Olha Yarynich, Contributing Photographer

Mayor Justin Elicker has testified against a bill that would prohibit the city from punishing unhoused persons living in public places. 

The Connecticut House of Representatives met to discuss a number of bills concerning housing and homelessness regulation last Thursday. Among them, House Bill H.B. No. 7033 aims “to prohibit a municipality from imposing any penalty on homeless persons for performing life-sustaining activities on public land.” 

The proposed bill clarifies public land as any property designated for public use or owned by state or local governments and further defines “life-sustaining activities” as basic personal actions — such as sitting or standing — and any personal property needed to protect these actions and shelter oneself. It also outlines an exception to the prohibition whereby individuals offered access and transportation to an indoor facility can be relocated without any loss of property. 

“I would like to see more resources to help people who are experiencing homelessness. But this is not an either-or — it’s a both-and. We can’t criminalize human beings who are truly at the lowest point, at the point of greatest struggle, probably in their lives,” Josh Michdum, an elected member of the Hartford City Council, said at last Thursday’s meeting. “Sometimes our work as leaders is not simply to think of our municipality or our district and even not to respond to the emotional prejudice of our constituents, but to talk about a higher calling.” 

Like many others, Michdum emphasized the grace that must be employed when addressing people in such difficult circumstances. Arguments that warn against the privilege of certain unhoused groups monopolizing or claiming public land don’t hold when looking at the brutal conditions that they already encounter in everyday life, he said. 

The Housing Bill follows a June Supreme Court ruling on Grants Pass v Johnson permitting cities to prohibit and penalize unhoused people sleeping in public places. At the hearing, Michdum and other speakers consistently referred back to Connecticut’s obligation to its unhoused citizens in a time of federal ambiguity. 

Along with Bill 7033, the delegation discussed other ways that Connecticut could be working to curb housing shortages and homelessness increases. One senate bill, SB1361, would establish a housing growth fund for a municipal grant program. 

Local organizers and committee members talked about changing the inclusionary zoning ordinance, increasing the development of tiny homes, and working to promote more high-density housing. 

Some opponents of Bill 7033 argued that steps to supplement low-income housing development and solidify better safety practices should be prioritized over regulating a municipality’s right to enforce encampment regulation. 

“While the spirit of the initiative is really good, we have some significant concerns about the proposal that effectively allows someone who’s experiencing homelessness to take over public land indefinitely and also potentially put themselves at risk,” Mayor Justin Elicker said in response to Bill No. 7033. “We do not criminalize homelessness. We do not arrest people who are homeless. But while in reality New Haven doesn’t have a lot of encampments, when we find that there are encampments, they are associated nearly always with dangerous activity.” 

Providing the dissenting perspective, Elicker raised concerns about the bill’s potential to decrease safety, citing instances of human waste, heating of flammable tents with propane gas and heaps of trash — all conditions he said he consistently observes in New Haven’s homeless encampments. Additionally, he cautioned that the bill might lead to more permanent settlements and encampments that decrease the accessibility of public land meant for everyone. 

Elicker did make sure to stress New Haven’s continued commitment to creating affordable housing and making safer living accommodations for unhoused people. He also added that when New Haven does remove or disperse an encampment, it tries its best to relocate those individuals to safer locations like warming centers. 

Elicker echoed many of the promises made in his State of the City Address — where housing and homelessness took top priority — citing thousands of new units, millions of dollars in funding and new warming shelters as evidence of New Haven’s commitment to helping unhoused populations.

But his stance on encampments and homeless populations has frequently been called into question by groups like U-ACT, who, in February of this year, staged a protest inside of city hall against the Elicker administration’s decision to clear an encampment in October. 

“You can’t claim to be invested in complex supported housing or mental health needs of particular demographic of people who are still actively enabling outdated attitudes and systems that will outlaw rights to life or liberty,” New Haven resident and U-ACT organizer, Alexis Terry, said. “The city has no issue in maintaining the centuries-old apathy towards the human rights of those deemed by powers that we need to be undesirable. The residents of New Haven now seem to be tasked with being more ethical or moral than some municipal leaders.” 

Shannon Carter, a resident of New Haven and member of U-ACT, added that it was especially disgruntling to have found displaced persons sleeping outside during the cold emergency without any of their personal property. 

“Frankly, the reasons don’t matter — Nobody should be treated this way,” Carter said. 

The next Connecticut House of Representatives Housing Committee meeting will be held in Hartford on March 13.