There really are no limits to how far Connecticut lawmakers will go to reward their union allies. On Tuesday (May 27), the House passed a 92-page housing omnibus bill stuffed with mandates, attacks on local control and central planning schemes — but the most egregious provision is buried in Section 31, on page 70.
What’s supposed to be a bill addressing homelessness and affordable housing is, in reality, a taxpayer-funded real estate development deal for big labor.
Section 31 allows unions to use their pension funds to invest in housing developments — and the state will simply hand over taxpayer-backed bond dollars to subsidize those projects.
In exchange for putting up part of the cost, unions get to own the properties outright, collect the rents, and pocket the long-term profits, while taxpayers cover the rest and walk away with nothing. There’s no matching investment, no repayment, and no public stake — just a straight-up union welfare.
During the floor debate, Rep. Tony Scott (R-Monroe) asked where the idea came from. The bill’s proponent, Rep. Antonio Felipe (D-Bridgeport), wasn’t exactly clear.
“It came to us from some of our building trades… We’re just kind of mirroring other states, like New York, New Jersey, right here in Connecticut,” Rep. Felipe replied.
Rep. Scott then asked the obvious question: Could anyone else do this? Could private entities or non-union funds participate in this matching program?
“It’s only co-investment that includes those union pension funds,” Rep. Felipe responded, meaning, the unions ask, the state complies, and the taxpayers pay.
According to Rep. Felipe, the program will be administered by the Department of Housing, and although the bill doesn’t specify any terms, he said he “believed” the grants to the unions would be structured as a 50/50 match.
Rep. Scott pressed further. “The union pensions are not doing this out of the kindness of their own heart, right?… How are they going to make any money back?”
The response: “Access to state capital that would be matched through this program… and they’d be able to collect rental charges.”
So, unions invest, the state matches, and the unions walk away as full owners — collecting rent, building equity, and eventually flipping the property at full market value. Rep. Felipe confirmed this by stating, “[I]f the union was to apply for this through using their pension funds, they would then own the project.” And what do taxpayers get in return?
“We don’t get any dollars back,” Rep. Scott said. “We cut this hand off and we’re giving it to them [unions]… The property could double in two years… and the state get $0 for that.”
Even the 50/50 match isn’t guaranteed. Rep. Felipe later walked it back saying, “While I think the intention… is to be 50/50, this is directing the Department of Housing to develop a grant program.” In other words, the state will make it up as it goes.
Rep. Scott was right to call this “super worrisome.” This isn’t just bad policy — it’s union privilege on full display. The unions take no risk and reap all the rewards. Taxpayers cover half the cost, with no stake, no oversight, and no return.
This isn’t a loan. It’s not even a real public-private partnership. As Rep. Scott stated, it’s a “50% off coupon for politically connected unions to play landlord, while taxpayers foot the bill and walk away empty-handed.”
Rep. Felipe claimed the language came from Senate Bill 12, which, he insisted, had a public hearing. But what the public heard on February 13 was a two-line placeholder bill: “to promote fair and equitable housing opportunities in every community.” There was no mention of union pension funds or taxpayer-matched investments.
That language was only added after the hearing, behind closed doors.
Notably, no unions testified on SB 12. Yet Senate leaders — including Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) and Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney (D-New Haven) — submitted testimony in support. None of them mentioned the backdoor union deal.
Even worse, Section 31 requires that all projects be subject to Project Labor Agreements (PLAs), ensuring construction work goes to union shops only. That means higher costs and fewer bids. As Rep. Steve Weir (R-Hebron) warned during the debate, affordable housing already costs triple what it should because of government red tape. This makes it worse. And that’s the irony. Lawmakers say they want to make housing more affordable. Instead, they’re layering on new mandates, union carveouts, and rigged subsidies that increase costs and slow investments. The result will be fewer projects, higher prices, and a taxpayer-funded monopoly for union developers.
This isn’t housing policy. It’s a political payoff cosplaying as economic development. And it’s exactly the kind of insider scheme that undermines public trust in government.
If unions want to invest in housing, great. Let them. But do it without taxpayer subsidies, without exclusive access, and without a rigged system that shuts everyone else out.
Connecticut taxpayers deserve housing solutions that work for everyone — not just the politically connected.
