Working in collaboration with the Bridgeport Regional Business Council (BRBC), undergraduate students in the “State & Local Politics” course taught by Gayle Alberda, PhD, in the John Charles Meditz College of Arts and Sciences, conducted in-depth research on high-priority regional issues and developed policy briefs designed to inform real-world decision-making.
The BRBC Government Relations Committee identified seven priority topics for the students, including workforce and affordable housing, zoning barriers, high‑speed rail access, and renewable energy. Students were divided into groups, each assigned one topic, and were tasked to develop two to three practical recommendations. The semester concluded with policy briefings presented to Dan Onofrio, BRBC president and CEO.
The group assigned to workforce housing examined households earning 60 to 120 percent of the area median income—up to approximately $148,900. These families earn too much for traditional affordable housing but continue to struggle in the area’s housing market. The students found that Connecticut’s housing crisis has contributed to more than 70,000 job openings statewide because workers are unable to live near their jobs.
Students recommended that the Greater Bridgeport area implement a program similar to the Norwalk Workforce Housing Program, which requires that 10 percent of new housing units be designated as workforce housing. They also evaluated programs like the Good Neighbor Next Door initiative and the Work with RIDE Act.
“The goal is not to push change simply for the sake of change, but to develop practical solutions that support working families, essential workers, and the long-term stability of the Greater Bridgeport Region,” said Amauri Rodriguez AA’25,’27.
A second group examined Bridgeport’s exclusion from Acela high‑speed rail service. Despite its population and redevelopment, Bridgeport has missed out on benefits such as economic development and higher property values. Students identified Connecticut’s underinvestment in infrastructure—compared with states like Rhode Island—as a key factor. They evaluated options including private investment in trains, reconfiguring seating to increase accessibility, and investing in rail infrastructure.