Faith leaders urge 'Yes in God's Backyard' bill to unlock church land for affordable housing

Hundreds of clergy, housing advocates and municipal planners urged Connecticut’s Planning and Development Committee on March 4 to advance House Bill 5396, a proposal — nicknamed Yigby, or “Yes in God’s Backyard” — that would create a streamlined review process allowing religious organizations to develop affordable housing on their land.

Supporters said the state’s housing shortage and rising homelessness make the idea urgent. "Warming shelters like ours have become places where consequences of policy choices show up in cold-injured bodies," said Reverend Liza Arlumpalam of Center Church in Hartford, describing her congregation’s winter shelter and urging the committee to “allow us to build not just shelters for the night but homes that will last people a lifetime.” Katie Jennings, director of the Connecticut End Homelessness Campaign, cited state point-in-time counts showing about 3,500 people experiencing homelessness and said streamlined entitlements reduce risk and improve financing feasibility for mission-driven projects.

Proponents described practical examples: Westminster Presbyterian and other congregations have identified parcels near transit and sewer access that they say are well suited for modest affordable developments, but multi-month or multi-year municipal reviews and inconsistent local requirements have killed projects or convinced faith groups to sell to private developers. "When entitlement risk is reduced, projects can move forward with greater feasibility," said Sean Guio of Partnership for Strong Communities.

Lawmakers and municipal officials pressed supporters on nuts-and-bolts issues. Laura Brown of New Haven’s planning office and regional planners warned HB5396, as drafted, could preempt reasonable local standards on height, setbacks and environmental protections unless the bill explicitly retained objective safety and health requirements. Representative Winter and Senator Gordon suggested the committee consider density and height guardrails and whether nonprofits beyond religious organizations should be eligible — a change several witnesses said would reduce potential Establishment Clause concerns.

Representative Dubitzky raised a constitutional question: if a benefit were provided to religious bodies but not to similarly situated secular nonprofits, would that raise legal problems? Rabbi Danny Moss and other witnesses said other states have allowed comparable programs and that the bill’s authors could expand eligibility or add nondiscrimination language to make the public-purpose case clear.

Financing was another recurrent theme. Developers and affordable housing practitioners warned that deep set-asides — the draft bill’s 30% units at 60% area median income — could make some projects financially marginal without tax credits or local incentives. "30% at 60% AMI is significant and would make it challenging for a lot of developments to work financially," one developer told the committee.

Committee members indicated willingness to work with sponsors to add clarifying language about local consultation, environmental and safety review, nondiscrimination, deed restrictions or long-term affordability covenants, and whether to open the program to mission-driven nonprofits. The bill’s supporters said those details are negotiable and emphasized time: many witnesses said delays in entitlement — not building standards themselves — are the biggest barrier to converting underused religious land into housing. "We are not developers," said Corey Mackey of the Center for Leadership and Justice. "Congregations have land, desire and deep ties to their communities. Streamlined approval paths can turn that land into code-compliant affordable homes without court fights or long delays."

The committee did not vote. Legislators said staff and stakeholders would continue to workshop the bill, adding guardrails on density and non-discrimination while preserving faster timelines for qualifying projects.