The op-ed articles published in the CTMIRROR on August 26 and August 27, 2025, promote a misleading narrative concerning a key provision of mega housing bill HB 5002, which was wisely vetoed by Governor Lamont. The bill has been sent back to the legislature and residents should continue to be vigilant as an emergency legislative special session is expected sometime this fall.
Although HB 5002 is deeply flawed and represents bad public policy for a multitude of reasons, this article will focus on the Draconian provision which eliminates the ability of local zoning commissions to enact minimum parking regulations. This one size fits all catastrophe negatively impacts urban, suburban and rural Connecticut communities alike, undermines local control of zoning, and places a straight jacket on the ability to plan and zone.
CT169 seeks to promote constructive dialogue and an exchange of ideas in search of solutions. Unfortunately, an upcoming conference sponsored by Desegregate CT seeks to stifle discussion and the free flow of information. Why else would that organization go out of its way to insult Governor Lamont by making it clear that “he is not invited” to the conference because of his refusal to sign HB5002.
This close-minded intolerance displayed by Desegregate CT and its allies must be rejected, if meaningful legislation is the ultimate goal.
Now for the discussion on parking.
1. Unprecedented Statewide Mandates.
HB5002 eliminates minimum parking requirements statewide, a misguided policy which no other state has adopted. While advocates cite cities like Seattle or Minneapolis and smaller towns, those are local decisions tailored to specific conditions. Connecticut’s diverse towns—facing challenges like narrow roads, flood zones, and the absence of mass transit —need flexibility, not a one-size-fits-all rule. CT is already one of the most congested and 4th most densely populated state. A statewide mandate ignores these realities and sets a dangerous precedent.
2. Eroding Local Control
It is false logic to assume that HB5002 as written creates more flexibility for towns and cities. It does the exact opposite. In 2021, developer advocates pushed for, and Connecticut lawmakers imposed parking maximums, limiting spaces developers could build, but allowed for an opt-out provision as a compromise for the loss of local decision making from that mandate. Many municipalities opted out by the December 31, 2023, deadline. HB5002 eliminates these parking maximums and revokes the opt-out option, forcing all towns into a rigid framework where developers alone decide. This isn’t “towns taking the lead,” as advocates sometimes claim. It is state overreach that strips municipalities of autonomy with an unworkable State mandate “pulling them by the nose.”
3. Misplaced Trust in Developers
It is flawed logic to assume that all developers will set the precise amount of parking that is actually needed on all new developments under 24 units as HB5002 mandates. It is also naive to assume as HB5002 does, that on projects over 24 units the developer paid for studies will be impartial. The consultants developers pay will just back into the predetermined number of parking spots that the developers intend to offer.
Developers prioritize profit, often cutting costs like parking to maximize returns. Just as building inspectors verify plumbing and electrical work, parking needs oversight to prevent corner-cutting. Without checks and balances, residents risk under-parked developments that harm livability and impact quality of life.
As an alternative, we suggest that towns may update their parking policies based on objective and reputable nationwide traffic and parking reports. This allows for flexibility and accounts for local circumstances. Traffic standards may change and adapt.
This is what Governor Lamont has endorsed by his “towns taking the lead “approach. By adopting this approach, there will be real reliance on the scientific method, rather than the pseudo-science rhetoric employed by the supporters of HB 5002.
4. No Guarantee of Affordability
It is false logic to assume if developers eliminate some or all onsite parking spots that developers will pass those savings onto a project’s end users. Advocates suggest reducing parking will lower costs for renters or buyers, but HB5002 includes no such affordability requirements while being allowed to provide no parking on projects under 24 units. Developers can pocket savings from fewer parking spaces or even offering none at all without passing the cost saving benefits onto residents. This mandate is a giveaway to developers, not a solution for housing affordability or creation of affordable units.
5. Burdening Residents
Under-parked developments disproportionately harm vulnerable groups—elderly residents, families with young children, and service workers with late-night or irregular schedules—who rely on cars due to inadequate public transit at those off hours. HB5002’s “health and safety” provisions added as a last-minute compromise by the legislature, are toothless, as the bill explicitly states no project—residential, commercial, or mixed-use — can be denied solely for insufficient parking. This is not an effective compromise solution for workable parking policy.
6. Stop State Laws that Limit parking flexibility
State regulations (one of the 5 factors that impact development costs) like no impact fees or prohibiting “fee in lieu” of parking prevent municipalities from having greater flexibility around parking and local zoning decision making. This ends up hurting development, municipalities and residents in the long run. Legislators should allow for impact fees, yet the majority leaders continue to wrongly obsess only on zoning.
7. Blocking Municipal Solutions
Unlike other states, Connecticut prohibits impact fees, which could allow towns more flexibility on parking requirements and allow funding for municipal parking lots near transit hubs. Those who benefit from the development (the developers) should incur the true costs, not the residents. HB5002 further restricts municipalities by banning fees in lieu of parking. This forces residents to bear the cost of parking shortages through higher property taxes—already the second highest in the U.S.—or pay for private parking. As Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff noted, this shifts costs directly onto residents to “subsidize the cost of parking for developers.” That is not sound policy making to improve affordability for CT’s residents, it’s just a handout to developers.
Elimination of minimum parking mandates is only one provision in HB5002. This legislation, taken as a whole, represents a top down, central planning approach, which is at odds with Connecticut’s tradition of local control and home rule. Despite the rhetoric of its supporters, HB 5002, in the form adopted by the General Assembly, places profits over people.
Truth matters. CT169Strong is providing links to HB5002’s to read and draw your own conclusions, no talking points spin, just the written language in the bill. https://www.cga.ct.gov/…/PDF/2025HB-05002-R000973-FC.PDF Refer to Section 2, lines 186-191; Section 3; Section 42 and a summary of these bill sections on pages 102-104).
CT169 applauds the Governor’s veto of this ill-conceived bill and stands ready to work in a collaborative fashion to obtain real solutions to Connecticut’s housing and affordability needs. Our call to action is for residents to continue to reach out to the Legislative Leadership and to Governor Lamont to let them know CT needs real workable and collaborative solutions, not narratives and talking points.
CT169Strong.org: Maria Weingarten, Co-Founder, Kirk Carr
