In the weeks leading up to the veto of the most significant piece of housing legislation to ever cross Gov. Ned Lamont’s desk, he, his wife and key members of his staff calculated the public perception and politics related to whether he would sign the bill, according to internal emails obtained by The Connecticut Mirror.

Less than a month before his decision to veto House Bill 5002, the governor debated how to combat the rhetoric of CT169Strong, a group strongly opposed to the legislation. He called their assertions “gross misrepresentations” of the housing bill, as he considered running for a third term.

“Here’s an example of the anti housing literature, which is catching fire in Fairfield County,” Ned Lamont wrote in a May 31 email seeking the advice of a former Connecticut politician. “I’m trying to figure out how best to respond to these gross misrepresentations before it is too late.”

The literature he was referring to was a lengthy email detailing 169Strong’s concerns about the bill and an explanation of their interpretation of the measure. Lawmakers and housing experts who worked on the bill have repeatedly said the group’s messaging misinterprets the bill and classified it as misinformation.

A CT Mirror review of more than 14,000 pages of communications sent to and from the governor and key members of his staff showed that, in the weeks that followed, the Democratic governor received thousands of emails from people opposed to the housing bill, many featuring identical or similar language.

The governor’s office was particularly interested in gauging the temperature of constituents as the bill came to his desk, emails show, asking staffers to tally the number of people in favor and against. They reported that much of the opposition came from Fairfield County residents who appeared not to have read the actual bill.

Rob Blanchard, Lamont’s communications director, said in a statement Monday that the governor wanted to “ensure that all views were being expressed and shared on the housing bill, rather than one group controlling the conversation.” 

“The Governor ultimately did not sign the housing bill into law because of concerns he had around whether local leaders would be able to achieve the goals outlined in the bill— no current or future politics played a role in his decision,” Blanchard said. He added that Lamont has been working to add more state resources to housing construction and is committed to working on an improved housing bill.

“One thing we have learned from that work is that local leaders need to be bought in to the solution — and it was clear that was not the case with this bill,” he said in the statement. “Additionally, rhetoric that spreads misinformation or villainizes efforts to fix our housing can also make that mission harder.”

House Bill 5002 was a sweeping piece of housing legislation that addressed issues from parking to zoning and homelessness. It aimed to increase the state’s housing supply as Connecticut faces a dire lack of homes, particularly those that are affordable to its lowest-income residents. A report released earlier this year from the state’s largest business association also showed that the lack of housing is holding back Connecticut’s economy.

The bill was years in the making and was a priority for House and Senate Democrats. Lamont’s staff helped negotiate it, and lawmakers passed it with assurances that the governor would sign.

But it faced fierce opposition from Republicans and groups that represent towns. CT169Strong, which operates largely out of Fairfield County and has opposed state-level changes to zoning policy, also launched a campaign to get Lamont to veto the bill.

“People are recognizing that if they want to find out what’s in the bills, they come to us as a source for that information when their legislators are not necessarily doing that,” said Maria Weingarten, one of the 169Strong co-founders, in an interview Monday.

On June 23, Lamont vetoed the bill, saying he wanted lawmakers to try again and that he thought he could get towns on board with a new bill to be addressed in a special session.

He said he particularly wanted to work on a provision in the bill that would have banned off-street parking minimums for smaller housing developments and a measure that assigned each town a number of units of housing to plan and zone for.

“I think we can make it better,” Lamont said when he vetoed the bill. “I think the only way to really make it work is if you have buy-in from the local communities. And I think the vast majority of those communities want to do the right thing.”

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, Housing Committee co-chair Sen. Martha Marx, D-New London, and Planning and Development Committee co-chair Sen. MD Rahman, D-Manchester, said it’s unfortunate the original bill was vetoed, but they are working with Lamont on a new housing bill.

“Meanwhile, we won’t be sidetracked by some small group of housing extremists who are probably more worried about where they’ll be ‘summering’ this season than they are about someone else’s plight to find housing that is affordable, or a business owner’s plight to find employees who can actually afford to buy a home in Connecticut,” the statement said.

Housing Committee co-chair Rep. Antonio Felipe expressed concern about 169Strong’s influence in the process.

“I think it’s just a little concerning that 169Strong has such a hold on folks’ opinions when there were plenty of us within the legislature that worked closely with the governor’s office, and the governor himself, that had different opinions,” said Felipe, D-Bridgeport. “It felt like this group, as large as they are, had more sway in the moment, or had more say on our policy than us as policymakers.”

Framing the message

Internal emails from the start of the session until the day of the veto show very little discussion of the policies in the bill. Lamont’s office raised a few technical concerns in the spring but appeared to be on board by the time the bill was signed, although the governor and Annie Lamont, his wife, raised concerns early on about public perception.

On May 29, the day before the Senate gave final passage to H.B. 5002, Annie Lamont received an email containing a message from 169Strong outlining their opposition to the bill. She sent it along to the governor. 

“Let’s get a response to this so I can send back,” Ned Lamont responded, forwarding the message to his spokesman, Blanchard. “I don’t think we have an equivalent of 169 strong.”

The Senate gave final passage to H.B. 5002 on May 30. On May 31, Lamont emailed former Sen. Will Haskell, D-Wilton, to ask his advice on controlling the “anti housing” messaging from 169Strong.

The group, which is registered as a corporation and takes donations, formed five years ago. 

Haskell told the governor the best way to tamp down the opposition was to sign the bill. He suggested framing the law as both a “moral and economic imperative” and gave the governor specific suggestions on how to announce the bill signing, including an example of a social media video to mimic to promote the effort.

“This bill isn’t about changing our towns, but rather ensuring a few more people can enjoy what makes this state special,” Haskell said in the email. He also spoke about what he considered 169Strong’s weaknesses.

“I would sign the bill loudly, go on offense, and attempt to put the CT169Strong crowd on their heels. I know Maria (who wrote that 169 email), and she doesn’t do well when forced to reckon with big-picture policy questions,” he said, referring to Weingarten, one of the founders of the group.

Haskell declined to comment on Monday.

Weingarten said Monday she wasn’t bothered by Haskell’s email but more focused on ensuring that the policymaking process is transparent. The omnibus bill started as a study, and during the legislative process, several bills were added together to create H.B. 5002. They got public hearings earlier in the process under different names.

That’s typically the process for Connecticut’s legislature, but Republicans have criticized it, saying it’s misleading.

“Listening to the governor’s comments, it still wasn’t clear to us that he had fully grasped what was in the bill,” Weingarten said. “We stand by everything we’ve said about what’s in the bill, and we encourage everybody to continue to understand and look at the details of what’s in the bill and the potential implications.”

Haskell’s idea didn’t stick with the governor’s office.

Blanchard said Lamont regularly consults with allies and colleagues on policy matters.

“This bill was no different,” he wrote. “The Governor heard from and met with many who requested he sign the bill and others who asked that he not. He appreciated hearing different viewpoints and strategies and will ultimately incorporate some of them into a new housing bill.”

The governor and first lady heard from fellow Greenwich residents about the reasons Lamont shouldn’t sign the bill.

A Greenwich resident on June 4 emailed Annie Lamont asking what she thought about a 169Strong message. Annie forwarded the message to Ned.

“We need to get our talking points out there !!!” she said.

That wasn’t the only time the Lamonts heard from someone who knew them. On June 5, a Wilton resident the governor met at a boat show emailed him.

“I find HB 5002 an extreme government overreach of the state to towns and cities. I am frankly shocked that this bill passed with bi-partisan opposition,” the resident wrote, referencing the Democrats and Republicans who voted against the bill.

Annie Lamont intervened directly with Blanchard on June 4, forwarding him the 169Strong email. 

“It must be going all over the state and we have no response. Lots of people commenting. Concerted effort on R’s [Republicans’] part to say ned raised taxes and destroyed the guard rails,” she wrote. “They are gearing up fir a compaign. We need to provide a bullet point by BP [bullet point] response.”

The governor’s staff emailed about a few questions about the policy but ultimately agreed with the measures.

“I think policy-wise we are fine with most of the list, but there are fiscal notes on many pieces that we’ll have to oppose/ will be negotiated in the budget pieces,” said Megan Krementowski, a legislative director at the governor’s office, in an April 29 email.

Patrick Hulin, Lamont’s policy director, emailed in mid-May requesting smaller changes to the bill and thanking lawmakers “for engaging us so thoroughly in this process.”

Voices of constituents

In the weeks leading up to the veto, the governor’s office got thousands of emails and calls from residents about H.B. 5002. Most of them, especially early on, implored the governor to veto the bill.

The opposition to the housing bill organized early and pushed what political pundits say was a last-ditch attempt to ensure it didn’t become law. Meanwhile, supporters thought Lamont planned to sign the bill and didn’t organize until later when it became clear the governor was wavering.

“We had every indication that the governor was on board with the bill as it passed the House and Senate,” said Erin Boggs, executive director of the Open Communities Alliance, which advocated for the bill. “So there was no reason to mount the campaign to ensure the Governor did not veto it, particularly because his staff was deeply involved in developing it.”

Blanchard asked staff answering the phones for daily counts of the numbers in favor or against the bill.

While the numbers fluctuated, the majority were in opposition, according to the reports. The majority were also from a few towns in Fairfield County — New Canaan, Greenwich, Fairfield, Darien and Westport were named specifically. 

“Many callers mention preserving the ‘culture’ of their town as a big reason they oppose the bill,” wrote one of the governor’s staff members in an email to Blanchard. “We have had some supporters, but not many likely less than 50 in total. It seems many of the callers are using information they are getting from the CT169 organization.”

Staff answering the phones also noted that most of those callers didn’t appear to have read the bill. “Many callers are relying upon mailers from special interest organizations as their sole source of information,” the June 23 email to Blanchard read.

Many of the opposition emails also appeared to be form messaging, using much of the same language. The Senate Republicans posted suggested language asking for a veto online, and 169Strong’s emails included a button that could send an email to Lamont’s office with just a couple of clicks.

“I most politely urge you to veto HB 5002, a sweeping bill that threatens local control, environmental protections, and public participation in land use decisions across Connecticut,” one common email began.

Many environmental advocates were in favor of H.B. 5002. On June 11, an official with the CT Roundtable on Climate and Jobs asked Blanchard whether Lamont would be interested in participating in a celebration and public signing of the environmental wins during the session, and listed 5002 as one of those.

That celebration didn’t occur as proposed.

Emails in favor, while fewer in number, differed more from one another.

“I understand that concerns have been raised, particularly from Fairfield County,” wrote Eliza Massaro, chair of the Avon Democratic Town Committee. “But as you know, Fairfield is just one of [the] … counties in Connecticut. While their voices matter, we cannot allow the perspective of a single region to dictate the direction of a statewide solution.”

Blanchard said Monday that the staff carefully reviewed all messages that came into the office about the bill. 

“While there were hundreds of calls or emails, some simply opposed the bill through generic form letters, while others may have been opposed but provided detailed thoughtful legislative feedback, in addition to those who were supportive,” he said.

Planning and Development Committee co-chair Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw, D-Avon, said in a Monday interview that she spoke with the governor ahead of the veto about what she viewed as the outsized influence of Fairfield County on the rest of the state.

“While I understand the importance of Fairfield County, that is not our only place that needs housing, and make no mistake, they need housing too,” Kavros DeGraw said. “So I think it was accurate to say that they [169Strong] were grossly misrepresenting what was in the bill … They were unfortunately legitimized by the veto.

“We often hear that a city or a town doesn’t want Hartford making decisions for them. Well, it sounds like we had a handful of towns making decisions for the entire state. That’s not fair or acceptable either,” she said.

When Lamont vetoed the bill on June 23, Blanchard gathered a list of news coverage and responses to the decision, including some from angry and disappointed lawmakers and housing advocates. Lamont forwarded the message to his wife.

“On plane to Nashville.. thanks for sharing this.. know it’s not going to be as fun.. but what third term is.. and world getting more angry and divided not less,” she responded.

Some advocates and lawmakers said the emails show Lamont thinks more people oppose the bill than actually do. Kavros DeGraw, who represents a district that has been represented by Democrats and Republicans and who has been a leader on housing policy for years, said many constituents want to see better housing policy.

Last session, in a race largely centered on housing and zoning policy, one of the 169Strong co-founders, Alexis Harrison, lost a House race against incumbent Jennifer Leeper, D-Fairfield, by a landslide. That race, among others, has led pundits to question whether Connecticut residents are really as opposed to housing development as traditionally believed.

“I actually think we had greater consensus than ever before that there is an important housing crisis we need to deal with,” Boggs said. “And proposals in House Bill 5002 were a major step in the right direction. So while it’s true that disinformation can accentuate the divides that exist, I think they were actually hearing from a smaller group of folks who oppose this bill.”

Lawmakers said they were looking forward and continuing to negotiate with Lamont on an adjusted version of the bill.

“My hope is that we are still moving in a productive direction for the state of Connecticut on housing and ensuring that the people who want to live here are able to stay here in an affordable way, and that people who are looking to move here are also able to find a home here,” Kavros DeGraw said.