Why demonize desegregation?

The question surfaced during a recent discussion of DesegregateCT’s 2021 legislative proposals: it all seems reasonable and tame, so why are Republican legislators demonizing it and claiming the state is doing away with local zoning?

“Darien Talks Housing,” a grassroots, volunteer organization dedicated to fact-based conversation about housing issues, had University of Connecticut law professor and DesegregateCT founder Sara Bronin, speak at its Feb. 4 meeting.

Bronin was at a loss to answer this question, noting that DesegregateCT proposals were similar to legislation Massachusetts had just passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support.

We in Greenwich — at least those who get email from the two Republicans in our four-member state legislative delegation — are witness to this mischaracterization and demonization. But because most residents are unfamiliar with the proposals, they are vulnerable to false claims.

State Rep. Harry Arora (R-151) conducted a survey that included two questions about these housing proposals. We might commend him for doing polling to better represent his constituents, but the biased way in which the housing questions were framed leads to the conclusion that the real purpose was to elicit the desired answers.

One question called for degrees of opposition to, or support for, state zoning to allow highrise apartments around the main street and train station.

He framed the question this way: “In all towns in CT, the areas around main street and train stations would be allowed higher density development (i.e. high rise buildings) by state mandate. This would lead to a spate of apartment developments in all gold coast towns and have a major adverse impact on the value of our homes. The idea behind this bill is to promote urban development and constrain local control and self-rule — the quintessential values of our state and our country.”

Given that introduction, it’s not surprising that 55 percent of respondents firmly oppose the legislation and only 9 percent firmly support it.

But the information in Arora’s framing of the question is simply not true. There is nothing in DesegregateCT proposals about high-rise buildings. To the contrary, the transit-oriented proposal is one in which towns choose 50 percent of an area within a half-mile of transit where housing developments of four units will be allowed. If a town decides to approve a development of 10 or more units, 10 percent of those units must be affordable.

What the town may not do is require developments of less than four units in that town-designated transit area. Nothing precludes a town from limiting the height of a building.

This transit-oriented proposal is consistent with the way Greenwich has already developed, as is also the main street proposal. Towns choose a single main street where 50 percent of the area within a quarter-mile of that chosen street allows for housing developments of two to four units. If the town chooses to approve 10 or more units, then 10 percent of those units must be affordable.

Nothing like what Arora described.

State Rep. Kimberly Fiorello (R-149) has worked with diligence at conjuring up the state bogeyman since her campaign last fall when she used fear tactics in presenting DesegregateCT as part of a concerted effort by activists and legislators in Hartford to bring about “wholesale cancellation of local zoning” (Greenwich Time op-ed, Oct. 23, 2020).

This past week her email urged recipients to testify against S.B. 804 at Thursday’s Housing Committee public hearing to protect local zoning and stop state overreach, referring to “cancellation of people’s voice, cronyism for developers, and an attack on the people of CT.”

Fiorello’s own testimony Thursday invoked the historical autonomy of New England towns, going back to Colonial times, as justification for her opposition to the proposals. While briefly acknowledging the need for more diverse housing, she said it should not be at the expense of historical local autonomy.

This historical justification for exclusionary barriers brings to mind the practice of “warning out” by which autonomous Colonial towns typically kept out the indigent and undesirable.

Fiorello is sponsoring a Constitutional amendment to permit municipalities to zone without regional or state interference.

Let’s not move backward. The DesegregateCT discussion is about innovative and inclusive zoning solutions intended to benefit all Connecticut residents. This should not be a partisan discussion.

The question remains: why are Republicans demonizing this?