Earlier today, Danbury City Councilman and Republican mayoral candidate Emile Buziad became the latest elected official to weigh in on the state housing omnibus bill (HB 5002), which has faced extensive bipartisan opposition among state lawmakers and municipal leaders across Connecticut.
The bill is opposed by an unprecedented, bipartisan group of elected officials and state lawmakers, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) as well as the Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST), which outlined their objections in a recent press release:
Fair Share Housing Mandate - The bill requires OPM to determine each town's affordable housing target based on certain factors, including housing mix, grand list strength, wealth, and poverty. This fails to consider water and wastewater capacity and other factors that are critical to supporting housing development. It also requires municipalities to adopt zoning regulations to “create a realistic opportunity” for developers to build affordable housing units to meet the municipalities' state-determined "affordable housing allocation". Such regulations would be subject to review by OPM to determine whether the municipality is in compliance. If a municipality is deemed in compliance or is exempt from the requirements, it may be prioritized for certain discretionary state funding, including Clean Water Fund, the Urban Act, the Small Town Economic Assistance Program (STEAP), the Main Street Investment Fund, and the Incentive Housing Zone program. How will this impact funding for small towns that do not have the capacity to meet the assigned housing allocation requirement?
Transit-Oriented Communities – By prioritizing funding for municipalities that qualify as Transit-Oriented Communities, the bill calls into question whether any funding under STEAP, which only has enough funding for 20-30 municipal projects each year, will be available to small towns that are not in a position to qualify as a Transit-Oriented Community.
Municipal Liability Costs - Subjects municipalities to attorney’s fees and costs under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act if the court determines that the municipality acted in bad faith or caused undue delays in appealing a decision on an 8-30g affordable housing project. This will have a chilling effect on the right of municipalities to appeal projects that may pose certain environmental, traffic congestion, or other issues in their community.
Minimum Parking Requirements - Prohibits local zoning regulations from establishing minimum off-street parking requirements for certain housing developments.
As-of-Right Conversion of Commercial Buildings - Mandates that municipalities allow commercial buildings to be converted to residential housing developments as-of-right.
Fair Rent Commissions – Requires all municipalities regardless of population to establish and staff fair rent commissions, although municipalities may participate in commissions established by regional Councils of Government.
As of now, neither Danbury Mayor and Connecticut Party Chairman Roberto Alves nor the members of the city's state delegation who supported and approved the bill (Farley Santos (109), Bob Godfrey (110), Ken Gucker (138)) have commented on the legislation.
NOTE: If you’re an elected official from the Greater Danbury community and have an opinion (for or against) HB 5002, reach out to me via Messenger, email at hatcityblog@yahoo.com or the HatCityBLOG hotline at 203.885.7694.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
