36 studio/efficiency units, 34 one-bedroom units, and four (4) 2-bedrooms unit. These will be constructed in an already congested and densely populated urban area.
Raised Bill 7061 will foist this Bridgeport experience upon every town and city in Connecticut, while the proponents of the bill feign concern for poor and minority urban residents.
From a planning standpoint, a no minimum off-street parking standard is a disaster. Neither the city of Bridgeport not the State of Connecticut can be compared to New York or Boston. We do not have a well-developed mass transit network.
The law of unintended consequences will produce a situation which will live on after buildings have been built, profits reaped, and those responsible are long gone.
Where does a mother with children in tow, returning from the grocery store, find a convenient place to park?
Should a man or woman returning home after working a night shift, have to park several blocks from a residence and risk both inconvenience and personal safety?
What about residents with physical disabilities?
Where do residents find a suitable and legal place to park, when alternate side of the street parking is in effect following a snowstorm?
Will the “good intentions” faction of the coalition help these embattled residents when the crisis arrives?
Hopefully, Bridgeport will soon rectify its mistake and amend its regulations.
No matter what happens in Bridgeport, however, this parking dilemma should not be visited on the entire State of Connecticut.
Any “Big Beautiful Bill” which includes Raised Bill 7061, should not reach Governor Lamont’s desk.
Carmen L. Lopez with thanks to Maria Weingarten for the submission.
