Connecticut House Bill HB05519

Connecticut 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/14/12
• Refer: 3/14/12
• Report Pass: 3/29/12
• Refer: 4/10/12
• Report Pass: 4/17/12
• Engrossed: 5/9/12
• Report Pass: 5/9/12

Caption

An Act Concerning The Conveyance Of Certain Parcels Of State Land.

Impact

The passage of HB 05519 would directly impact state statutes concerning the management and disposition of governmental land. It allows East Hartford to enhance its community's access to open spaces, aligning with broader objectives of urban green space initiatives. Moreover, the stipulation that the land must be used for open space indicates a tangible commitment to community infrastructure, potentially influencing local zoning and development plans.

Summary

House Bill 05519 is designed to facilitate the conveyance of specific parcels of state-owned land to the town of East Hartford for open space purposes. This bill specifically permits the Commissioner of Transportation to convey approximately 0.38 acres of land and another parcel of approximately 0.44 acres located at strategic areas in East Hartford at minimal costs. Aimed at promoting community access to green spaces, the bill directs that these parcels be used for open space while establishing that if the parcels are not maintained for this purpose or leased, they will revert back to the state of Connecticut.

Sentiment

Overall, sentiment surrounding HB 05519 is generally positive, reflecting support for initiatives that enhance local recreational and ecological environments. Policymakers and stakeholders emphasizing community interests appear to view the bill favorably as a necessary measure for local urban planning. However, it could invite scrutiny about the long-term commitments towns are willing to make regarding open spaces, as well as the administrative efficiency in executing such land transactions.

Contention

While there appears to be support for the bill from various stakeholders, a point of contention could arise regarding the reversion clause. Critics may argue that the flexibility allowed to the state can undermine local control over land use, particularly if future needs for development are not fully considered. This aspect may elicit discussions surrounding the balance between state authority and local governance in land management.