I wish to respond to an op-ed by the co-founder of CT169Strong that includes several incorrect statements about the bill HB5390 aka Work Live Ride and repeats misconceptions about transit oriented development in Connecticut.
First, this bill is an opt-in, locally-driven process. Suggesting it’s a “mandate” or it “silences local voices” is plain wrong. If a community wants state assistance in developing a transit-oriented district, their planning commission will lead the process and will conduct normal public input as it does for any actions. Even after the district is created, there will still be clear regulations on every type of development and there would still be public hearings on any market-rate development over 10 homes.
The process of creating this district encourages more public participation by focusing discussion about growth at a district level over a longer period of time instead of taking a project-by-project approach that privileges a small number of people that can attend a random meeting. Polls showing significant pro-homes support in Connecticut shouldn’t be surprising given the state’s historic housing crisis, but they don’t attend most meetings.
Second, as the author points out, transit oriented development is not a new concept in Connecticut and communities have created districts in the past. However, this is misleading. Only a handful of communities have passed TOD districts and they required state resources to do so (including the author’s hometown district) — and in many cases are still waiting on the state to complete or expand them. Furthermore, the vast majority of the 111 communities with bus or rail stations have not created districts and maintain restrictive zoning around their stations.
There are around 40 communities that have a TOD study or plan sitting on a shelf because of a lack of local technical capacity and state support. We know this because our organization has partnered with nearly two dozen of them on “Transit Oriented Community Walk Audits” in order to better understand the barriers that they face in adopting these districts.
Work Live Ride was designed specifically to assist these communities that want to grow around their transit stations but need state guidance and funding to do so. However, the state needs to do a better job of marshaling its resources across agencies for these communities. Far from being redundant with the Municipal Redevelopment Authority (MRDA), which the author also opposed last year, Work Live Ride will empower the Office of Responsible Growth (ORG) to coordinate state agencies and MRDA to follow the state’s economic and environmental goals in the State’s Conservation and Development Policies Plan that the ORG oversees while guiding local communities in creating their districts. The ORG will be strategic and MRDA will be tactical in maximizing state technical and funding resources in the communities that are doing their part to grow our economy and population, while taking nothing away from communities that don’t want districts. That’s a win for local communities and taxpayers.
Finally, the author is “baffled” that major environmental groups like League of Conservation Voters, CT Land Conservation Council, and our other environmental coalition partners are supportive of Work Live Ride. Well, they support it because it is good environmental policy. Specifically, the bill exempts state-designated sensitive lands and newly requires local involvement of wetlands agencies to oversee responsible growth around existing infrastructure — which removes development pressure from natural spaces and vulnerable areas.
What is baffling is defending sprawl — single use, low-density, car-centric planning — which is what the author’s position appears to be by default. Defending the status quo means failing to tackle sprawl’s contributions to the climate crisis. It means failing to address the crippling housing crisis for first-time buyers, seniors that want to downsize, young people that want to start their careers, working class folks that want a better life, and businesses that want to attract workers. It means failing the majority of transit communities that want to grow their tax bases but need help in doing so.
A post-sprawl future is one that benefits all of us — even the loud minority of anti-homes voices that fear change. Pandering to that fear has put the future of so many communities in jeopardy as our small businesses, homeowners, and home renters are all feeling the squeeze. We must look toward a more sustainable and equitable future and Work Live Ride is a strong step in the right direction.
Tucker Salls is the Legislative Director for the pro-homes coalition DesegregateCT, a program of the Regional Plan Association.