When H.B.8002 was passed during November’s special session, Democratic leaders and the bill’s supporters promoted it under the slogan “Towns Take the Lead.”
Signed into law by Gov. Ned Lamont the day before Thanksgiving, the legislation was pitched as a compromise that preserved local control, relied on incentives rather than mandates, and merely encouraged municipalities to plan for housing growth.
Opponents warned otherwise. They argued that the bill amounted to a statewide zoning mandate that shifts authority away from municipalities and toward Hartford, with enforcement ultimately left to regulators, courts, and advocacy organizations.
For weeks, Connecticut residents were presented with two competing narratives.
Then, on Dec. 16, one of the bill’s most prominent advocates, the Open Communities Alliance (OCA), offered a description that diverged sharply from the “local control” framing used by legislative leaders.
A ‘Statewide Framework’ Not a Local One
In a fundraising email to supporters, OCA celebrated the new law for doing something unprecedented. According to the organization, H.B. 8002 “for the first time — establishes a statewide framework to ensure every municipality plans and zones for affordable housing.”
That phrase alone undercuts the “towns take the lead” claim. A statewide framework, by definition, is not local control. It means the state defines the parameters, and municipalities operate within them.
Legislative leaders have been careful to avoid that language, emphasizing instead flexibility, incentives, and locally informed planning. OCA did not. Its description openly acknowledges a system in which the state sets expectations and towns are required to comply.
This was not the first time OCA framed the bill in these terms. In a Nov. 14 email sent shortly after passage, the organization told supporters that “this is not an opt-in plan, but something that all towns are required to take part in.”
That same message warned that municipalities whose housing growth plans are not approved by the state could lose eligibility for an 8-30g moratorium. It also noted that towns failing to participate or demonstrate progress could forfeit increases in school construction reimbursements and infrastructure funding.
The New Jersey Model, Acknowledged at Last
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of OCA’s messaging is its explicit reference to New Jersey’s “Fair Share” housing system.
In New Jersey, Fair Share is not a voluntary planning exercise. It is system that emerged from court rulings in the 1980s and assigns municipalities state-defined affordable housing obligations based on regional formulas. Towns that fail to comply face lawsuits, court oversight, and “builder’s remedy” cases that can override local zoning decisions.
Over time, the system transferred substantial zoning authority away from local governments and into the hands of courts, regulators, and housing advocates. The result has been decades of litigation, consultant fees, and administrative wrangling, with little evidence that the mandates meaningfully increased housing supply or reduced housing costs.
Supporters of H.B. 8002 rarely reference Fair Share when speaking to suburban residents concerned about local governance. OCA, however, invokes it openly. Among housing advocates, Fair Share is not a warning sign, it is a model to be replicated.
The Reassurance Campaign
As criticism of H.B. 8002 intensified, House Majority Leader Jason Rojas (D-East Hartford) publicly pushed back. In a “MYTH vs. TRUTH” post on Facebook, Rep. Rojas emphasized that the bill merely “asks towns and cities to adopt their own, locally-informed Housing Growth Plan,” dismissing claims of top-down planning and erosion of local control.
According to Rep. Rojas, developments must still comply with all local zoning rules; municipalities are only asked to submit a consolidated housing plan; funding is provided to assist with planning; and the controversial Fair Share statute is “completely repealed.”
He further stressed that towns set their own housing goals, may deviate from state recommendations with justification, and are not required to build a specific number of housing units.
On its own, the post presents H.B. 8002 as preserving municipal flexibility and local control. Placed alongside OCA’s fundraising email, however, a different picture emerges.
Rep. Rojas focuses on what the bill does not explicitly require — no unit mandates, no immediate zoning overrides, no statute labeled “Fair Share.” OCA focuses on what the law is designed to accomplish: a statewide framework, universal participation, defined housing targets, accountability mechanisms, and ongoing oversight.
Where Rep. Rojas reassures residents that towns remain in control, OCA describes the law as one that “includes standards for identifying local housing need, requires universal participation, and provides valuable incentives to towns that comply with its requirements.”
Most striking is the contrast between what legislative leaders deny and what advocacy organizations celebrate. Rep. Rojas labels comparisons to Fair Share a “myth.” OCA cites New Jersey’s Fair Share model as a success worth emulating. Rep. Rojas insists the bill avoids top-down planning. OCA frames the law as a civil-rights measure that requires compliance with statewide standards.
OCA is not being deceptive. On the contrary, it is being candid — with their supporters.
This Isn’t Local Control
There is a legitimate policy debate to be had over whether state intervention in local zoning is necessary to address housing affordability. But that debate only works if lawmakers are honest about what the law actually does.
H.B. 8002 does not leave the decision entirely to municipalities. It establishes statewide standards, requires universal participation, and conditions financial and regulatory benefits on compliance.
One may support that approach or oppose it. But it should not be described as local control.
