By Anne White
The housing bill that started as a sentence became a novel overnight.
With less than 24 hours’ notice, Connecticut lawmakers were handed the final version of HB 5002—a sweeping housing reform bill that grew from a one-paragraph “study” into a 92-page policy overhaul, now expected to come up for a vote as early as today.
The bill’s sudden appearance on Wednesday confirmed fears long raised by local zoning advocates: that the state would use placeholder legislation to bypass public debate and insert dramatic mandates at the eleventh hour.
“They’re passing a blank bill,” said Maria Weingarten, founder of CT169Strong, earlier this week. “It may be called any day now and we don’t know what’s in the bill. It’s not done in the light of day.”
Now they do know. And what’s in it is extensive.
The final amendment to HB 5002—released less than 24 hours before lawmakers were expected to vote—introduces statewide Fair Share housing quotas, mandates middle housing as-of-right on commercial lots, eliminates minimum parking requirements, and gives new power to the state to review and approve municipal housing plans.
The language also codifies “affirmatively furthering fair housing” into Connecticut law, mirroring a federal standard that adds civil rights enforcement to local land use decisions.
“The bill has come out of Appropriations, come out of Finance,” Weingarten said, “and there’s nothing on there that would have required it to be there.” That, she said, amounts to “giving a blank check.”
What began as a single paragraph—“To study housing and the needs of homeless persons”—now includes:
Section 10: A statewide formula for assigning affordable housing unit targets to each town.
Section 5(b)(11): Required allowance of 2–9 unit “middle housing” on commercial land across the state.
Section 6: Elimination of town-set parking minimums in favor of a needs-based calculation.
Section 9: State review of town housing plans through newly established “priority development zones.”
Section 19: Expanded power for the Attorney General to sue municipalities over discriminatory zoning outcomes.
There are other inclusions too—portable sanitation mandates for homeless residents, a ban on “hostile architecture,” regional waste coordination, and grants tied to compliance with state-directed housing objectives.
As of press time, it remained unclear whether the bill would be brought to the floor this morning, afternoon, or later. But the vote was imminent. And the backlash has already begun.
In a meeting earlier this week with legislators from Bridgeport—whose votes are often key in housing bills—Weingarten said the confusion was bipartisan. “The Bridgeport City Council members said, ‘Well, where’s the language? No offense, but we want to see what you’re actually writing down on paper.’”
Now they have it. And it affirms what had previously been dismissed as speculation. That progressive lawmakers were gathering votes and rewriting the legislation in secret.
“They don’t want us to know what’s in the bill until they’ve got their numbers,” Weingarten said at the time. “So even the moderate Democrats can’t help us.”
Fairfield County communities like Greenwich and New Canaan had lobbied against the rumored contents of the bill, citing concerns over density, infrastructure, and process.
Governor Ned Lamont has not publicly commented on the final amendment. Some legislators and advocates are still calling for him to intervene. “I would love to have a discussion with Lamont,” Weingarten said. “We want all of Connecticut to thrive and succeed and have smart policies. But these are not it.”
As the vote clock ticks, the sense across New Canaan is frustration—not just over policy, but over process. “If this isn’t a lesson in government overreach,” Weingarten said, “I don’t know what is.”
Whether that message will influence the outcome remains to be seen.
