Earlier today, lawmakers on the State’s Planning and Development Committee engaged in a debate over bill HB 5174, which would allow religious organizations to build and maintain temporary shelters for the homeless on their grounds. Proponents of the bill highlighted the urgent need for the state to combat its record-high levels of homelessness while detractors argued that the bill could have unintended consequences across the state’s communities due to its lax zoning requirements.
The bill was sponsored by State Rep. David Michel (D- Stamford), Rep. Travis Simms (D-Norwalk) and Rep. Saud Anwar (D-East Hartford). Rep. Simms said in a phone interview with Inside Investigator that he and Rep. Michel have received support for the bill from religious organizations in their communities.
“The impetus of this bill was to find innovative solutions to support our vulnerable populations” said Simms. “Several churches and religious organizations have indeed reached out to express their support in this initiative, recognizing the importance of providing temporary shelter to those in need.”
The bill would require municipalities to limit shelter units to eight per lot and 400 square feet per unit. Units would also be denied if they’re within 1000 feet of any elementary or secondary schools, and would have to be set back at least 10 feet from any property not owned by the religious organization that built it. Homeless individuals’ stay would be capped at a year’s length.
The bill would require each shelter unit to be “structurally sound.” It defines temporary shelters as a “nonpermanent commercially prefabricated accessory structure that is designed to be dismantled or removed,” such as mini homes. Tents, tarps and similar shelters are expressly forbidden. Furthermore, shelters would have to be equipped with proper heating and cooling equipment, have access to electricity and be provided with sufficient toilet and shower facilities for males and females. The entire outdoor area would have to be provided with proper lighting and any outdoor storage of sheltered people’s belongings would have to be occluded from public view with a six-foot tall wall or fence.
Municipalities would not be able to deny applications due to any pre-existing, unrelated nonconformities on the property. All shelters would also be required to follow all pre-existing building and fire codes, except for ones that may limit the duration of the shelters’ use.
Republican members of the committee took issue with the population cap of the bill, which dictates the minimum applicable population level required for compliance with the bill. Originally set at 15,000, Rep. Doug Dubitsky (R-Canterbury) motioned for an amendment that would make the bill applicable only to municipalities with populations of 70,000 or more. Rep. Carol Hall (R-East Windsor) seconded the motion.
“I’m very concerned about small towns in this state if this bill were to pass,” said Dubitsky. “Many, if not most, of the historic churches in this state are on town greens, main streets, historic districts, etc. To have homeless shelters plop down in these areas without any input from the town’s representatives and elected officials, without any input from the people who live in these areas, I think would do grave violence to the way of life in this state.”
Dubitsky went on to say that the “parade of horribles that could result” from the bill’s supersedence of small towns’ pre-existing zoning requirements “are endless.”
“I would just indicate that raising it to 70,000 would still allow the larger municipalities to utilize this, well, it would actually force it upon the larger municipalities as opposed to forcing it on the smaller towns, and frankly that’s where the greatest need is, in the larger municipalities,” said Dubitsky. “I think it’s important that we recognize the on-the-ground damage that allowing a homeless shelter, an outdoor homeless shelter, on every church property in every town, would have.”
Rep. Tami Zawistowski (R- East Granby) added her belief that smaller towns “don’t have the capacity” for such shelters, and believed the 70,000 cap would allow only municipalities with the proper resources to be impacted. Rep. Zullo (R- East Haven) believed the proposal would strike a “thoughtful balance,” between town’s abilities to support such shelters, and the need for them across the state.
Committee Co Chair, Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw (D-Avon) pushed back against Dubitsky’s implication that homelessness was a problem relegated primarily to cities and larger towns.
“As a proponent of this bill, and as someone who has really worked on this for a while, I am going to ask my members not to support [the proposal],” said Kavros DeGraw. “I think that we need to acknowledge that many of our towns, the reason they appear not to have homeless issues is because, unfortunately, the services are primarily in the larger towns. They are forced to go there.”
Kavros DeGraw isn’t the first person to voice this sentiment. On Feb. 16, Kavros DeGraw hosted an informational hearing on the state of housing in Connecticut, in which both Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam and Danbury Mayor Roberto Alves pleaded for greater cooperation between the state’s larger cities and smaller municipalities in tackling homelessness.
“It’s the same story for every city in our state,” said Mayor Alves. “We’re the hubs for homeless people from the towns, and we’re not getting any help from the towns. We need help.”
Committee Co Chair, Sen. MD Rahman (D-Manchester), said that raising the cap as high as 70,000 would “undermine” the bill’s ability to create adequate shelter across the state.
Ultimately, the proposed amendment was shot down in a 10-6 vote. Dubitsky countered with an amendment that would instead raise the cap to 25,000.
“To the issue of services, when you’re voting on these bills, I really just want you to look and think about your towns,” said Dubitsky. “Think about the fact that under this bill, we would be allowing that in some towns, where we have no police, no social services virtually at all, only a handful of employees, we would be allowing in these towns multiple homeless shelters.”
“How will it be staffed?,” asked Dubitsky.” Who will oversee it? The church may be very well meaning, but may have no idea what it takes to run a homeless shelter in a town with no services and no transportation.”
The motion to propose this amendment was seconded by Zawistowski, and supported by Zullo. Zawistowski added that raising the population cap to 25,000 may also help to ensure adequate employment opportunities for those living in the shelters.
This second proposal was received better by proponents of the bill than the first. Kavros DeGraw and Rahman both spoke in support of it.
“Initially we put in 15,000 because we thought that was the right number, but I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of our good members, in good faith, bringing forward this 25,000 threshold,” said Kavros DeGraw. The amendment passed with a vote of 14-2.
In spite of this compromise, several lawmakers still spoke in opposition of the bill. Sen. Ryan Fazio (R-Greenwich) recognized the severity of the state’s homeless problem, and applauded the committee’s and various religious organizations’ commitment to solve it, that the bill would not get at the heart of the issue and cause unintended consequences. He said that in the future, lawmakers should look towards targeted solutions at problems most commonly faced by various members of the homeless population.
“We know not everyone in that population are suffering from the same afflictions; there are some with very severe mental health disorders, there are some with very severe substance abuse disorders, and there are some who have fallen on hard economic times temporarily,” said Fazio. “We need policies and interventions that are targeted uniquely at each of those specific groups and others. I don’t think that this bill put forward today, as is, answers those problems, and I think it potentially creates greater quality of life problems in our towns and cities across this state.”
Dubitsky said he appreciated the committee’s passage of his second proposal, but still opposed the bill. He said the potential for these shelters to house refugees and asylum seekers could create disorder, sanitation issues, and safety problems for communities.
“There is going to be a nightmare,” said Dubitsky. “And once this nightmare exists, it’s going to be very, very difficult to get rid of. Because once you give a landowner the right to do something on the land, as of right, it becomes very very difficult to take that right away from them.”
Zullo thanked the committee for raising the population threshold, but would vote no due to zoning concerns.
“That being said, we need to be doing something to eradicate homelessness,” said Zullo. “I don’t know that this gets to the heart of it, I think it asks too much from municipalities, and while I have a number of concerns from a practical perspective, I’m going to forebear in offering those concerns in hoping that we continue to work on them throughout this process if this bill does come up for a vote on the floor.”
Michele, Rahman and Kavros DeGraw all spoke in support of the bill, citing statistics and their own experiences with the urgency of the homelessness crisis in the state. Michel noted that one-third of the new homeless population in his county were elderly, and another third were families with young children. Kavros DeGraw said there are over 500 children estimated to be homeless across the state, and 4,000 people living in shelters, many of them with jobs who don’t have access to affordable housing when transitioning out of the shelters.
“We have pregnant women living in vans,” said Kavros DeGraw. “I had a woman approach me literally in the Legislative Office Building just a week ago who, thankfully, we were able to find housing by honest to god a miracle. She was living in a van and disabled.”
“I am approaching this from a humanitarian perspective, because we are in the middle of a humanitarian crisis in Connecticut with our homeless,” said Kavros DeGraw. “Not every church, temple and mosque is going to be in a position to erect these prefabricated shelters, that are not going to be anywhere near a school.”
Kavros DeGraw said that she will be willing to work with her colleagues to enact meaningful changes to the bill, but only changes that will “ultimately get homeless people in safe spaces.”
Ultimately, the bill was deemed favorable by the committee, with 14 votes in favor and 7 votes against. It will be now moved to the Legislative Commissioner’s Office, and then be put to vote on the House floor.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
