Exchanges between legislators and members of the public Tuesday on the issue of housing revealed a range of broad questions Connecticut lawmakers will grapple with this session — and the underlying debate about whether to prioritize housing as a necessity or as a business opportunity.
It’s been a familiar question and a delicate balance for the Housing Committee in recent sessions, particularly as committee members consider measures to regulate the relationship between landlords and tenants.
During Tuesday’s public hearing, the committee heard testimony from renters, landlords and housing experts on a bill that would require landlords to provide a reason when evicting tenants in larger apartment complexes.
Senate Bill 143 would end evictions that occur when leases run out for tenants in buildings with five units or manufactured mobile home parks. That protection already exists for senior citizens and people with disabilities.
Senate Democrats also said Tuesday morning that they plan to include the eviction protections in their priority bill, which also asks for more money for the homelessness response system and additional funds for the state’s Rental Assistance Program, among other measures.
“There are low-income renters, middle-income renters that are being pushed out of Connecticut and pushed out of some towns into places where they are losing connections to their church, they are losing connections to family and friends,” said committee co-chair Sen. Marilyn Moore, D-Bridgeport, during the Senate Democrats’ press conference.
The Connecticut Tenants Union, among other groups, spoke in favor of the bill, which they refer to as “just cause protections.” Tenant union leadership asked for it to be extended to smaller apartments as well. Several landlord groups spoke against it, saying it would take away one of their tools to remove troublesome tenants.
About 200 people signed up to give public comment Tuesday.
Among the first exchanges of the hours-long debate was between Connecticut Tenants Union President Hannah Srajer and committee ranking member Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott. The conversation was emblematic of longstanding debates about the best way to govern landlord-tenant relationships and provide housing in a capitalist market.
Srajer explained that tenant unions had seen instances of landlords putting tenants who unionize on month-to-month leases, then evicting union leadership when leases expire.
“Would you agree there’s a power imbalance between the person who owns the property and the person who seeks to be housed by the property?” Srajer asked.
“Yes, generally speaking, it’s in favor of the tenant,” said Sampson, who is a landlord. His response was met with laughter and scoffs of disbelief from the audience.
Sampson is one of the more conservative members of the Republican caucus. He’s also spoken out many times in support of landlords and in favor of the free market’s ability to regulate itself without government involvement.
“I’m a human being,” Sampson said at the close of the exchange. “And I have people in the world that are close to me. Some of them are struggling. I’ve struggled in my life. There have been times when I didn’t know where my next meal was going to come from.
“We have to figure out exactly how we’re going to move forward with these things. And the question is whether or not we should try and solve the root problem, the cost of things, or we should try and impose more rules and regulations on one side of a free transaction.”
Srajer went on to say that Black and brown tenants are more likely to face eviction, saying they often face discrimination. She told legislators about a tenant union where a new landlord bought the building and told tenants, most of whom were Black, that they had to leave.
The new landlord, she said, planned to renovate the place and rent it out to “students and doctors.”
“That is the type of thing that we’re talking about, where landlords can come in and say ‘At the end of everybody’s lease terms, you’re not renewed because we want different types of people in this building,’” Srajer said. “That’s an example of what I’m talking about when I talk about discrimination in evictions.”
“Is the discrimination, based on the fact that they’re trying to make more of a profit?” Sampson asked.
“Yes,” audience members chorused, along with Srajer.
“Is there something wrong with the landlord making a profit?” Sampson asked.
“Yes,” audience members and Srajer answered, in unison again.
There were more than 20,600 evictions filed in Connecticut in 2023, and about 11% of those were lapse-of-time evictions, meaning the lease term was up. That makes up over 2,000 evictions annually.
Advocates think that expanding protections would shrink that number and reduce the number of tenants who move out when they get warning letters or other notice from their landlord, before an eviction is filed.
Evictions can have wide-ranging impacts on the well-being of renters. They can damage financial stability, community connections, physical health, mental health and access to transportation. People of color and women, particularly Black women, are more likely than their white, male counterparts to face eviction, research shows.
Many landlords have also said that bans on most evictions during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and long waits for rental assistance payments left them lacking expected income for months without recourse.
Tenants said Tuesday that they have faced uncertainty, rent increases and poor living conditions. Many said it would bring security to have just-cause protections.
Imelda Barajas, a member of advocacy group Make the Road, said the lapse-of-time evictions had been used as a tool to keep tenants from speaking out.
“It is not surprising to me that those who have the most want to take away from those who have the least, because it is what I see every day,” Barajas said, speaking through a translator.
Srajer pointed to increases in homelessness and rising rents as part of the reason for a need for more protections.
“People are working two, three jobs to afford rents that only grow higher and higher each year,” Srajer said. “Every renter in this room, every renter watching is experiencing the housing crisis as their personal reality, not as a headline in the news. We have not managed to keep people housed safely, securely and consistently in Connecticut.”
Landlords raised concerns that if the bill passed, it would become difficult to offer housing. They said they use lapse-of-time evictions in cases in which tenants cause problems for neighbors or in the common areas.
“This is a fundamental property right, to choose if I want to renew a lease or not,” said John Souza, president of the Connecticut Coalition of Property Owners, in written testimony. “The government should not interfere.”
Lauren Tagliatela, a landlord who operates in the New Haven area, spoke against the law. Tagliatela said that she’s used lapse-of-time evictions for tenants who cause problems, including one who had been defecating in common areas.
“A lease is a contract with a start and end date agreed to by the housing provider and a resident,” Tagliatela said. “When the term ends, both parties choose whether or not to renew. There are several reasons why a resident’s lease is not renewed, and many times it’s because of lease violations that cause harm to other residents or our employees.”
Several jurisdictions, including New Jersey, New Hampshire, California and Boston, have just-cause policies.
During the last legislative session, Connecticut passed a law that strengthened tenant protections, including protection against discrimination for LGBTQ renters and prohibiting many types of application fees, among other things.
The debate over tenant protections is occurring against a backdrop of rising rents and severe shortage of affordable housing for low-income tenants in Connecticut. Many have lost their homes because of rent increases, and homelessness rates have soared over the past couple of years.
Housing attorney Rafie Podolsky said during the hearing that protections for senior citizens and people with disabilities have existed for years in Connecticut, and that the state Supreme Court had ruled that the law was constitutional. He said it had been around for long enough that the expansion shouldn’t be so controversial.
“I’d like to read that case law just to see exactly how they came to that very insane and un-American viewpoint,” Sampson replied.
