‘Fair Share’ advisory group disbanded after kerfuffle

The issue was fairly straightforward: The state wanted to study how it might implement a zoning policy called “fair share,” which would divide housing needs regionally and require that each town have a certain number of affordable units.

But a key group opposed to zoning reform raised concerns about an advisory committee this summer, and the state pulled the plug before it could get going. Now the outside contractor conducting the study is left to engage in individual discussions with people who would have been on the committee.

The kerfuffle is a symptom of a state deeply divided over housing issues, and some say the lack of open discussion will only make things worse.

Zoning reform, particularly “fair share” approaches, have been increasingly contentious issues in state politics. Housing experts say restrictive local zoning is the major driver of the state’s lack of affordable housing, necessitating statewide reform, while opponents want to keep that power at the local level.

In 2023, lawmakers negotiated to try to pass a “fair share” policy as well as other housing policies that aimed to increase housing supply. After pushback, they passed a bill that instead mandated a study of how “fair share” would be implemented, along with a slew of renter protections.

The state Office of Policy and Management sought a private contractor to conduct the fair share study and develop a method for dividing up housing need among towns. Although the process was delayed, the state in May signed a $250,000 contract with Oregon-based ECOnorthwest .

After the contract was signed, the state sought to form an advisory committee of in-state experts to offer feedback and guidance to the consultant. The group would have had 17 members and included housing experts, planners, organizations that represent small towns and municipalities, state officials and a housing authority official.

The committee was set to meet five times to talk about research questions, data sources and the methodology. This led to backlash from Sen. Jeff Gordon, R-Woodstock, and the group CT 169 Strong , which advocates for local control of zoning.

“You see this group and you look at who’s on the committee and that it seems very one-sided,” said Maria Weingarten, one of the organizers of 169 Strong.

Weingarten and Gordon said they were also concerned that the results of the study were pre-ordained — that the consultant group wouldn’t consider the concerns of small towns and suburbs.

Following criticism on social media, messages from Gordon and the group and a review of the statute, OPM sent out an email announcing that it was disbanding the advisory committee. They told would-be members that the consultant might be reaching out for one-on-one meetings instead.

“Upon review of legislation impacting OPM, it was determined that the enabling legislation ( PA 23-207, Section 18 ) does not provide for an advisory committee,” OPM spokesperson Chris Collibee said in a written statement. “Therefore, no such committee has or will be convened, and no meetings have taken place prior to that review.”

Collibee also rejected claims that the decision was a result of outside pressure.

“As previously stated, OPM reviewed the legislation and it did not provide for any working or advisory group,” he wrote. “This decision was not the result of any reaction or pressure from any outside organization, and such statements are 100% false.”

ECOnorthwest plans to continue the study, and spokesperson Natasha Pettit said in a written statement that they regularly adjust their processes as needed.

“We are aware of the changes and see no issue in carrying out the contract and delivering a comprehensive fair share housing study to the state,” Pettit’s statement said. “We routinely adapt our project scopes and processes when the need arises. We plan to continue meeting with stakeholders in Connecticut to gather the necessary local context to guide the project.”

The move left those who were a part of the committee bewildered and frustrated. The committee included key housing advocates such as Erin Boggs, the Open Communities Alliance executive director, and Pete Harrison, the Connecticut director of the Regional Plan Association. It also had members who represent the interests of towns including the Council of Small Towns’ Betsy Gara and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities’ Brian O’Connor.

Would-be members fear that one-on-one meetings will be less transparent and offer less information to the public.

“OPM fully complies with FOI statutes regarding opening meetings, including proper notifications,” Collibee wrote. “The public act requires that we present a methodology to the General Assembly next session. To the extent that there will be consideration of that methodology and further action, those will be subject to public hearings during the General Assembly’s regular session.”

They also said they thought it would have been a good format to issue concerns about the policy or offer feedback early in the process.

“I thought it was an important group to create, and some very worthwhile conversations would have come out of that with greater consensus around what the state really needs to do to get out of this housing crisis,” said Erin Boggs, executive director of the Open Communities Alliance. Boggs would have been a member of the group, and her group has worked on and advocated for a fair share policy for years.

Politics

House Majority Leader Rep. Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, said he thinks the group was disbanded in part because of implications from 169 Strong that something “nefarious” was going on with the advisory group.

“They’re suggesting that this is all cahoots, because these are people who support fair share,” Rojas said. “I would argue these are people who are perhaps more accurately informed about the goals and intentions of fair share and encouraging affordable housing in general.

“Therefore it would make sense to have them around the table to help inform a process. But that doesn’t mean they’re dictating what the outcome is going to be.”

Earlier this month, 169 Strong sent out an email suggesting that the group had already met, although OPM and five would-be committee members interviewed by The Connecticut Mirror said it hadn’t.

The email questioned why language on the OPM website referred to a “next meeting anticipated to be held in August.”

“Common sense would suggest that the word NEXT means something preceded that meeting!” the email said. “And the contract timeline outlined a June meeting. It may not have been a full committee meeting with the appointed members, but something was held — maybe the naming of the PAC — who exactly decided this membership of the now dissolved committee not written into the bill?”

Weingarten also repeated concerns from the group about the bill including the fair share study that passed the House in the early hours of the morning. She and her group have implied it was done that way to avoid attention.

The email also spoke to the “predetermined outcome” that both Weingarten and Gordon said they were worried about.

“Who exactly is pulling these strings in Hartford to push this predetermined outcome for Fair Share allocations?” the email said.

Gordon said he’d reached out to OPM with his concerns about the makeup of the group.

“The advisory group that was listed was very skewed towards fair share,” Gordon said. “It wasn’t well balanced. I wasn’t surprised, because that’s the way the discussion had gone in the legislature when this law got enacted to have this type of consultant.”

Weingarten said she thinks the research and policy was geared toward density and trying to force small towns and suburbs to become cities.

“I think we just need to start to really have an honest discussion about affordability and start thinking out of the box,” Weingarten said. “Because these solutions are just developer-driven, and they’re density focused.”

She said she believes it’s developer-driven because of some of the ties would-be committee members have to nonprofits such as the Melville Housing Trust and the Regional Plan Association .

Housing advocates have repeatedly refuted claims that they’re serving the interests of developers and say they are working toward improved housing affordability.

“I think it’s bad-faith criticism that sparked this,” said Pete Harrison, Connecticut director of the Regional Plan Association, who would have been a member of the advisory group. “My personal belief is obviously 169 Strong is opposed to the state doing anything [to address zoning].”

Rojas, Ghio and others questioned the state’s response, saying it seemed to be a reaction to criticism.

“We’re going to react to a little bit of noise from social media?” Rojas said. “It just seems fairly weak.”

Ghio said it points to their power in the conversation around a politically contentious issue .

“They’re allowed to sway public discourse and the actions of a state agency,” he said.

Feedback on the process

Karen DuBois-Walton, executive director of the New Haven Housing Authority and would-be committee member, said the group discussion could have opened up other avenues of conversation.

“I always lean to the value of stakeholder involvement and people who are working in the field and people with lived experience helping to shape what the research questions might be and the methodology and to be able to give some feedback and reflection and then to be able to have folks take a look,” she said. “That always makes sense to me, and I don’t think it’s a new concept in state legislative-driven initiatives.”

Rojas said that one-on-one meetings can have value, but he thought the group discussion made sense.

“It would make sense to have them around the table to help inform a process,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean they’re dictating what the outcome is going to be.”

Betsy Gara, executive director of the Council of Small Towns, said she looked forward to being on the group because she has concerns about the policy. She wanted to lodge those criticisms early in the process and be sure the methodology considered small towns’ infrastructure limitations, she said.

“I feel like there’s a lot happening, but there’s not a lot of clear direction, which is a concern at this point,” she said.

John Guszkowski, a planner with Tyche Planning and the Connecticut Planner’s Association, said he thought the process was more transparent when it was a group. OPM had planned to report notes from the meetings, but he isn’t sure now what the process will entail.

“Those concerns about private meetings and lack of transparency have I think perversely created a situation where OPM is going to be conducting this legislatively mandated study with less transparency and inclusivity than they had originally proposed to do by essentially disbanding this advisory board,” Guszkowski said.

Weingarten said her group is still concerned about transparency. She said she would prefer the process be more open to anyone who wants to offer feedback and include more local officials.

Gordon said he thinks a public-hearing-style meeting would be appropriate.

“The more you hear from people and give people the opportunity, the more you learn, the more you can really build consensus,” Gordon said.

It’s likely fair share will be proposed and debated in the upcoming legislative session, which begins early next year.