During Friday night’s (May 30) Senate debate on a sweeping omnibus housing bill, Sen. Martha Marx (D–New London) offered a revealing defense of a provision (section 31 of the bill) that steers taxpayer-backed bond funds toward union pension–financed housing developments.
“Some of the biggest corruption of our workforce is the nonunion construction workers,” Sen. Marx declared, arguing that only union-built housing ensures proper wages, safety, and treatment.
Sen. Rob Sampson (R–Wolcott) pushed back, noting that “corrupt might be a strong word,” and offered Sen. Marx a chance to clarify her remarks. However, instead of softening her stance, Sen. Marx stood by her accusation and expanded upon it.
“Corrupt might be a strong word,” she admitted, yet added:
“But I know that often when [nonunion workers] are working on construction sites, they’re not paying for workers’ compensation, they’re not paying the same wages that union workers would get, they don’t have the same safety standards… a lot of safety corners are cut. And I believe union work is safer and pays better.”
In Connecticut, only 8.7% of private sector construction workers are unionized, meaning when Sen. Marx threw around the word “corruption,” she wasn’t talking about a fringe group, but taking aim at more than nine out of 10 construction workers in the state.
This attack might seem bizarre coming from an elected official — until you consider the source. As recently as 2024, Sen. Marx served as president of AFT Connecticut Local 5119, a union representing healthcare workers. While no longer in a leadership role, her loyalty evidently remains intact. And it stands to reason that her baseless remark on nonunion labor wasn’t incidental but ideological.
Yet the debate concerned Section 31, which effectively turns the state Department of Housing into a financing arm for politically connected unions. It allows developers to borrow from union pension funds at low interest rates — and then lets the state kick in taxpayer-backed bond dollars to help fund the project. The unions get the returns. The developers get the deals. Taxpayers get nothing.
While Sen. Sampson questioned her, Sen. Marx struggled to provide basic facts about how the financing would work. When pressed on whether the program involved a 50/50 match between union investment and state dollars — as claimed in the House debate — she explained, “Each contract is about the developer,” adding, “It depends on each project.”
In other words, there are no guardrails.
The Department of Housing, in closed-door negotiations with unions and developers, will decide how much taxpayer cash to hand over. The terms aren’t written in statute, and the public won’t get a stake in return. No equity, no rent-sharing, no repayment — just a blank check from the public treasury to build assets unions will fully own and operate.
Sen. Sampson called it a publicly funded real estate investment scheme. “How do I get on that deal?” he quipped. “Where is the Commissioner of Housing being empowered to give away taxpayer money so someone can invest in real estate?”
This sweetheart deal didn’t even receive a proper public hearing. The original Senate bill was a placeholder with two lines. The union pension scheme was added later — after the public comment window had closed.
Moreover, Sen. Marx couldn’t say what percentage of the funding would come from the state. “Each development project will be different,” she offered vaguely, refusing to give a number. In fact, she couldn’t for good reason: the terms aren’t in statute. The percentage is determined by bureaucrats in the Department of Housing and/or whatever handshake deal they cut with the unions.
But while Sen. Marx was quick to vilify nonunion labor, she was noticeably unprepared to discuss the actual subject of the legislation: homelessness and housing access.
The bill is titled An Act Concerning Housing and the Needs of Homeless Persons. Yet when Sen. Sampson asked Sen. Marx approximately how many homeless individuals live in the state — not an exact number, just a general figure — her answer was simply, “I don’t know that answer.”
Sen. Sampson followed up asking how many rental units are currently available in Connecticut? Sen. Marx admitted she had looked it up earlier in the day — but said she couldn’t remember where she wrote it down. Again, no answer.
It is difficult to imagine that the lead Senate voice for the bill could not answer either of the most basic questions about the very population the legislation is meant to serve. If lawmakers can’t even estimate how many people are homeless or how much rental inventory exists, how can they credibly claim this bill addresses either issue?
Equally troubling was her silence during debate on proposed amendments. Sen. Jeff Gordon (R–Woodstock), who served on his local Planning and Zoning Commission for over 15 years, including more than a decade as chair, offered multiple amendments aimed at improving the bill and protecting local control. However, Sen. Marx couldn’t be bothered to explain her opposition. Instead, she repeatedly offered the same dismissive phrase: “I urge my colleagues to vote no.”
This broke not only with tradition but with basic legislative decency. When urging others to vote down a colleague’s amendment, it is customary — and expected — to explain why. Sen. Gordon noted the snub on the floor:
“Not a surprise. It certainly is disappointing, but not a surprise to see another commonsense amendment fail on a party-line vote without any actual explanation provided for why people were urged to vote no, despite what I think were good comments and arguments for them to actually vote yes.”
Sen. Marx owes an apology to the thousands of honest, hardworking Connecticut tradespeople she slandered. But more than that, the residents of this state deserve better.
The people send lawmakers to Hartford to show up to work prepared, not wing it on the floor of the Senate. If you’re sponsoring a bill “Concerning Housing and the Needs of Homeless Persons,” the bare minimum is knowing how many people are homeless. Or how many rental units are available. Sen. Marx had neither figure — not even a ballpark one. She couldn’t produce a statistic, cite a source, or even recall the note she claimed to have written down.
The contempt for nonunion workers is bad enough. The lack of preparation is worse.
