In its never-ending quest to “fix” local zoning with one-size-fits-all mandates, the Connecticut General Assembly is now pushing a bill that would strip towns and cities of the authority to require minimum off-street parking for new developments — regardless of whether a town has public transit, walkable infrastructure, or even sidewalks.
Under the proposal, local planning and zoning commissions would no longer be allowed to set off-street parking minimums for “any development,” leaving it entirely up to profit-driven developers to decide how much — if any — parking to provide. In some cases, that means none at all.
Effectively, municipalities would be banned from setting parking requirements based on a development’s size or use.
The bill still allows towns the ability to pass zoning regulations that promote public health or reduce traffic. But without the ability to actually require parking, that power is mostly symbolic, and raises traffic congestion and safety concerns
Supporters claim the bill is about housing affordability, climate change, and equity. But what it actually does is take away local oversight and give developers the final say over whether to include parking in new housing projects — regardless of a community’s needs.
Bridgeport already tried this approach, and the result was overcrowded developments with no on-site parking and, frustrated residents.
Seventeen of the 19 seated Democrats on Bridgeport’s City Council have urged state leaders to reject the bill — and for good reason.
In 2021, during the height of COVID, Bridgeport changed its zoning regulations to eliminate all on-site parking requirements for new developments. The result was oversized apartment projects in already congested neighborhoods, built with no on-site parking whatsoever.
In a letter to legislative leadership on May 5th, Bridgeport city council members warned that removing local parking requirements has been “untenable, unsafe and destructive” for residents and neighborhoods. Rather than helping families, they said the policy benefits out-of-town developers more interested in maximizing units — and profits — than serving the community.
They pointed to one proposed project currently under consideration by the city’s Planning and Zoning Commissions to illustrate the problem.
An out-of-state developer wants to build 75 market-rate apartments, including eight units for residents with disabilities, without a single on-site parking space. The building is located next to a highway on-ramp where street parking is banned. The developer’s attorney claimed that 20 to 60 parking spots were available within a two- to three-block radius.
Bridgeport’s council posed the question. Would any legislator find it acceptable for their grandparents — or a parent with small children — to walk three blocks to their car every day, regardless of weather, safety, or physical ability?
It is unclear if state lawmakers answered. Instead, the General Assembly is moving ahead with a plan to take Bridgeport’s failed policy and impose it on every city and town in Connecticut.
Opposition to the bill isn’t just coming from cities. The Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST), which represents 115 communities, submitted testimony calling the bill a threat to public safety, warning that in places with inadequate parking, “vehicles may be parked haphazardly, blocking access, including emergency access, to properties, fire hydrants, loading docks, etc.”
They also raised concerns that the bill also undermines snow removal and maintenance as “vehicles may be parked on roadways preventing municipalities from plowing and maintaining roads in safe conditions.”
The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), representing 99% of the state’s towns and cities, also submitted testimony, calling the bill “shortsighted” and said it “goes too far.”
While CCM supported past reforms that limited excessive parking mandates, the organization noted that this bill erases even “reasonable limits,” ignoring the complex balancing act local governments must perform: “Public transportation access, public safety, infrastructure capacity, and emergency response needs.”.
Also weighing in was WestCOG, the regional planning agency for 18 municipalities in Western Connecticut. Executive Director Francis Pickering warned that the proposal “replaces tailored local standards with a statewide one-size-fits-all mandate,” and would produce “unintended consequences” in places that lack mass transit or where walking simply isn’t an option.
However, Sara Bronin, founder of DesegregateCT and current CEO of Land Use Atlas, supports the proposal, insisting that parking mandates are outdated, exclusionary, and climate-hostile.
In her testimony, Bronin said that 87% of Connecticut’s residential land is subject to parking mandates — a figure she wants to drop to zero. “Developers,” she claimed, have “plenty of financial incentives to provide sufficient parking” without government interference.
The reality is developers also have strong financial incentives to skip parking if they’re allowed to — especially when they can rent out units faster and cheaper by dumping the parking burden onto the public.
Bronin’s argument hinges on comparing Connecticut to cities like New York and Boston, claiming we should adopt the same “transit-oriented” standards. But Connecticut doesn’t have a subway system. It doesn’t have high-frequency transit. And many towns have no buses at all.
In her testimony, she cites New Haven’s 360 State Street — where the parking garage is reportedly “seldom full”— to make her case. The garage was required under city regulations at the time. Bronin acknowledged that New Haven has since updated its zoning around the station. In other words, the local process worked — without a state mandate.
More importantly, New Haven is not Torrington. Or Eastford. Or Monroe. The very premise of zoning is that different communities have different needs. This bill ignores that entirely.
What’s being pushed isn’t just a war on asphalt — it’s a war on local control.
If a town wants to eliminate parking minimums, it already can — and many have. Others have chosen to retain them, based on infrastructure, public input, or common sense. That’s how local government is supposed to work.
When Bridgeport tells lawmakers this policy failed, it’s worth listening. When rural towns and bipartisan planning agencies warn of chaos, lawmakers should think twice. But instead, they’re pressing forward — convinced that every town in Connecticut should be like Brooklyn, just without the subway.
