To the Editor:
After witnessing the twists and turns utilized by Connecticut’s General Assembly leadership to pass House Bill 5002, now known as PA 25-49, I am reminded of the maxim attributed variously to Mark Twain and Otto von Bismarck: If you like law or sausages, you shouldn’t watch either being made.
There was serious sausage making going on during the debate on this bill. There are so many things wrong with this 92-page bill that it is a daunting challenge to even find a place to start.
The bill is so confusing and internally inconsistent that Gov. Ned Lamont, on whose desk the bill sits waiting for his signature or veto, remarked, “the question is, do you sign it and fix the bill later, or don’t sign it and get a new bill that takes down the temperature a little bit.”
Governor, the responsible course is to veto now and fix later!
There are powerful voices who support this bill. They are engaged in smug virtue signaling concern for the poor and homeless. However, they avoid anything so mundane as analyzing the actual language of the bill adopted by the General Assembly. They love high-blown rhetoric, but don’t wish to be confused by the actual language of the bill.
The proponents of the bill provide us with an example of the concern and compassion they claim to have for the poor when they pontificate from on high, in Section 2 of the bill.
This section reads that zoning regulations, “shall not require a minimum number of off-street motor vehicle parking spaces for any residential development except as provided in section 3.”
It appears that in the world inhabited by the “Guardians of the Poor,” most of us need parking, but somehow, the poor do not.
This means that a local P & Z Commission cannot deny an application for a residential development for lack of off-street parking, a bonanza for high density development and another burden for the working poor.
So much for Connecticut’s tradition of local control!
Central Planners have issued an edict that ‘experts’ know what is best for a local community, with a one-size fits all approach.
This section unambiguously removes the discretion from a local commission to make decisions regarding off-street parking.
As an afterthought during the sausage making, (due to the uproar raised by residents throughout Connecticut) a narrow exception to the “no minimum off-street parking” requirement was added in a new Section 3. The new language does not remove the “no minimum off-street parking” prohibition but rather puts an additional burden on the municipal zoning commission to justify a rejection based upon parking considerations. The commission must make a finding “that a lack of such parking will have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety.”
This is a difficult burden for a commission to meet.
This section also requires that all applications for residential developments of over 24 dwelling units shall include a “parking needs assessment” that provides an analysis of options that may be used by residents to mitigate the need for off-street parking.
The 24 unit cut-off is an arbitrary figure. Developments of less than 24 dwelling units are not required to provide an assessment of parking needs.
The experts have not provided us with an explanation for the distinction. Nor have they adequately explained why no state in the U.S. has a statewide policy of no-minimum off-street parking requirement. Perhaps, it is because it does not work.
One such development in Bridgeport has put a face on the reality of the consequences of this ruling from on high.
In an already congested area, without an effective mass transit system, where all children qualify for free lunches in the public schools, a 74-unit residential development with 900 square feet of commercial space on the first floor, and no off-street parking has been approved on a postage stamp size lot on East Main Street.
This is not because of HB 5002, but rather because many of the experts influencing HB 5002 were busy at work in Bridgeport revising the local zoning regulations during COVID. Minimum off-street parking requirements were eliminated in the rewriting of the regulations.
This Bridgeport development is the fruit of the seeds planted during the invasion of the experts under cover of COVID. It helps us read the tea leaves.
Sadly, Michael Chuchev, in a recent op-ed published describes the elimination of off-street parking minimums as a positive effect on “some of the worst excesses of municipal zoning.”
If he could only walk in the shoes of someone who in real time will be affected by the consequences of this bill, such as a single mother and sole breadwinner hunting for a parking space after a 3 to11 shift. But the elite central planners are far removed from East Main Street in Bridgeport.
Yes, Governor, you can turn down the temperature on this bill.
Your honest statement that you wished you had been involved in negotiating the language of this bill earlier, is to be commended and applauded. Your healthy skepticism is warranted and appreciated.
Please veto this bill and call the legislature into special session to get this sausage making right with a new recipe that includes input from all impacted parties.
—
Carmen L. Lopez is a retired state Superior Court Judge