By Ginny Monk / CTMirror.org

The state Senate spent nearly the entire last day of the legislative session trapped in a filibuster, with debate over a watered-down version of a omnibus housing bill stretching more than nine hours before lawmakers passed the measure Wednesday night mostly along party lines in the Democratic-controlled body.

Controversial initiatives — notably, “Fair Share” and “Work, Live, Ride” — both were left out of the final version of the legislation after encountering fierce opposition from legislators and local officials from suburban communities like Westport.

Features of the Fair Share initiative, however, while no longer mandated as initially proposed, are reflected in the legislation’s language that would require the state to conduct a housing needs assessment, find a methodology to divide up the need and inform towns how many units they would need to meet that threshold.

Critics argue that leaves the door open for state-mandated housing measures that could be imposed on regions and localities in the future.

Senate Bill 998, which aims to improve tenants’ rights and housing quality, heads next to Gov. Ned Lamont’s desk for his signature.

The bill’s passage marks a bittersweet moment for housing advocates and lawmakers who pushed all session for statewide zoning reform that they say would have led to substantial increases in Connecticut’s stock of affordable housing.

Fair Share and Work, Live, Ride proposals gone … or are they?

The Fair Share mandates were stripped from the bill last week, and Work, Live Ride did not get a vote on the House floor.

Connecticut lacks about 89,000 units of housing that are affordable and available to the lowest-income renters, and thousands more are paying more than a third of their income to housing costs.

“We’re trying to hold onto something that worked 50 years ago,” said state Sen. Marilyn Moore, D-Bridgeport, the chairwoman of the Housing Committee. “And now we have more people in Connecticut. We have people of all income levels.

“It has to be inclusive. We can’t build housing projects anymore where you stick low-income people to the side where nobody can see them and then you have all the other people in these houses and buildings,” she said.

The bill notably increases the amount municipalities are allowed to charge for code violations from $250 to $2,000, which officials hope will push landlords to improve sub-par rental housing.

During Wednesday’s lengthy debate, senators’ discussion on the bill primarily focused on tenants’ rights and housing quality touched on a wide array of topics, including affordable housing law, economics, zoning reform, local control and even the game of hopscotch.

Throughout the legislative session, zoning reform has been top-of-mind for many lawmakers and advocates. Research shows that restrictive zoning ordinances in Connecticut are tied to segregation along income and racial lines, and experts say these ordinances make it hard to build enough multi-family housing to meet demand.

Last week, lawmakers were negotiating a way to include the Fair Share zoning policy, which would have required the state to assess the regional need for more affordable housing and divide that need between municipalities. The towns would then be required to plan and zone for a certain number of housing units.

After the Fair Share mandates were stripped from the bill, supporters said the remaining provisions are for informational purposes. Opponents, however, say they fear it’s a way to prepare for mandates.

The bill also established the Office of Responsible Growth by statute. The office existed because of a years-old executive order.

That office is integral to the Work, Live, Ride zoning reform proposal that died before a vote on the House floor this session. That proposal would have offered certain state infrastructure funds to towns that opt to create transit-oriented communities, increasing residential density near train or bus stations.

“Inclusive municipality” = more $ for school construction

The approved legislation does include one measure that offers school districts a 5 percent point increase in their reimbursement rates for school building projects if they’re located in an “inclusive municipality” as determined by the Department of Housing.

The bill language has a handful of parameters for an “inclusive municipality,” including that it has adopted and maintains zoning codes that promote fair housing.

Zoning reform consumed the bulk of debate Wednesday, even though none of those mandates are included in the bill.

Opponents have objected to proposals for statewide zoning reform, saying it divests towns of local control and imposes onerous, one-size-fits all requirements on municipalities.

“I am very deeply concerned that this bill is the camel’s nose under the tent of creating one of the most significant, unfunded mandates on our towns and cities in our state’s history and significantly undoing traditions of local control of our towns and cities,” said state Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich.

Moore argued that the state needs to consider ways to ensure people aren’t pushed out of certain, wealthier areas.

“If we’re going to build an inclusive Connecticut, we have to build for everyone and we have to learn how to live together,” she said.

Tenants’ rights

While zoning reform has caused the most political consternation over the past few days, the bill’s mandates that will affect residents in the coming months are primarily focused on tenants’ rights and housing quality.

Since 2021, Connecticut has seen a growing movement to organize renters and form tenants’ unions. These groups have helped draw more attention across the state to some of the issues tenants face, including shoddy and unsafe housing.

S.B. 998 would require that tenants be given the chance to walk through apartments before renting them and limits what landlords can charge for screening reports. They’d also be required to give tenants copies of their screening reports.

It curbs what landlords can charge in late rent fees and requires that the Department of Housing develop standardized leases in English and Spanish.

It would ban small landlords from discriminating against tenants based on their sexual orientation. The change was one of the governor’s suggestions in his renter rights bill. 

The bill would also have courts remove online eviction records within 30 days if the case is withdrawn, dismissed or a judge rules in favor of the tenant. Online records have been shown to make it near-impossible for tenants who have evictions filed against them to find new housing, even if the tenant wins their case.

Some Republicans argued against portions of the bill related to tenants’ rights.

Housing Committee ranking member Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, said some of the provisions weren’t necessary and put too much burden on landlords.

“We’re adding more regulation and less freedom and choice for people,” Sampson said.

Through the session, Sampson has frequently argued in support of the free market and against what he views as government interference in private contracts. 

Housing advocates have said that such measures help balance power between landlords and tenants and that they view the proposals as part of consumer protection, a role the government routinely fills.

Moore said she’d heard from many tenants through the legislative process about rising rents and people being forced out of their housing.

“It’s the beginning of trying to figure out what is best for Connecticut residents in the way of housing,” Moore said. “How do we develop housing and help people live in something that’s affordable and decent?”

Republicans also criticized the bill because of the way it progressed through the legislature. It was initially a bill on tax abatements for conservation easements that passed the Senate. 

When it went to the House, several housing measures from other bills were added to the bill. It passed narrowly through the House with Republicans and some Democrats, mostly from Fairfield County, opposing the bill.

More to do on housing front

Moore said Wednesday that she thinks the legislature has more to do on housing and sees the bill as just a start.

“I’m appreciative of what we have here,” she said. “I think there’s more work to be done, but I think we’ve begun the work of building houses.”