As we enter the fall season and read media reports of a special session upon us soon, we continue to be dismayed with the lack of collaboration between the majority party and Republicans on what we hear will be the next iteration of the mega housing bill. We are hearing nothing much has changed with the content of the legislation, and State Senate majority leaders have promised it will be a “strong bill.”
CT169Strong continues to urge for collaborative efforts to create workable legislation — that includes bringing all stakeholders together.
CT169Strong also wants to shed truth on recent media reports. The op-ed articles published in the CT Mirror on August 26 and August 27, 2025, promote a misleading narrative concerning a key provision of mega housing bill HB5002, which was wisely vetoed by Governor Lamont. Although HB 5002 was deeply flawed and represented 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.
CT169Strong seeks to promote constructive dialogue and an exchange of ideas in search of solutions. Unfortunately, an upcoming conference being promoted by DesegregateCT 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 DesegregateCT and its allies must be rejected, if a collaborative process and 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. Connecticut is already one of the most congested and fouth 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 and 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 that developers choosing their own consultants and paying them for a report to set the exact amount of parking needed on any specific project will be impartial. The consultants that 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 studies and guidelines locally adapted to every municipality’s individual needs. This allows for flexibility and accounts for local circumstances. Traffic standards may change, evolve and adapt as needed. This is in line 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 developers are 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 five 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, HB5002, in the form adopted by the General Assembly, places profits over people.
It’s time to expect better. We have heard that the self-interested developer advocates are asking their supporters to contact the Governor to put pressure on him to pass the majority leadership’s HB5002 during an expected special session with little to no modifications. We reject this idea and encourage the Governor to continue his discussions with the local municipal leaders and land use experts, the Connecticut Council of Municipalities (CCM), the Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST) and the regional Councils of Government to get to real workable solutions for affordability for all residents and for affordable housing development, not developer handouts.
Our call to action is to let Govenor Lamont, the majority leadership and your own legislators know that you, the residents of Connecticut, are watching and expect a better process that is open and collaborative in order to get to workable housing policy.
Sincerely, CT169Strong
