The Planning and Development Committee advanced a bill Friday to allow the creation of temporary housing units for people experiencing homelessness on property owned by religious organizations, but not without opposition.
The bill, House Bill 5174, would require Connecticut municipalities to adopt zoning language to allow churches, mosques, synagogues, or other houses of worship, to build temporary shelters on their property. The bill passed out of the committee on a 14-7 vote.
According to the bill, a “temporary shelter unit means a nonpermanent commercially prefabricated accessory structure that is designed to be easily dismantled or removed, but does not include tarps, tents, other nonrigid materials or motor vehicles.”
As more data emerges about the state of homelessness in Connecticut, lawmakers have been increasing their efforts to mitigate the causes and effects of the issue. According to the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness, there are more than 4,000 homeless individuals in the state living in shelters, and 1,000 people sleeping outside.
The bill was met by opposition from Republicans on the committee. Two amendments were proposed during the course of debate.
Rep. Eleni Kavros Degraw, an Avon Democrat who co-chairs the committee, said that it has been difficult to find any kind of housing for homeless individuals who work, despite their living arrangements. Getting working individuals out of homeless shelters, she said, is a difficult task in and of itself.
Kavros Degraw said she was not open to conversation that would dilute the issue or the legislation.
“I am approaching this from a humanitarian perspective, because we are in the middle of a humanitarian crisis in Connecticut,” she said. “I am open to some changes, but I am only open to changes that ultimately help us get homeless people in safe spaces.”
Some changes were proposed during the meeting, but not all were met with agreement.
Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, said that he had concerns about the effect of the bill on small towns like those that he represents, which also include Brooklyn, Canterbury, Lisbon, Norwich, Plainfield, Scotland, and Sprague.
“I’m very concerned about small towns in this state if this bill were to pass,” he said. “Many if not most of the historic churches in this state are on town greens, main streets, historic districts etc., and to have homeless shelters plopped down in these areas without any input from the town’s representatives and elected officials, without any input from people who live in these areas, I think would do grave violence to the way of life in this state.”
Dubitsky said that the bill would unleash a “parade of horribles” that would be endless.
House Majority Leader Jason Rojas said Monday that he thought some of the comments made during the meeting were “really unfortunate.” Referencing some of the remarks made by Dubitsky, Rojas said he was not sure whom the comments were meant to be directed at.
“That’s just the kind of rhetoric that I think is unfortunate and doesn’t recognize the humanity of people who happen to be unhoused,” Rojas said.
Dubitsky proposed an amendment that would have set a minimum population threshold for the towns that the legislation would impact, from 15,000 to 70,000, so that the bill would only apply to larger municipalities in the state. The amendment was voted down along party lines.
Under the proposed language of Dubitsky’s amendment, a minimum population of 70,000 would limit the legislation’s impact to just eight Connecticut municipalities based on 2022 demographic data, including Bridgeport (148,470), New Haven (135,736), Stamford (135,413), Hartford (121,057), Waterbury (114,480), Norwalk (91,050), Danbury (86,456), and New Britain (74,212).
Sen. MD Rahman, a Democrat from Manchester who serves as the committee’s other co-chair, said he thought the amendment would undermine the point of the bill and voted “no.”
Rep. Joe Zullo, R-East Haven, said he thought the proposed amendment struck a “thoughtful balance” and accounted for the different sizes and structures of municipalities in the state.
Kavros Degraw said that smaller towns in the state often face the same issues regarding homelessness that larger cities do, but that it does not always appear to be the case because services for those homeless people are often only found in cities.
A second amendment to the bill was proposed by Dubitsky and it passed on a 14-2 vote. That amendment changed the minimum population threshold to 25,000. Under that amendment, 45 of the state’s 169 municipalities would be included if the bill passes.
Rank City 2020 Pop. data 1 Bridgeport 148,470 2 New Haven 135,736 3 Stamford 135,413 4 Hartford 121,057 5 Waterbury 114,480 6 Norwalk 91,050 7 Danbury 86,456 8 New Britain 74,212 9 West Hartford 64,088 10 Greenwich 63,498 11 Fairfield 62,072 12 Hamden 61,069 13 Bristol 61,052 14 Meriden 60,556 15 Manchester 59,510 16 West Haven 55,336 17 Stratford 52,436 18 Milford 52,283 19 East Hartford 50,942 20 Middletown 48,152 21 Wallingford 44,251 22 Southington 43,569 23 Enfield 41,346 24 Shelton 41,206 25 Norwich 40,054 26 Groton 38,217 27 Trumbull 36,922 28 Torrington 35,510 29 Glastonbury 35,105 30 Naugatuck 31,653 31 Newington 30,458 32 Vernon 30,289 33 Windsor 29,445 34 Cheshire 28,791 35 Mansfield 28,378 36 New Milford 28,181 37 Branford 28,177 38 East Haven 27,871 39 New London 27,596 40 Newtown 27,341 41 Westport 27,232 42 Wethersfield 27,192 43 South Windsor 26,805 44 Farmington 26,623 45 Ridgefield 25,021
Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, said that there are not enough guardrails or restrictions in the bill, and that it could pose a threat to the quality of life in some communities.
