I posted on this housing bill our Democrat representatives were poised to pass last Friday.

(Part of) What HB 5002 Would Do

Section 10: Statewide “Fair Share” housing quotas assigned to each town.

Section 5(b)(11): Requires as-of-right approval of 2–9 unit “middle housing” on all commercial-zoned land.
Section 6: Eliminates town-set parking minimums, replacing them with developer-submitted “needs assessments.”
Section 9: Requires state-approved local housing plans in newly established “priority housing development zones.”
Section 19: Grants the Attorney General power to sue towns over zoning outcomes alleged to have “discriminatory effects.”
Other provisions include portable sanitation infrastructure for the homeless (Section 7), a ban on hostile architecture (Section 11), and the creation of regional stormwater and waste management roles (Section 15).

With a slight delay caused by Republican opposition and time off for the holiday, the Democrats reconvened Tuesday and rammed it through — or up, as you might consider their act.

CT Democrats pass omnibus housing bill

House Bill 5002, which passed 84-67, is an expansive bill tackling issues including zoning, transit-oriented development, parking, homelessness and fair rent commissions. It combines Democratic priorities from across a few legislative committees and aims to address the impact of the severe lack of housing, particularly affordable housing, in Connecticut.
“You can’t solve this crisis one step at a time,” said Housing Committee co-chair Rep. Antonio Felipe, D-Bridgeport. “We need a big move that makes progress, and I think this bill does that.” (Translation: Only another step towards our ultimate goal of dictating and controlling all property use in Connecticut.)
…. Republicans took particular issue with the policies around zoning and parking. Debate stretched across nearly 12 hours, and centered largely on local control, what members called one-size-fits all solutions and concerns that towns don’t have the infrastructure to support more housing.
“It will change your district. It will change your municipality. It will change your town or city,” said Housing Committee ranking member Rep. Tony Scott, R-Monroe, of the bill.
Much of the discussion Tuesday centered around a policy known this session as “Towns Take the Lead.” * The proposal analyzes the regional housing need, then divides that need up among towns and assigns each a set number of units. Towns would have to include how they’d plan and zone for those units in their 8-30j plans, which are due every five years.

It’s similar to fair share policies proposed in past sessions, and uses the methodology from a fair share policy to determine how many units of affordable housing towns would need to plan and zone for, with a general goal to increase housing stock and cut down on segregation. The bill contains some other specifications for the housing, including requirements to build units for families and for certain income levels.

Under the bill language, towns would be able to contest their assigned numbers and tell the legislature how many units they think they can accommodate, and lawmakers will approve or deny the towns’ proposals.

Opponents have said the proposal dilutes local control and imposes cookie-cutter solutions on towns. Scott, whose hometown of Monroe would have to plan for 326 units, called the numbers “astronomical,” “unrealistic,” and “comical.”

“You can’t get into that high opportunity neighborhood.”

Rep. Geoff Luxenberg, D-Manchester, gave an impassioned speech Tuesday night … and questioned why loss of local control and cost to towns was the center of the conversation.
“The cost of inaction, the cost of stagnation, the cost of looking the victims of this housing crisis in the eye and saying, ‘Sorry, we’re not going to build one more house. Sorry, you can’t get into that high opportunity neighborhood. There’s a wall that keeps you out,'” Luxenberg said, “Mr. Speaker, that cost is far too high.”

(Mr. Luxenberg is not just drunk with power, he’s also a danger when he’s driving. I do wish he’d just stay home, drunk on his sofa, off the road and out of the lives of others.)

On a fundamental level, by what right does Mr. Luxemberg or any of his fellow looters claim the power aand the knowledge to determine what is everyone’s “fair share”, and distribute it accordingly. Does everyone in the state — the country — the world — have a right to live in”high opportunity neighborhoods”, whatever they are? Our own representative Steve Meskers lives literally around the block from 12 Innis Lane, that sold yesterday for $2.825 million. Not very long ago, that very basic house would have sold for less than half that sum; now, a person who could have afforded to live there has been priced out of the opportunity to join Meskers in his neighborhood. Does our all-knowing overlord have plans to “make things fair” for that excluded individual? If so, what? If not, why not?

And, even assuming Greenwich is compelled to build the 3,500 units of moderate income Meskers et al have determined is our “fair share”, who will decided which lucky members of the general public will get to live in them? Surely there are tens of thousands of state residents who would like to live in Greenwich and can’t. And millions more in the other states, and billions more around the globe. What’s the procedure here, Steve?

Too close to (his) home for Representative Meskers, I suspect

*Here’s what your betters have in mind for you with their “Towns Take The Lead” plan, of which the just-passed omnibus bill is but the beginning:

CT housing proposal would require towns to zone for more units

The agenda includes zoning reform, more money for homelessness services, a child tax credit and eviction protections

Advocates and key lawmakers said Monday they want to see towns plan and zone for a set number of new housing units — a policy that would be enforced by the state government — as one of several measures meant to make sure families can afford a place to live.
The proposal, which resembles sections of a fair share plan proposed in the past, was part of the legislative agenda shared by Growing Together Connecticut, a consortium of advocates and religious groups, during a press conference in Hartford.
The agenda includes proposals to reform zoning, put more money toward homelessness services, create a state-level child tax credit and make it harder for people to get evicted.
“Unlike many other areas of life, where the federal government plays a big role, here in Connecticut, we have 100% control over zoning, and the cost of meaningful changes are almost nothing,” [almost nothing to whom?- Ed] said Erin Boggs, executive director of the Open Communities Alliance, one of the leading organizations in Growing Together CT.
State housing experts have tied the lack of housing in Connecticut to restrictive local zoning laws that make it hard to build multifamily housing on the vast majority of the state’s residential land.
“On housing, towns have the power and the authority to do something about it, and it should be a partnership with the state,” Rojas said. “There’s a lot of discussion in this building about local control and making sure towns maintain that control, and I agree with that — to a point, though. We cannot be absolutist about this.
Housing Committee co-chair Rep. Antonio Felipe, D-Bridgeport, pushed back against some of the common opposition related to local zoning. Felipe said he also spoke in his capacity as the chair of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus.
“I believe in local control, too. I don’t believe in local constraint,” Felipe said.
“They’re calling on these towns to take the lead, and that’s a nice way to put it. Do your part is what I’m going to ask. Do what you are supposed to be doing and make sure that people can live comfortably in your communities.” [What people? How many? Who decides?]

The Growing Together proposal, called Towns Take the Lead, would divide up the need for more housing between towns. Municipalities would then be responsible for planning and zoning for a set number of units, and documenting their goals in the affordable housing plans required to be submitted to the state every five years under Connecticut statute 8-30j.

Within a year of submitting the documents, which are next due in 2027, towns would need to put their plans in action by changing their zoning.

It has similarities to past proposals for a fair share policy that requires towns to plan and zone for a set number of units based on regional housing needs. Under fair share, enforcement would occur through lawsuits certain groups would be allowed to file against towns.
Under the new policy, it’s not clear how the law would be enforced, although speakers mentioned the possibility of attaching certain state funding priorities to compliance.
The group also supports changes to Connecticut’s eviction law that would require landlords to offer a reason when they evict someone. Such a measure would largely end no-fault evictions, or evictions that typically occur at the end of a lease.
The group also wants to see limits on the use of criminal records to deny people housing. They’re proposing banning the use of older criminal records.

**Screen shot of reply to search query, “Did Biden Raise tariffs?”**

The Republicans have demonstrated, as though any further proof were necessary, that they will not cut spending, or the reach of the pro-government regulatory system they’ve created — they’re as addicted to power and wealth as the Democrat members of the ruling class are. And the judiciary is right there alongside them.

There may be someone out there who has not lost hope for the republic, but I’m not one of them.

JEFFREY CARTER: Down to the Banana Republics.

“A judge just ruled that Trump’s tariffs are not kosher with him. . . . This same court, and these same businesses and states, were okay with Biden/Obama and anyone else charging tariffs. Hence, it’s political.
… The court rulings we see against Trump by activist judges will not undermine Trump. It will undermine the US legal system. We are a country ruled by law which are rooted in the Constitution and precedent. We are rapidly becoming a Banana Republic where the “law” is meaningless because of activist judges. These are judges who feel free to read into the law things that are not there. It is upsetting to people who want to have a life where they experience true liberty. When judges rule capriciously, liberty is in peril.

Glenn Reynolds, InstaPundit:

Maybe there’s a legal principle that can explain this. But there have been so many examples like this that people have stopped assuming propriety on the part of the judiciary. That’s unfortunate, but it was inevitable once a significant number of federal judges started positioning themselves as part of the “resistance,” and once the Supreme Court — and in particular, Chief Justice Roberts — decided not to put an end to this right away.