Riverside’s Mike Bernstein has been sounding the alarm on this for at least the past week after the Democrats sprung their surprise, and it sounds like it’s finally getting the attention it deserves.
However, I checked just now, and although last night’s vote was postponed, it wasn’t cancelled, and these horrible people will be back in session Tuesday to try to ram it through. I have a pdf of HB 5002, but I can’t figure out a way to post it here. It’s as bad as you’d expect.
Here’s Greenwich Sentinel’s coverage and summary of the bill:
The housing bill that started as a sentence became a novel overnight.
With less than 24 hours’ notice, Connecticut lawmakers were handed a 92-page substitute amendment to House Bill 5002 late Wednesday night—transforming a one-paragraph placeholder bill into one of the most consequential housing reforms in recent state history. At press time, the vote was expected Thursday, May 22, in the House of Representatives.
The legislation, which started the session as a vague proposal to study homelessness, now contains sweeping mandates on local zoning, state oversight powers, and two key policy frameworks: Fair Share housing quotas and Transit-Oriented Development (Live, Work, Ride). And local leaders in Greenwich are making it clear—they’re not just concerned. They’re furious.
“This is a total assault on Connecticut’s towns in terms of zoning and a major challenge to the concept of Home Rule,” said State Representative Tina Courpas (R–Greenwich). “I will make every effort to kill it in the House.”
Courpas is also preparing a slate of amendments aimed at removing the bill’s most damaging provisions. “The supermajority has the votes to pass anything and everything—and maybe this bill,” she said. “But I’m focused on defending our town.”
The final bill, LCO 8974, was quietly uploaded after business hours on Wednesday. Until then, the working version of HB 5002 remained a single paragraph—giving the public no opportunity to testify on the sweeping policies it now includes.
Adding to the tension in Greenwich: Two sections of the final bill were originally authored by the town’s own Democratic State Representatives, Stephen Meskers and Hector Arzeno.
Section 1 mirrors HB 6946, introduced by Reps. Meskers and Arzeno, and requires local Housing Authorities to submit detailed compliance data to the state.
Section 2 adopts the language of HB 6534, also theirs, which strips the First Selectman of authority to appoint Housing Authority members.
That contribution has not gone unnoticed.
“I think it’s an absolutely horrible bill that they put in,” said First Selectman Fred Camillo. Reps. Meskers and Arzeno “are on record last year when they ran talking about how they would defend local control, and yet the worst bill in the history of the state is up for a vote and they are a part of it.”
For Camillo, the bill doesn’t just threaten home rule—it directly undermines the work of Greenwich Communities, the town’s housing authority.
“This particular bill adds more bureaucratic red tape and does nothing to protect local control of zoning,” he said. “And it’s a slap in the face to our Housing Authority, which has actually done a terrific job at producing more affordable housing and improving the ones we already have.”
Greenwich Communities has been recognized as one of the top-performing housing authorities in the state. Under the new bill, critics say, it would be reduced to a bureaucratic agency executing state mandates—stripped of its ability to plan based on Greenwich’s unique infrastructure and needs.
“This bill will make it just another bureaucratic red tape organization,” Camillo warned.
State Representative Meskers did not responded to a request for comment. State Representative Hector Arzeno texted the following as of press time: “Let’s see if passes the House!!!!” We will update the story as it unfolds.
What HB 5002 Would Do
The amended bill includes:
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).
Here’s an AI summary David Bernstein provided FWIW:
The document you provided, LCO No. 8974, is a 2025 amendment to House Bill No. 5002 titled “An Act Concerning Housing and the Needs of Homeless Persons.” This amendment proposes a comprehensive overhaul to Connecticut’s housing statutes with numerous changes and additions. Key highlights include:
1. Zoning and Affordable Housing Changes
• Mandatory as-of-right development of “middle housing” on commercially zoned lots (Sec. 5(b)(11)).
• Prohibition of minimum off-street parking requirements unless supported by a needs assessment for large developments (Sec. 6).
• Zoning regulations may no longer impose hard caps on multifamily housing units, nor deny applications based on “neighborhood character” unless clearly defined (Sec. 5(d)(8)–(10)).
2. Priority Affordable Housing Plans
• Municipalities in the top 80% of fiscal wealth (Adjusted ENGL per capita) must create and submit priority affordable housing plans identifying how they will develop their assigned number of affordable units (Sec. 9(e)–(h)).
• These plans must detail zoning changes and land allocations to meet goals.
3. Fair Share Housing Allocation
• Establishes a “fair share” methodology for distributing affordable housing development responsibilities across towns based on fiscal capacity and housing need (Sec. 10).
• No town can be required to add more than 20% of its current dwelling units as affordable units.
4. Tenant and Housing Authority Governance Reforms
• Requires housing authority reports detailing inventory, rents, and affordability data (Sec. 1).
• Alters how commissioners of housing authorities are appointed and trained (Sec. 3).
• Prohibits housing authority commissioners from holding other municipal office (Sec. 3(5)).
5. Anti-“Hostile Architecture” Rule
• Bans municipalities from constructing or maintaining hostile architecture designed to deter unhoused individuals from resting in public spaces (Sec. 11).
6. Pilot Programs for Homeless Services
• Establishes portable shower and laundry pilot programs in at least three municipalities (Sec. 7).
• Authorizes direct rental assistance pilot programs through nonprofits, with safeguards to prevent loss of benefits (Sec. 13).
7. Middle Housing Development Grants
• Creates a grant program for middle housing development targeted at towns with fewer than 50,000 residents (Sec. 12).
