‘Devalue property’ or fix ‘racial inequities’?
Town residents take sides on proposed housing bills
GREENWICH — Fred Camillo led the charge as a number Greenwich residents had their say Monday when it came to a couple of bills before the state legislature that would reform state zoning laws — a move the first selectman said would “take away from the beauty of the local neighborhoods that we call home.”
The state House’s Planning and Development Committee held a public hearing via Zoom on Monday on House Bill 6107, which advocates say would diversify housing stock and allow for more affordable housing. But opponents blast what they see would be a loss of local control with state mandates overruling local zoning commissions.
Camillo, a former state representative, was among those who spoke out against the proposed legislation.
“I cannot state in strong enough terms
that one-size-fits-all, Hartford-driven mandates that weaken local control of authority is both not needed and potentially very dangerous,” he said. “Any legislative proposal that threatens the streetscape and architectural consistency of neighborhoods in every municipality in the state of Connecticut by taking away local decisionmaking will devalue property, hurt tax revenues, clutter streets, and take away from the beauty of the local neighborhoods that we call home.”
Local efforts can best help the town meet the “worthy goal” of more affordable housing, Camillo said.
He vowed to continue working with Greenwich Communities, the town Planning and Zoning Commission and other advocates to increase the number of affordable housing units.
“More than 27 percent of our population of 63,000 residents is non-white, with almost that same amount falling under the ALICE category for asset limited, income constrained, and employed,” Camillo said. “Over 38 percent of our student population is non-white. This diversity, which is evident in our ethnic, socioeconomic and political makeup, is a source of great strength and pride for Greenwich residents.”
Hundreds of written statements were submitted, with dozen from the Greenwich community, about the House Bill 6107 as well as Senate Bill 1027 and other pieces of proposed legislation.
“A sweeping blanket policy from Hartford is not a fair solution,” town resident Hilary Haroche said in her statement.
“We care about our town and we all want affordable housing solutions to be addressed to create a diverse, interesting community where people learn from each other,” Haroche wrote. “The most effective way that will achieve the highest community support will be from the local level.”
Paul Zahl said he agrees with the principle of fair and equitable housing, noting he lives near a Greenwich Communities public housing property. But Zahl said he feared developers would take advantage of the bills to “force” the kinds of buildings in that would “destroy the character of this beautiful old town.”
Ted Walworth, head of the Northeast Greenwich Association, wrote that legislators should “pull the plug” on both HB6107 and SB1027.
“We insist on local zoning control in Greenwich, Fairfield County and all of (Connecticut’s) 168 municipalities,” he wrote. “I represent the Northeast Greenwich Association with over 2,800 households and you must protect our character, sense of place and overall property values in our diverse territory. Local Zoning Matters and not one size fits all.”
But others supported the proposed reforms, including Old Greenwich resident Peter Fusaro, who is involved in the residential construction industry and called it “forward-thinking land use reform.”
Greenwich resident Jackie Bein called the bill “datadriven” and said it would help address issues of racial inequity in the state.
“We need to increase affordability in all our communities in order to begin to undo the effects of exclusionary zoning policies that have perpetuated racial inequities across our state,” she said. “Zoning reform has the power to do much more than regulate land use. This bill will create jobs, increase state and local revenues, and boost local economies, all via zoning codes that create a more diverse housing stock statewide.”
Greenwich High School student Caroline Yu also weighed in, saying “diversity is critical in any community” and calling for a more inclusive Fairfield County.
“I believe our current zoning system locks out families of lower incomes, where the prosperity of certain towns is designed to be wholly inaccessible to those outside the self-perpetuating cycle of wealth inheritance,” Yu wrote.
“Furthermore, where one resides often determines the opportunities offered. I believe all students are entitled to a high quality education similar to the one I am receiving at Greenwich High School. As a minority student who has grown up in Fairfield County, I am acutely aware of the misrepresentation of people of color in highachieving classrooms,” she said.
Yu added that SB 1024 would move Connecticut “away from its national legacy of using zoning to maintain status quos that are rooted in history’s racism and discrimination.”
But town resident Terry Betteridge, owner of a local jewelry store that carries his name, said he is “deeply opposed to giving up control of local zoning decisions.”
“Affordable housing is important, but the planning of where it and other developments are built, needs to be in the hands of the citizens of that town affected by the zoning decisions,” Betteridge wrote.
Others expressed concerns about adding traffic and putting a strain on the town’s waste management and sewer systems.
“Any expansion needs to be done in a controlled sympathetically thoughtout way so that the existing town is not affected adversely, which would defeat any plan that would just expand for expansions sake,” town resident Carolyn Clayton Mercy said in a statement.
Riverside resident Ruthanne Ruzuka said people move to Greenwich for “a certain way of life with understated development” and not for city dwellings with tall buildings and strip malls.
“We pay very high prices to preserve that integrity,” Ruzika said. “If you want more people to move out of this state just let this horrific and unconstitutional bill pass.”
Town resident Laura Darrin wrote, “I love my country. I believe in the right to choose where you want to live without out being dictated to. This is cancel culture. It will ruin our towns.”
Calling the efforts an “invasion of local zoning regulations,” town resident Eugene Mercy Jr. said, “I vigorously oppose any suggestion of interference from outside entities.”
The testimony submitted from some Greenwich residents struck a similar chord, with identical language in many, stating, “We all believe that affordable housing is important. However, local governments should be able to control the zoning of their towns. Each town has unique infrastructure and environmental situations and the local governments know what they are doing. We do not want a ‘one size fits’ solution from Hartford that doesn’t necessarily address the affordable housing issues of our town. We trust ourselves and our neighbors who care about our town, city’s people, environment, traffic and our future.”