Protections For State’s Open Spaces
Requires Public Input On Disposal Of Land
A proposal that would keep the General Assembly from giving away or selling state park, forest and conservation lands with public hearings and debate is on the statewide election ballot this year.
The proposed constitutional amendment is intended to stop the long-standing and often secretive legislative practice of disposing of public lands by last-minute amendments to bills usually approved during the waning hours of a General Assembly session.
Critics of this practice say public lands have been given away or disposed of without public input.
What does the ballot question say? Here is the wording: “Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to require (1) a public hearing and the enactment of legislation limited in subject matter to the transfer, sale or disposition of state-owned or state-controlled real property or interests in real property in order for the General Assembly to require a state agency to sell, transfer or dispose of any real property or interest in real property that is under the control of the agency, and (2) if such property is under the custody or control of the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, that such enactment of legislation be passed by a two-thirds majority vote of the total membership of each house of the General Assembly.”
A “yes” vote supports amending the
on Connecticut highways. “The loopholes in this … are big enough to drive a truck through,” Godfrey said during one debate.
But supporters of the plan argue the amendment will make it at least more difficult for future legislatures to tamper with transportation funding. “It’s not perfect folks, but it’s a start,” Rep. Tony Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, told his House colleagues in 2015. Guerrera is cochair of the legislature’s Transportation Committee and a longtime advocate of the lockbox concept.
Advocates of the amendment believe Connecticut voters are more likely to support additional revenue to fix the state’s aging transportation infrastructure if they have more confidence that the money will actually be used for roads, highways and mass transit systems.
Protecting Public Lands
In 2011, a controversial proposal to trade valuable state land along the Connecticut River to a developer for a big section of inland constitution; a “no” vote would oppose it. Why are people worried about this ? In 2011, lawmakers approved a deal that would have traded 17 acres of state land overlooking the Connecticut River in Haddam to a developer for 87 acres of far less desirable forest land. The so-called “Haddam Land Swap” eventually fell through because an appraisal showed that the 17 acres of state land was far more valuable than the developer’s woodlands. But outrage over that and other legislative actions to give away state land triggered calls for a constitutional amendment.
What is the special reference to the Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy and Environmental Protection all about?
Those two agencies are responsible for state-protected agricultural land and state parks and forests. Most people in Connecticut assume those types of state-owned public lands will be protected forever. To provide more protections for those properties, the proposed amendment would require “super majorities” in both the state House and Senate in order to dispose of those categories of lands.
Doesn’t the General Assembly already conduct public hearings on sale or disposal of state properties?
Yes, public hearings are often conducted on proposals to dispose of state property, but not always. In the past, last minute, behind-the-scenes deals have resulted in legislative approval of the transfer of state property without hearings or any time for public input.
forest triggered a long-running effort to provide more protections for state park and forest properties.
The so-called “Haddam Land Swap” deal was approved by the General Assembly despite outraged protests from environmentalists. The plan finally fell through when a state audit found that the state property overlooking the Connecticut River was far more valuable than the scrubby forest land the developer wanted to trade.
But state park and forest advocates point out that lawmakers have in the past repeatedly approved questionable state land transfers to private interests or municipalities without public hearings or any real debate. Often these land deals are done at the frantic conclusion of a legislative session using last-minute amendments to a catch-all bill that few people have had time to read.
The result is the proposed constitutional amendment that’s on the 2018 ballot.
It took the amendment’s supporters years of lobbying, but in May 2018 both the state House and Senate approved the measure by more than the required 75 percent
super majorities, which put it on the Nov. 6 election ballot.
Critics argued that putting the additional protections for public lands in the constitution – requiring public hearings and two-thirds majority votes in each legislative chamber for disposal of state park, forest and state protected agricultural lands – could cause long delays and unintended problems.
Rep. Rick Lopes, D-New Britain, warned during the House debate that the proposal “is going to become a political football… It’s going to seriously, seriously damage your ability to get things done.”
Members of a coalition in favor of the amendment have launched a series of Internet ads to convince voters to support the proposal.
“By requiring public hearings with community involvement, this measure will require government to be transparent and open about their decisions on state parks and other valuable public spaces,” said Eric Hammerling, executive director of the Connecticut Forest & Park Association and a coalition member.