Transit-oriented madness at the General Assembly
I rarely weigh in about public policy that I regularly study. So many have an opinion on political issues, like housing, that few truly understand the dimensions and nuances to a proposal. And lately, many of us are taking extreme stances about politics that we hardly want to hear or understand perspectives.
For the first time since the pandemic, I returned to the state Capitol’s legislative office building. A few of my students suggested to attend the transit oriented development, or TOD, hearing last week. Since I am teaching economic development for my urban politics class this semester, it seemed timely. I was stunned that over 70 testimonies were planned and after seven hours, barely two dozen people had testified.
While House Bill 6890 (“Work Live Ride”) would have a state coordinator plan development around transit hubs, some officials are concerned about ceding power to a state government official. While there are grant incentives to motivate local officials and developers to engage in TOD projects, many residents are determined to be for or against the proposal.
Taking sides was apparent in the hearing and I am grateful that I listened to the exchanges in person. I also overheard concerns in the audience and in the hallways. By attending such sessions, one connects directly with lawmakers, aides and lobbyists.
Lawmakers were leaving in and out of the hearing room as well as grilling various witnesses. State Rep. Doug Dubitsky called Desegregate CT lobbyist Tucker Salls “disingenuous” about their organization’s stance on the proposal. Salls was insistent to stay the whole night until he could respond to the lawmaker.
Legislation can be controversial, and HB 6890 is supported by Desegregate CT, but CT 169 Strong is against it. While some witnesses suggested Connecticut should be proactive about development approaches, a number of testimonies sounded lofty and elitist. Several officials from rural towns and Gold Coast Fairfield County suburbs were noticeably against the proposal.
Housing policy has been a third-rail issue in Connecticut for generations. It’s as problematic as adding public transit around our state. Hugh Bailey, among others, suggested that now is the time to address housing, otherwise “it’s an enormous wasted opportunity.”
There’s no doubt that Connecticut has a housing problem. But incentivizing housing approaches has become a vast concept. TOD projects are not purely for affordable housing. In fact, they can include vocational or workforce housing for public sector employees like teachers, police and fire personnel. And TOD projects should be inclusive of residential and commercial development or mixed-use development. They can be impactful, especially when municipalities operate uniformly and amicably. But this is typically through county government or regional entities.
Of course, Connecticut does not have a county structure to carry out such initiatives and we usually prefer our municipalities to address zoning and planning issues. HB 6890 would controversially give authority to a state coordinator, which is drawing some concern. Even defining the population density rate for TOD projects has raised eyebrows.
I have been a supporter of TOD projects. As a former New Haven City Plan commissioner, I voted for designating a specific series of blocks around State Street Station as TOD. And I have written about economic development in online media and discussed proposals on WSHU. I also completed an academic article about TOD proposals last year.
But like affordable housing, I’m beginning to fear Connecticut’s TOD legislation has become a policy catchall for proactive economic development. Having a state official decide future development around transit hubs has sparked a rift. Connecticut may not have a county government or regionalized structures, but we should find a pathway to have local officials operate together to institute TOD projects.