The Yes in My Backyard movement took one on the chin in Connecticut, proving once again that debates over legislation to make building housing easier and less expensive do not end even after a bill passes.

Despite nearly three weeks of discussions, Gov. Ned Lamont vetoed House Bill 5002, siding with suburban critics who viewed the legislation as an overreach into local zoning authority.

The bill would have encouraged the development of market-rate middle housing —from duplexes to buildings with nine units — as well as income-restricted homes in communities across the state. Had he signed the bill, Connecticut would have joined a growing list of states enacting legislation to address housing shortfalls that have driven up the cost of living.

A veto doesn’t mean a dead stop,” Lamont said at a Monday press conference. “A veto means we can do a lot better, and I hope we can do that.”

He committed to calling a special session in the fall focused solely on housing.

Disappointed YIMBYs

The Regional Plan Association and DesegregateCT, strong proponents of the bill, expressed disappointment in Lamont’s veto in a joint statement:

Every day we wait as a state to act, another teacher, firefighter, or nurse can’t find a home; another new graduate or skilled worker leaves the state; another neighbor is pushed into homelessness; and another job remains unfilled. The data is clear: decades of exclusionary zoning have severely limited the production of homes, particularly the more diverse types of homes our population needs in the places they need them.”

Under the proposed bill, municipalities that participated would have received priority access to state infrastructure funding — a move supporters believed would help overcome longstanding barriers and make new housing more accessible.

However, the chief point of contention was a provision local government viewed as a mandate: that they plan for and designate sufficient zoning for affordable housing to achieve data-driven targets customized for each region.

The bill also encouraged transit-oriented development by prioritizing infrastructure funding for towns that established “transit-oriented districts” near train and bus stations, where certain housing developments could proceed without a public hearing.

Lamont, who had previously expressed support for the bill, called the local governments' view a “gross misrepresentation” after the bill was delivered to him.

I believe we can improve this bill,” he said during the press conference. “The only way it will truly succeed is with the support of local communities, and I think most of them want to do the right thing.”

Next Steps

The bill passed narrowly in the legislature, meaning there isn’t enough support to override Lamont’s veto. Lawmakers and housing supporters will work over the next several months to revise the bill and garner support from local governments.

Key provisions likely to be revisited include requirements for municipalities to set “fair share” affordable housing targets, incentives for building new housing, and streamlining approvals for middle housing.

Another part of the bill would have prohibited municipalities from rejecting housing developments solely because they did not meet formulaic on-site parking minimums, unless there was a demonstrable impact on public safety.

It would also have banned minimum off-street parking requirements for certain residential developments, thereby lowering construction costs and enabling more flexible development.

Parking reform has become an increasingly popular tactic across the country—notably in California—with the goal of allowing developers to determine the number of parking spaces needed, rather than relying on government-prescribed minimums.

Notably, the special session may coincide with DesegregateCT and the RPA hosting this year’s YIMBYtown Conference, one of the country’s most significant pro-housing events, in New Haven, approximately 40 miles from the state capital.

Last year’s conference was held in Austin and drew more than 600 activists, policy professionals, academics, and elected officials.

In June, Texas passed housing reform that included reducing minimum lot sizes to 3,000 square feet in the state’s largest cities and counties, limiting the influence of Not in My Backyard opposition in blocking new housing, and allowing residential development in commercial areas “by right.”

Perhaps hosting the conference is a good omen for the just-vetoed Connecticut bill’s prospects in the fall.