Even as the Senate gave final passage to a new version of a wide-ranging housing bill Friday, political tensions simmered in Hartford over the two-day special session.
The Senate approved the measure early Friday morning on a 24-10 vote. All four Democrats who voted against a former version switched their votes, and no Republicans voted for the bill. The measure, which the House of Representatives approved on Wednesday, next heads to Lamont’s desk. The governor is expected to sign it.
Housing has long been a politically charged issue in Connecticut and one of the issues that most divides Republicans and Democrats.
Lamont’s veto of House Bill 5002, a sweeping housing bill passed by Democrats during the regular session, damaged his relationship with many lawmakers from his own party. The governor said he wanted to get towns on board, and called for a special session to pass a negotiated version of the bill.
While some said they’re glad to see the finished compromise bill and thankful that the governor stuck with negotiations, for other senators, that relationship remains strained.
House Bill 8002 requires towns to create housing growth plans, changes minimum off-street parking requirements, expands fair rent commissions and incentivizes towns to take steps to allow more housing, among other measures.
“We’re on the verge of passing a major housing bill that will impact the lives of the people of Connecticut in a very positive way,” said Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, noting that other states have passed major housing reform legislation over the past few years. “Our goal is to join with them, understanding this crisis and the nature of this crisis and working to be more proactive and not just reactive.”
Lamont has touted the new housing bill as a compromise. His administration has also put millions in bonding money into building more housing. Lamont pointed to the mayors who ultimately endorsed the revised bill.
“I think we got a pretty good balance. Like I said, ‘Towns take the lead, give these mayors the incentives.’ They stood up, Republicans and Democrats said, ‘We have the incentives we need.’”
But Republicans in the House and Senate objected to both the content of the housing bill and the process — running it in special session, with less time for debate and outside of the normal political process. The bill produced moments of heated debate between the parties over the last two days.
In the House, one Republican was chastised over what Speaker of the House Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said were personal attacks.
While the rest of the bill saw little or no changes, many of the most substantive pieces around zoning were changed in the compromised version, particularly the portions that drew objections from local leaders. Members of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and Council of Small Towns spoke at a press conference last week in support of the new bill.
The bill requires that towns, either by themselves or with their regional councils of government, create housing growth plans that include a number of units set as a goal to plan and zone for.
By complying with this section of the law, towns have access to new state money and get increased reimbursement rates for school construction projects. They can also access those benefits by following certain parameters to increase housing density near public transit or by joining the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority to allow more housing in downtowns and near transit.
It also includes parameters to allow conversion of commercial properties to residential without special hearings before planning and zoning commissions, although towns can require that the first floor stay commercial.
It eliminates minimum off-street parking requirements for new apartments of up to 16 units, although towns can require parking assessments and additional parking in two zones of the town not amounting to more than 8% of the land.
And it establishes the Department of Housing as a housing authority that can develop affordable housing on state land and work with towns to build.
Debate began Thursday evening and ended early Friday morning.
“The bottom line is we have a moral obligation to create more housing,” said Planning and Development Committee co-chair Sen. MD Rahman, D-Manchester. “We have a moral obligation to bring people inside from cold weather.”
Republicans criticized the use of a special session as well as the contents of the bill, saying it dilutes local control.
“I truly believe that this is going to be a bill that we look back upon as a monumental step in the implementation of statewide zoning efforts,” said Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield.
Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said housing is such an important issue as a matter of statewide policy “that it has to be regarded as something that, in many cases, would vault above and supersede local authority.”
Housing Committee ranking member Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, questioned whether the state actually has a lack of affordable housing. Numerous studies have shown the state has an acute shortage of housing units.
“Is there something you can show me that says that we actually have a substantial shortage of housing?” Sampson asked Duff during debate. Sampson said he had found over 2,000 rental units available online.
“We’re just going to disagree, and that’s OK. You can keep asking me the same question and I’ll give you the same answer,” Duff replied, and pointed to a study released by an outside consultant earlier this year that showed that Connecticut had the most constrained housing market in the nation.
Duff said he thinks the bill will help get more housing built in the state.
Housing Committee co-chair Sen. Martha Marx, D-New London, said in an interview that she worries that the new bill doesn’t have the “urgency” that the old bill did. She liked that it gave towns numbers, a goal to work for, and fears that delays before housing growth plans are due will leave Connecticut residents suffering.
“The fact that we’re waiting years now to get these housing growth plans, that worries me,” Marx said. “I just want affordable housing to be built. I want people to have roofs over their heads.”
She added that she doesn’t think the bill has repaired her relationship with Lamont.
“I still haven’t quite gotten over the fact that the governor vetoed it,” she said.
Sen. Saud Anwar, D-South Windsor, said after the housing veto and discussions over spending in the wake of federal cuts, he wonders whether Lamont “is even in touch with the reality of what the people in the state of Connecticut are experiencing.
“I think the number of people who are experiencing unhoused status and homelessness is increasing in our state. For a state which is one of the richest per capita in the United States and also of the richest country in the world, to allow that to happen and not have an intervention, and despite multiple advocates, community members, reaching out to the governor, and his unwillingness to address this in a meaningful manner is painful to me,” Anwar said Thursday, of the veto.
The governor did not directly answer when asked if the passage of the housing bill would ease tensions with the lawmakers who were furious at his unexpected veto.
“I think we have a pretty good working relationship, I really do,” he said. “[Chief of staff Matthew] Brokman helps by the way. Everybody knows him, trusts him.”
Rob Blanchard, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement that “the status quo is unsustainable and no solution is possible without local leaders stepping up.” Lamont has met over the past several months with municipal leaders, bipartisan lawmakers and nonprofits to “craft a plan that gives communities the tools to build housing on their own terms,” Blanchard added.
“While some lawmakers would rather legislate in the press or put more energy into floor theatrics than actual solutions, the Governor is grateful to those who showed up ready to work,” Blanchard said. “By strengthening this bill, he’s listening to residents who want lower rents, families who need a home they can afford, and businesses need to house their employees.”
Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, said while there may be frustrations at the governor about the veto, that tension is healthy. He pointed to the federal government, where legislative Republicans are broadly in lock-step with the president.
“The legislature is trying to express the will of the people as they see it, and the governor is doing what he sees as the right thing,” Winfield said. “And that tension brings us to a place where, if we get it right, and I’m not always saying we do, but if we get it right, we got it right because of the tension.”
Duff said he was focused on the end result.
“There’s always going to be tensions between legislative and executive to get something done, but we’re getting it done today, and I think that’s the most important thing, the end product,” Duff said.
The 2026 gubernatorial election has also cast a shadow over the housing bill debate. While Lamont said he vetoed the original bill because he wanted to get towns and cities on board, his emails and text messages show the two-term governor got advice about the political implications of signing a bill that many opposed.
Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, who has already announced his campaign for governor, said the new housing bill doesn’t address problems with 8-30g, a decades-old state housing law that offers developers court remedies when their affordable housing proposals are denied. He also criticized the process of passing the bill and said there might have been portions he could support if there had been more time for debate.
“Regardless of the merits, this is no way to lead a state government. There is no justification for it,” said Fazio.
Housing, and particularly 8-30g, was a major issue during the last gubernatorial campaign, and has been ranked by Connecticut residents in a recent poll as one of the most important issues facing the state.
During Wednesday’s House debate on the bill, Housing Committee ranking member Rep. Tony Scott, R-Monroe, was reprimanded by Ritter for what Ritter said were personal comments about other lawmakers.
“I don’t know how somebody could put their head on the pillow at the end of the night and say ‘We did a good job,’” Scott said. “It’s shady, it’s not transparent, it’s not being a leader.”
He also called out a lawmaker who he said “went behind the scenes” and said “stuff that is not what they vote,” referring to Rep. Jennifer Leeper, D-Fairfield. Leeper voted no on the first housing bill, then texted Lamont urging him to sign it. She said later that she wanted him to sign it, then use a special session to make changes.
Scott called on Lamont to veto the new bill.
“Let’s see if the governor listens to the people again,” Scott said. “Let’s see what kind of backbone he actually does have. We all know he flip flops on a lot of things. It goes based on the wind, who’s talking to him last.”
Senators had a similar exchange early in the debate when Sampson suggested that Democrats wanted to run the bill after the party did well in municipal elections last week.
“There was a positive result for the majority in the most recent election, and they feel like now is the time to move this overreaching piece of government-growing legislation that will have zero positive impact on the renters in the state of Connecticut but will benefit certain parties for sure,” Sampson said.
“I take exception to questioning my motives and the motives of the majority when it comes to doing this bill and how the election came out on Nov. 4, and I would ask that we not question our motives during this debate,” Duff responded.
CT Mirror reporter Mark Pazniokas contributed to this story.