In Connecticut’s ongoing experiment with government by central decree, the legislature has once again dusted off the tired playbook of top-down mandates, this time with Senate Bill 1313, a measure designed to impose high-density housing by fiat. The bill would strip municipalities of the authority to govern their own land-use policies, mandating as-of-right development within a half-mile of transit stations. Local public hearings? Eliminated. Local environmental and infrastructure reviews? Obsolete. Local zoning discretion? A relic of the past.
This legislative effort, which differs from the “Work, Live, Ride” bill in that it requires no affordable housing component and is not an opt-in program, is a blunt instrument of state control. It is a decree that density, unmoored from considerations of infrastructure or community planning, is inherently good and must be imposed. Towns such as Greenwich and New Canaan, which have spent decades cultivating careful zoning strategies to balance growth with environmental protection, school capacity, and public infrastructure, would be reduced to passive recipients of state directives.
Such measures are not new. Over the years, Connecticut’s municipalities have repeatedly repelled similar attempts to override local governance, successfully arguing that growth should be dictated by those who understand their communities, not by Hartford bureaucrats eager to legislate uniformity. But this time, the outcome may be different. Connecticut’s government is now a single-party apparatus, a trifecta and triplex of one party control, rendering opposition an exercise in futility. What was once merely an overreach is now the natural trajectory of a legislature that neither seeks nor requires consensus.
This bill, whether or not it advances in the full legislature, is an unmistakable sign of that trajectory.
The practical consequences of Senate Bill 1313 are obvious to anyone who has given a moment’s thought to municipal planning. Infrastructure in many Connecticut towns is already stretched thin. Roads are congested. Sewer systems are at capacity. School districts, already responsible for funding most of their infrastructure, will be left scrambling to accommodate surging enrollment numbers.
At a recent public hearing in Hartford, one official posed the obvious question: “How are we supposed to accommodate this level of growth when we don’t even have the infrastructure?” The response from legislators was silence. No plan was offered, because none exists.
Beyond the financial and logistical implications, Senate Bill 1313 represents an erosion of the public’s role in governance. An attorney who testified at the hearing articulated this plainly: “As-of-right means no public hearing. No public comment. No ability for a town’s zoning commission to do a site-specific or project-specific review. It removes all oversight.”
This bill is a manifestation of a governing philosophy that sees municipal decision-making not as an essential feature of governance, but as an inconvenience to be swept aside.
This philosophy was on full display during the public hearing, when one legislator, rather than engaging on the bill’s substantive failings, sought instead to diminish those who dared to object. Fixated on the price of homes in affluent towns, he repeatedly asked, “When was the last time you sold a $250,000 home?”
The question implied that towns with high property values have forfeited their right to self-determination, that their concerns about infrastructure, school capacity, and environmental impact are mere posturing, that their resistance to Hartford’s heavy hand is rooted not in governance but in privilege.
Such exchanges make plain the hostility with which some in Hartford view the state’s well-run towns, not as models to emulate but as obstacles to overcome. The impulse is not to elevate struggling municipalities to the standards of those that flourish, but to strip excellence of its advantages, to impose a dull uniformity in which every town is governed, taxed, and planned in the same uninspired manner.
Localism has long been Connecticut’s strength. It has been the foundation upon which towns have built their economic vitality, preserved their landscapes, and cultivated their schools.
This fight has been waged before, it will continue to be waged, and each time the outcome is far from certain.
You may watch the testimony from the February 19th hearing—particularly from 1:46 to 2:30 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BgcBT7REFo online.
