Local control is a time-tested and cherished tradition of our beloved state. During the last campaign season, the retention of local control was the most commonly articulated concern of local area residents.
With the election long behind us, we now find ourselves deep in the Hartford legislative session, considering multiple bills aiming to take control away from our towns. Given our town's clearly expressed stance on this issue, I am concerned about the lack of media coverage and effort to inform residents about the bills currently under debate. Hearings are presently taking place, yet our state legislators have not made an adequate effort to inform residents that our united voices are critical to ensure that these bills do not pass.
There are many bills of concern, within the following two categories, being discussed in Hartford this week:
1. state control of local zoning; and
2. statewide property tax.
The Planning and Development Committee has just conducted hearings on a long list of bills, many that would give the state increased control over our local zoning. The bill getting the most attention is SB1024. This bill effectively gives developers the "as of right" ability to build dense housing without considering fresh air, water, or light requirements. (Increasing density does not mean that these developments will be affordable, and there are no requirements to ensure that the units must be sold or rented under a certain rate.) Some of the other proposals include the right to build multi-family units anywhere within a half-mile of a transit station, reduced parking requirements for developments, and granting nearby municipal housing authorities the ability to develop housing within a 15 miles radius outside of their city's current jurisdiction. Passed as proposed, none of these scenarios would need to go through our local Planning & Zoning Commissions.
These changes to the statutes will directly limit the zoning commission's powers. Residents elect zoning commissions to represent their interests and wishes. The addition of this new requirement language directly limits local elected officials' powers and speaks directly to the Home Rule Article of the State Constitution.
The statewide new property tax proposal would establish a one-mill tax on all commercial and residential property. (The first $300,000 of assessed value would be exempted from the tax for residential property. Commercial property, regardless of value, would be taxable.) The nickname "mansion tax" is a misnomer as the vast majority of southwestern Connecticut properties are valued at over $300,000 and are not mansions by anyone's interpretation. The garnered revenue would be largely redistributed to urban districts. A second mansion tax is proposed that would tie "affordable" housing to a property tax. Thus, if Wilton does not meet certain "affordable" requirements, residential and commercial properties would be subject to a property tax (again, with the first $300,000 exempt for residential properties only).
It's worth noting that both of these highly controversial proposals are sponsored by urban Democrats who have controlled Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport for a combined 148 years (since 1953). The near-total financial dysfunction in these urban districts has occurred and escalated under their watch. Rather than perpetuating the past's failed policies, lawmakers should focus on educational opportunities and bringing businesses back into these cities.
It's not enough for our state legislators to simply vote NO on these bills, though many of them who supposedly represent our towns’ interests will still vote yet. It is their responsibility to educate and inform their constituents about how harmful these bills will be. During campaign season, they claimed they would oppose any efforts to strip towns of their local control. With the exception of Tom O'Dea, who has confirmed he will oppose them, our representatives silence leaves us guessing at their positions and wondering whether they will support these bills!
It's disappointing not to see them proactively and assertively helping us fight against bad legislation.
Kim Healy, Wilton, CT
kimhealyct@gmail.com
HamletHub’s mission is to make every town better by connecting each member of the community. Allowing residents to express opinions and help inform each other is vital to accomplishing this mission. We hope to facilitate healthy discussion, but will not allow unproductive vitriol. This is how we judge the difference.
*The primary purpose of any submission is to make the town better. *The writer of each piece assumes that anyone with an opposing view is coming from a place of love for our town and every single person in it, and that is portrayed to the reader
We do not have the resources to fact check and monitor every submission. We are relying on the greatness of every single person in this town to help us make this portal a vehicle for community connectivity. When that happens we all win.
The views expressed here belong solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect that of HamletHub.