Elicker To Greenwich: I’m Not Sorry

New Haven’s mayor Thursday rejected a demand from outraged Gold Coast Republicans that he apologize for asserting that their zoning laws keep racial minorities out of their wealthy towns.

The exchanges followed a day of raw debate over race and housing, between New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker, a Democrat who grew up in New Canaan, and Republican state representatives over proposed state legislation to require towns to allow more affordable housing by, in part, changing zoning laws seen as barriers to construction of multi-family and lower-cost homes. (More details here.)

Elicker argued in favor of the proposal at a virtual hearing Monday held by the legislature’s Planning and Development Committee. He argued that wealthy suburbs have kept Black and brown people out of their towns through exclusionary zoning.

That prompted outrage from state representatives from that area. They pressed Elicker to prove his assertion. Elicker stood his ground. The back-and-forth got to the heart of a decades-long debate in Connecticut about whether, and how, predominantly white suburbs are discriminating by maintaining zoning laws that keep housing prices high by favoring large lots and single-family homes.

The legislators pressed Elicker to name examples of such suburbs. He named Greenwich and New Canaan.

“Mayor Elicker Owes Greenwich An Apology,” read the headline of an editorial published Thursday by the Greenwich Sentinel.

“I denounce New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker’s malicious remarks during this week’s public hearings, calling, my town — where my family and I call home — a racist community without any corroboration or proof,” Greenwich State Rep. Harry Arora seethed in a statement released Thursday.

“As the mayor of the second biggest city in Connecticut, Mayor Elicker’s comments are outrageous and completely irresponsible. As a state lawmaker, who happens to be a minority, I call on the mayor to issue a formal apology to Greenwich and its proud residents.”

Added fellow Greenwich State Rep. Kimberly Fiorello: ​“This baseless accusation is purposeful in pitting neighbor against neighbor. This rhetoric cannot go unchallenged. If he has proof that Greenwich or any town or city is actively using zoning laws to discriminate, I urge him to go to the proper authorities. If he does not have proof, then he must issue an apology retracting his statement.”

And here’s how Elicker responded in a release:

“I will not apologize. We live in one of the most segregated states in the nation. There is a history of explicit racism in all towns in our state – Greenwich and New Haven included. Today structural racism persists throughout our state. The difference is that some communities like ours in New Haven are working to address it and other communities like Greenwich and many other Connecticut towns are fighting to protect zoning regulations that perpetuate structural racism. Whether intentional or unintentional, policies that hurt the disadvantaged and keep certain people out are inherently racist. Instead of fighting these policies and each other, let’s work together to address them.”

Beyond the apology discourse, two exchanges in particular Monday probed more deeply into the two perspectives on this issue in the ​“Two Connecticuts.” About who lives where in the state with the highest level of income inequality in the nation. And why.

You can read and watch those exchanges, which took place after Elicker read a statement at the hearing, in the following two sections of this article. (Farther down in the article you can read Elicker’s original statement before the committee.)

This same debate about implicit racism and exclusionary zoning has taken place multiple times during an ongoing rezoning effort in Woodbridge, where civil rights attorneys and Yale Law School students have cited a history of racial and economic segregation as they try to make it easier to build multi-family housing in the New Haven suburb. Some have responded that the town’s zoning laws are not explicitly race-based, and therefore cannot be racist.

Exchange #1: ​“My History. My Upbringing”

The following exchange, between State Rep. Doug Dubitsky, a Republican from the northeast part of the state, and Mayor Elicker, can be viewed beginning at the 1‑hour 10-minute mark of the above video.

Dubitsky: You just said zoning regulations are currently being used to keep people of color out. Name one.

Elicker: There’s a history of this, of redlining, of deed restrictions. … Today you look at the median income of white residents in Connecticut, it’s around $84,000. Hispanic residents is around $46,000.

Black residents, is $43,000. There aren’t explicit policies. But it is clear it is near-impossible for certain people to live in certain communities because of zoning regulations.

Dubitsky: I can’t live in Greenwich. I can’t afford it. It has nothing to do with zoning. it has to do with my income. You made a very blatant statement that towns and cities in this state currently as of today are using zoning to discriminate against people of color and to keep them from moving into their towns. Name one.

Elicker: I think it’s quite clear that income is related to someone’s ability to access housing and move into places like Greenwich.

Dubitsky: Of course it is! I can’t move into Greenwich because I can’t make enough money. It has nothing to do with the color of my skin. It has to do with my job. It has to do with lifestyle. It has to do with history. It has to do with my upbringing.

Elicker: Rep. Dubitsky, that is exactly my point. It has to do with your history, just as it has to do with my history. As a white person that grew up in a privileged background that had enough funding and a stable roof over my head to allow me to get enough revenue to live in stable housing.

The history of many, many Black people in the state of Connecticut and around the nation is just the opposite. It is all of our responsibility to work to undo that. Housing is a vital way that we can do so.

Dubitsky: You’re skirting the question. You made a bold statement that there are towns currently as of today discriminating against people because of the color of their skin by use of zoning regulations. I challenge you. Names those towns.

Elicker: Historically it was done explicitly. Today it is done in a more creative way. But it still exists.

Dubitsky: Where?

Elicker: In many of the suburban towns in our state.

Dubitsky: Which ones? Which towns?

Elicker: Greenwich. New Canaan. You name it.

Dubitsky: So Greenwich and New Canaan are now actively discriminating against people of color with their zoning regulations. Is that your statement?

Elicker: Correct. There are many towns around the state that use zoning to prevent poor people — because average median income is low for people of color — from moving into their towns.

Dubitsky: OK, you’re now mixing poor people and people of color. Are you saying that they’re the same thing? That all poor people are people of color?

Elicker: No, I am not. But the median income of Black residents and Hispanic residents in this state is much, much lower than the median income of white residents. The zoning policies are perpetuating segregation.

Exchange #2: ​“What Is Your Evidence?”

The House Republicans provided the above video of this exchange between State Rep. Fiorello and Mayor Elicker. The headline to the YouTube version is theirs, not ours.

Fiorello: Where is the evidence that Greenwich is using zoning rules to keep people of color out? Is that what you said, Mayor Elicker?

Elicker: Yes, it is what I said.

Fiorello: What is your evidence?

Elicker: I will repeat that historically it has been done very explicitly. Now it is done in a way that is more creative but still perpetuates the issue, where people of color are unable to access housing in many of our suburban towns.

Fiorello: Are you under the impression that Greenwich is all white?

Elicker: No, I am not. But it is predominantly white.

Fiorello: It’s actually 30 percent Hispanic. Are you aware of that?

Elicker; I’m not aware of the specific statistics around Greenwich.

Fiorello: OK, well, Greenwich is very diverse … It’s 27 percent nonwhite. Is that not enough? You made an incredible accusation against my town! And I’d like to understand how to wrap my mind around it. Please enlighten me. This is illegal activity! To use zoning and to keep people of color out. I mean, this is absolutely illegal! So I’d like to understand.

Elicker: There are implicit ways to do this. And there are non implicit ways to do this. Places like Greenwich and Woodbridge and New Canaan and other towns are using zoning to keep out communities of color. Let’s be clear about it.

Fiorello: OK, I guess if you keep saying it. If you can keep saying it. It doesn’t make it true. Unless you have real evidence to prove it, this is quite a statement for Mayor Elicker to be making against the town of Greenwich.

Original Statement That Sparked The Exchanges

Following is the full text of the statement Elicker delivered at the hearing.

Representative McCarthy Vahey, Senator Cassano, Ranking members Hwang and Zullo, members of the committee,

I am here in strong support of SB 1024 which contains several vital provisions that will expand housing access in our state. I am also in support of HB 6611, which is essential to evaluating and addressing the full scope of our housing crisis. Connecticut is one of the most deeply segregated states in the nation both as a result of history and contemporary policies that exacerbate economic and social inequity.

The exclusionary zoning codes of so many Connecticut towns are perpetuating this. Using local government to dramatically restrict what housing is available regardless of the significant demand for it is having devastating implications for the residents of my city and our entire state. Artificial limitations on supply, created by hyper-restrictive government regulations, are driving up the cost of rent and making this state unaffordable for residents. It also reduces people’s choices on where to live and limits the mobility of people trying to escape absentee or abusive landlords.

This bill is a thoughtful and moderate reform to quickly create more housing in the places that make the most sense – near transit and commercial corridors. It also removes some of the tools that have been used to make developing new housing options unnecessarily arduous. It of course does not solve the problem of segregation or racial inequity on its own but it is a critical step forward.

There will be a lot of discussion about this bill, but I want to reinforce that we aren’t here just for the sake of it. Black people have been systemically kept out of areas of greater opportunity. In many instances zoning codes were and are designed to keep white towns white, and keep poor residents segregated to dense, underfunded areas of the state. Housing is one of the most effective tools to creating economic opportunity and mobility. That is why, for Black residents, there has been such a concerted effort throughout history and today to stop them from accessing it. This state has a moral responsibility to its residents to change the paradigm of racial segregation. It is bad for everyone; and even if it weren’t, it would still be wrong. The concept of local control should not extend to keeping residents out or driving up the price of housing where they do live.

I urge that you support this bill because it will create more opportunities for people who need them and it will reduce the devastating impact segregation continues to have on all our residents.

More info on related issues, organizations:

Learn:
• New Haven LCI Fair Housing Division
• Connecticut Fair Housing Center
• A Push for Zoning Reform in Connecticut
• Preventing Displacement: Three Approaches to Protect New Haven Residents
• HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
• The Neighborhoods We Will Not Share

Act:
• Desegregate CT
• National Fair Housing Alliance
• Fair Housing Foundation