In the days leading up to Gov. Ned Lamont’s veto of a major housing bill, his phone pinged with messages from lawmakers who wanted him to sign the measure — including some who voted against House Bill 5002.
The text messages, obtained by The Connecticut Mirror through an open records request, show how affordable housing has become a political quagmire for the state’s Democrats. Lawmakers who voted for and against the bill told the CT Mirror there were some who voted no for political reasons, even though they agreed with what it did.
Some took a risk and voted yes, although it may not play well in their districts. And Lamont, weighing a third term, vetoed it after prolonged concerns about the messaging from opponents and advice on how signing the bill would resonate in wealthy Fairfield County towns.
Lamont seemed to know his decision to veto was making few in his party happy.
“Lots of Democratic legislative [sic] is very angry, may take a walk around the park in a few hours,” Lamont texted an ally on June 23, just a couple of hours after he vetoed House Bill 5002.
The bill was the most significant piece of housing legislation to cross the governor’s desk since he took office in 2019. It aimed to improve the affordability and accessibility of housing and tackled issues like zoning, transit-oriented development, parking, homelessness and fair rent commissions.
The text messages also confirm previous reporting by the CT Mirror showing that Lamont sought counsel in the days leading up to his veto. The messages include questions from Lamont to Fairfield County advisors about how the housing bill would play politically.
“I wanted to text you to encourage you to run for a third term!,” Steven Sheinberg, chair of the Fairfield Democratic Town Committee, texted the governor.
“On 5002. My download for you is that it is a net negative politically to you. For Democrats, too, especially in our county. It is our biggest weakness here,” Sheinberg continued.
In a statement to CT Mirror, Sheinberg said the governor should convene a blue ribbon panel to come up with recommendations on what to do about the housing crisis.
Lamont also asked Mark Boughton, the commissioner of the Department of Revenue Services and former longtime mayor of Danbury, what he thought about the housing bill for Danbury and the rest of Fairfield County.
“I don’t want to lose those towns …,” Boughton responded, mentioning towns like Ridgefield. “Our brand of being a moderate compassionate leader is a winning formula.” He then suggested a veto followed by a special session.
Reached by phone, Boughton declined to comment further.
“Although the Governor consulted current and former local elected leaders from both sides of the aisle on the housing bill, electoral politics did not play a role in the Governor’s decision on the original housing bill,” Lamont’s spokesman Rob Blanchard said in a statement.
‘Difficult seats’
The bill passed with narrow margins — 84-67 in the House, and 20-15 in the Senate in May. To overturn a veto, each chamber has to approve a measure with a two-thirds vote, which would mean 101 votes in the House and 24 in the Senate.
Rep. Jennifer Leeper, D-Fairfield, was among those who voted against the bill but later texted Lamont asking him to sign.
“Hey Governor, would you be willing to connect about the Housing bill?,” Leeper wrote on June 7. “As someone who voted no, I actually hope that you won’t veto it.”
Leeper said in a written statement that she wanted him to sign it, then have the legislature come back in special session to make changes. She also had concerns about the parking and assigned number of housing units.
Lamont and other state officials have expressed concerns about misinformation around the bill, and Lamont privately mentioned frustration about the group CT169Strong’s characterization of the bill. One of the group’s founders said previously that they “stand by everything we’ve said about what’s in the bill.”
“I shared with the Governor the same thing that I shared with my constituents, that a lot of what this bill aimed to achieve was mischaracterized and grounded in misinformation,” Leeper wrote in a statement to CT Mirror. “I believed there was a better way to fix this bill, rather than the long drawn out veto process.”
On June 6, Rep. Anne Hughes, D-Easton, texted the governor about the economic boon to Fairfield County that the housing bill could unlock. Hughes, who voted in favor of the bill, was attending an event on the economy with several other representatives and a member of the governor’s staff.
“We are so proud to stand up with you in signing this culmination of years of work in closing the economic and racial disparity in our state,” Hughes wrote. “We are all with you!”
She went on to list some of the people she was referencing, including Rep. Sarah Keitt, D-Fairfield, and Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport. Both of those legislators had voted against the bill.
Hughes said in an interview that the lawmakers talked at the event and agreed Lamont should sign the measure.
“We fully expected him to sign it because we had negotiated with his office a robust bill,” Hughes said. “There were some members of our caucus that were for it, but in potentially difficult seats, so they didn’t vote for it.”
Keitt said in an interview that federal legislation has since changed the landscape of what a family can afford in Connecticut, and that the bill is needed now more than it was before.
“I have my personal opinions,” she said of her no vote. “I also have to weigh what my constituents want, and my constituents, at the time, didn’t support the bill.”
She said she believes “the numbers are different now,” and that people in her district may not be able to afford their housing in a few months.
“That calculation has changed for me, as well as the fact that we’ve made compromises to the housing bill,” she said.
In an interview, Steinberg said he was not in favor of the bill and that Hughes “doesn’t speak for me.” He supports affordable housing and wants to see legislation he can vote for, he added.
“I’ve always been a moderate and as you’re probably aware, despite my stated desire to pass better affordable housing legislation, I’ve actually been one of the leaders defeating some of the bad stuff in recent years,” Steinberg said.
Blanchard, Lamont’s spokesperson, said in a statement that lawmakers have to balance the needs of their constituents with finding solutions to big problems.
“Many lawmakers may have opposed the bill based on concerns from their constituents but philosophically supported the approach and goals of the legislation,” Blanchard said. “Everyone can agree that we need to build more housing to meet demand, to lower housing costs and to provide shelter to the homeless, while also looking at different ways to achieve these goals.”
Lamont said when he announced the veto that he wanted to see legislation that got more local leadership on board. He had particular concerns with measures that would eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements for smaller apartment complexes and another that would require towns to plan and zone for a set number of units of housing.
The governor’s office has been in negotiations with legislative leadership for the past several weeks working on a new version of the bill. Officials hope to have a special session sometime next month.
“The Governor continues to meet and collaborate with legislative leaders, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle as well as COST and CCM on finalizing a new draft of the housing bill,” said Blanchard, in a statement. “Addressing our housing needs in a way that builds on our state’s investment in housing, while also encouraging towns to join our efforts, has always been a priority for Governor Lamont.”
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate said they were aware some of their colleagues liked the legislation and voted against it.
“I think there are a variety of reasons why people vote no if they know that their vote isn’t necessary for it to pass,” said Planning and Development Committee co-chair Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw, D-Avon.
House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, said housing can be a tough political issue.
“Certainly there are political considerations when people are taking votes on bills, particularly around housing and zoning issues,” Rojas said. “But that doesn’t always necessarily mean that they don’t support the policy or want to see action be taken on it.”
‘A big chance’
On the flip side, lawmakers said, there were some who are in difficult districts for zoning reform, which typically include small towns or suburbs, who took a risk and voted for the bill.
“I hope that the gov doesn’t veto it since things do need to change, and a lot of us took a big chance and voted for it,” said Rep. Mary Welander, D-Orange, said in a text message to Lamont’s chief of staff ahead of the veto.
Welander said her district is complicated because there are four towns that all have very different needs. Part of her district includes Woodbridge, which has been subject to a lawsuit over its zoning practices for affordable housing.
“I had really hoped that this bill, 5002 would go through, because we had been assured that it would be signed by the governor, that a lot of us had been spent a lot of time and effort, either working on it, or, in my case, just going through it line by line, and learning as much as I could to ensure that I could vote on it in a way that wasn’t going to harm my towns,” Welander said in an interview.
Blanchard said in a statement that Welander is a “champion for her district,” and that the governor has worked with Democrats to achieve many things including tax cuts, investments in education and housing and reform to the child care system that aims to provide free care for some families. He also said Lamont did not take into consideration lawmakers’ reelection odds when making his decision.
Many of those who took the risk, like Welander, are now left feeling politically vulnerable because of the veto, lawmakers said.
“They were anxious about voting for it,” said Housing Committee co-chair Sen. Martha Marx, D-New London. “It was the morally correct thing to do, and then to have the governor veto it after they did the right thing, they were upset.”
Rep. Robin Comey, D-Branford, messaged the governor’s chief of staff Matthew Brokman on June 10.
“I’ll be very disappointed if the governor vetoes the housing bill,” Comey wrote. “I’m standing strong behind my vote and to have him veto would be devastating.”
Hughes said she gets backlash from her district over housing, but stands behind her vote.
“I always say to especially my freshman colleagues and people in difficult districts, ‘Defend your votes, explain it and educate your constituency,’” she said.
She and other lawmakers said the veto will make it difficult to trust Lamont’s office in future negotiations.
“It was the team, playing, working really well with each other, and he chose not to be part of the team,” Marx said.
“How can we go forward when now it has signaled to the opposition that all you’ve got to do is get people to call the governor’s office, certainly key people that he listens to, and he’ll veto it?” Hughes said. “It’s very, very difficult to move forward in good faith.”