During my days of legal practice i represented many landlords and, in fact, I’ve occasionally been a landlord myself. Universally, a good tenant is a treasure, and landlords want to hang on to them. Bad tenants, however — late payers; screamers; drunken party hosts are just a few examples — are unwanted by both the landlord and, in the case of nuisance tenants, fellow tenants as well.
Connecticut landlord/tenant law is grossly lopsided in favor of tenants and against landlords, and it take can months, even, in the worst cases, years to evict a stubborn tenant, while the property deteriorates and the rent goes unpaid. Rather than pursue evictions, many times a landlord will simply wait out the lease period and hope that the tenant clears out. If the renters hold over, then the laborious process of eviction must be initiated, but if all that needs to be proved is the expiration of time, then at least the defenses are limited and, even in Connecticut, there will be an end in sight, eventually. If instead, as this bill will accomplish, “fault” must be proved, an eviction can be delayed forever — all while the tenant lives rent-free. Unfortunately for property owners, those rent payments are almost never recoverable.
But for the Hartford Yahoos, that’s a feature, not a (bed) bug.
HARTFORD — One of the most hotly debated bills of Connecticut's past few legislative sessions is back again this year – this time with new backing from Gov. Ned Lamont.
Under a proposal that advanced out of the Housing Committee last week, landlords in properties of at least five units would be barred from evicting tenants at the end of their leases without specific cause to do so.
The bill's proponents say renters shouldn't be booted from their homes in retaliation for complaints or because a landlord wants to raise rents, while opponents say landlords should be free to choose whether to renew a lease.
While versions of the proposal have failed in previous sessions, advocates hope this year will be different, noting Lamont's office has told them the governor is onboard.
>>>>
"You're here for one of the most important changes that we're going to make this year," said Rep. Anthony Nolan, D-New London. "If someone is going to be uprooted from their homes, there should be a clear and legitimate reason."
It’s not hard to evict toublesome tenants. Oh! Well, okay, maybe it is, but that’s a good thing:
"There are many, many landlords in this legislature that are saying, 'Oh, it's too hard to evict somebody,'" said Sen. Martha Marx, another New London Democrat. "No, it's not. And guess what, it should be hard to evict somebody."
>>>>
Landlord groups and some Republican lawmakers quickly pushed back Tuesday, arguing the eviction proposal is unfair to those who own and manage rental properties, and could harm tenants by reducing the number of available apartments. It also could spur landlords to conduct more thorough background checks on prospective renters and complicate the removal of disruptive neighbors, they say.
"We create a perpetual tenant," said John Souza, president of the Connecticut Coalition of Property Owners. "If I have to take somebody in, they're going to be my tenant forever, and it's going to hurt the small people trying to look for an apartment."
Though landlords would still be able to evict tenants who fail to pay their rent or violate the terms of their leases, many prefer removing residents at the end of their leases, as opposed to pursuing formal evictions in court.
"Leases have a first day and a last day that landlords and tenants both agree to, and there are times when a landlord needs to non-renew a lease," Jessica Doll, executive director of the Connecticut Apartment Association, said in a statement. "When a tenant violates their lease or creates an unsafe situation that is disruptive or threatening to other residents, ending the lease at its termination date is the only reasonable tool housing providers have to protect their communities."
In a statement Tuesday, Rep. Tony Scott, R-Monroe, called the proposal "state-sanctioned trespassing," arguing it harms both landlords and tenants.
As has been the case in other recent legislative sessions, the eviction bill generated hours of testimony during a public hearing in February, with numerous tenants speaking in favor of the proposal and landlords testifying against it. Ultimately, the bill passed out of the Housing Committee last week in an 11-8 vote, drawing opposition from all six Republicans, as well as two Democrats.
Whereas previous versions of the "no-fault" eviction bill have advanced out of the Housing Committee but failed to come up for a vote in the House or Senate, Felipe said he's confident this year will be different. The governor is onboard, more legislators have embraced the cause and, unlike last year, there's no other major housing bill demanding lawmakers' attention, he noted.
>>>>
Marx, who serves with Felipe as co-chair of the Housing Committee, encouraged tenant activists to lobby her colleagues who don't support the bill, framing the issue as a clash between landlords and renters.
"There is a power struggle going on, and the landlords think they own you; they think they can tell you what to do." Marx said. "There are people that sit on the Housing Committee that think having a roof over your head is not a right. Well, it is a right."
Liberals always seem to want to create “rights” that somone else is required to provide. Funny, that.
