Will Lamont veto CT HB 5002? Governor promises to ‘get it right’
**Support trusted journalism in Connecticut. Join CT Mirror’s members today and make an impact.**
Become a Member Now
Gov. Ned Lamont ended nearly three weeks of public rumination and private negotiation about the fate of an omnibus housing bill Monday, siding with suburban opponents and Republican legislators who had urged a veto of the measure as an intrusion into local zoning.
Lamont, a Democrat whose overwhelming reelection in 2022 came on the strength of suburban support, praised the goals behind House Bill 5002 and decried much of the opposition as based on misrepresentations, yet he ultimately bowed to those concerns.
“I think we can make it better. I think the only way to really make it work is if you have buy-in from the local communities. And I think the vast majority of those communities want to do the right thing,” Lamont told reporters in a press conference in his office at the state Capitol.
Lamont also confirmed a veto of Senate Bill 8, legislation that would have provided jobless benefits to striking workers, consistent with statements he repeatedly made prior to passage. The deadline for acting on the two bills was Tuesday.
But his public skepticism about House Bill 5002, a measure his administration helped negotiate, was recent and unexpected. It blossomed since the legislature adjourned June 4, and opponents led by CT169Strong and the conservative Yankee Institute raised alarms and urged local officials to demand a veto.
“There are about 2,000 bills, and I focus on probably a half dozen,” Lamont said, responding to questions pressing him to explain his short path from support for a priority of the legislature’s Democratic majority to a veto demanded by its GOP minority. “I probably should have focused on this one sooner.”
### Want to read more in-depth Connecticut news?
Get CT Mirror's latest government and public policy reporting in your inbox daily.
Leave this field empty if you're human:
HB 5002 was drawn to address a critical housing shortage by requiring municipalities to set “fair share” goals for affordable housing, prioritizing state aid to communities that build housing, and streamlining approval for so-called “middle housing,” defined as a building with two to nine units.
Lamont said the community-by-community “fair share” goals for affordable housing were “a planning document,” not a mandate as opponents claimed, yet those false claims contributed to his veto decision.
“I think this, you know, crossed the line for a lot of folks, in particular, when it comes to dictating or suggesting the number of units you ought to have,” Lamont said. He clarified the bill does not dictate the number of units a community should produce.
Housing advocates found his answers confounding. They noted his administration was privy to the bill’s development, and the governor acknowledged he was acting on opposition talking points that he largely discounted as based on misrepresenting the details of the 41-section bill.
## More STORIES IN HOUSING
### Will Lamont veto CT HB 5002? Governor promises to ‘get it right’
### No-fault eviction bill failed a third time in CT. Renters say housing situation is dire
## More STORIES in Politics
### Amy Porter named acting chief of CT OHS; replaces Deidre Gifford
### Rosa DeLauro laments lack of ‘civil discourse’ on Israel, ICE raids
“That’s absolutely astounding,” said Erin Boggs, the executive director of the Open Communities Alliance. “The governor’s office was directly involved in negotiating this bill. His specific complaints about target numbers for each community to plan around appear based more on complaints from municipalities and NIMBY advocates who do not understand what the bill says rather than legitimate issues with the proposal, and should not have been enough to trigger a veto.”
Equally confusing, Boggs and other advocates said, was that the principle for going forward appeared to be finding a consensus from officials in municipalities whose zoning either bars multifamily housing of three or more units or requires special permitting. That consensus, they said, has been elusive for decades.
“Thousands of working-class and middle-class people can’t afford to rent or own a home in Connecticut, making this veto disappointing and short-sighted,” said Melvin Medina of the Connecticut Project Action Fund. “Nixing this bill suggests a lack of urgency and a commitment to steady habits that aren’t delivering results.”
House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, defended the “fair share” provision as a necessary prod to act on providing affordable housing.
“I have no regrets about fighting for these families. It was not dumb, and it was never wrong to be a champion for their cause,” Rojas said. “Housing reform is hard. It’s even harder in the world of social media outrage machines that exploit the currents of the moment, flooding feeds with disinformation and scare tactics. But we do not give up because it is hard. We press on because it is necessary.”
Lamont called his veto “reluctant” and called for stakeholders, including municipal officials, to craft a new version in the next 90 days. Without committing to any, he praised some of 5002’s provisions, such as one that would have required zoning regulations to allow small middle housing projects in commercial zones “as of right.”
“Commercial ‘as of right’ makes really good sense to me,” Lamont said. “Rather than have an empty, underused office building, people can convert that, do that, you know, more quickly and readily. But I think we have to do it the way that people buy in.”
Lamont tweaked Republican legislators, who voted as a bloc against the bill, as inconsistent when it comes to encouraging growth and bemoaning bureaucracy. Those attributes, he said, disappear when it comes to housing.
“It’s sort of interesting to me that Republicans are usually the ones that are pro-growth and want to get rid of the red tape and over-regulation,” Lamont said. “Instead, in this case, it’s the Republicans who are sort of slow growth and very happy with the local regulation.”
But Lamont retreated towards a posture of deferring to local control.
“I’m not happy with the local regulation. I’m not happy with the, you know, the local red tape, but I want the towns to take the lead,” Lamont said.
He drew a distinction between “the veto crowd” and the “people of goodwill” who oversee planning and zoning.
“The veto crowd, they don’t have any solutions. They don’t have any constructive solutions. They’re saying, ‘Hell no.’ I’m not going to win them over,” Lamont said. “But I think when it comes to our towns and cities and first selectmen and planning and zoning people, people of goodwill who know how important it is for our towns and our state to continue growing, we’re going to get it done.”
Lamont had no detailed answers on what, if anything, the state should do regarding communities that do not, in his words, “buy in” to changes that encourage the construction of affordable housing or streamline processes that can stretch for months or even years.
He viewed those reluctant communities as a minority, and overall he saw Connecticut making progress — an assessment not shared by the housing advocates.
“The data is clear: decades of exclusionary zoning have severely limited the production of homes, particularly the more diverse types of homes our population needs in the places they need them,” said Desegregate Connecticut, an affiliate of the Regional Plan Association.
Connecticut ranks 49th in housing production and has the lowest vacancy rate in the U.S. About 50% of renters and 30% of homeowners are “cost burdened,” spending at least 30% of household income on housing.
Republicans praised the veto.
“Let’s now go back to the drawing board, work together across the aisle and find real bipartisan solutions that address housing affordability — without gutting local control,” said Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield. “Our towns and cities deserve a seat at the table — not a mandate from Hartford.”
House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, offered praise and criticism.
“The governor made the logical call by vetoing H.B. 5002, though he has offered little vision for a path forward,” he said. “Trying to make housing more affordable in Connecticut without confronting the broader policies that drive up the cost of living here is a flawed strategy.”
**Meet the moment.**
Across the country, trust in news is eroding. Powerful figures are challenging stories they don’t like with legal threats. Local newsrooms are shrinking or closing. As that happens, misinformation, government corruption, political polarization, and even the cost of government all go up. And voter turnout, civic engagement, knowledge of candidates and government accountability all go down.
As trust in national news organizations plummets, trust in CT Mirror continues to remain high. As newsrooms face pressure to pull their punches, CT Mirror operates fiercely independently. As local newsrooms wither, CT Mirror continues to grow.
**CT Mirror is a local journalism success story.**
All without a subscription fee or paywall. That’s because fair, accurate, unbiased news should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford it.
So where does CT Mirror’s funding come from? It comes from a community of readers who understand that journalism strengthens our state.
**There’s more work to do. As major disruptions take place in Connecticut, CT Mirror tells you what’s happening and why. The more investigative reporting we do, the more we see a need to do more investigative reporting.**
Holding government accountable will always require tough questions, in-depth research, and painstaking reporting.
**If you agree, can you start a $15/month recurring donation today?**
Thank you.
One-time Monthly Annually
One-time
$250
$365
$500
Other Donation amount
$
Monthly
$10
$15
$25
Other Donation amount per month
$
Annually
$250
$365
$500
Other Donation amount per year
$
Please make a gift today
