State lawmakers are considering a bill to require municipalities to gather information about landlords who live elsewhere, including their current address.
Substitute House Bill 5161 is one of three bills on the agenda Monday for the legislature’s Planning & Development Committee that were referred by the Housing Committee. The bill would require municipalities with a population of at least 25,000 to “require certain residential property owners and landlords to report specified information to the municipality, such as their current residential address.”
Existing state law allows municipalities to collect such information, but does not require it. Municipalities with a population smaller than 25,000 would still be allowed to collect the information but it would not be a requirement.
The bill also modifies the requirement for municipalities to collect other information, including additional identifying information for the “owner, landlord, or agent in charge of the building.”
Under current law, the identifying information requirement applies only to certain individuals associated with a business entity that owns a rental property.
The legislation seeks to address the issue of out-of-state landlords who acquire properties in Connecticut and then cannot be reached when an issue arises because no current address is on file.
The bill would allow a municipality to fine any landlord between $250 and $1,000 who fails to provide the required information, changing the violation from an infraction under current law.
Jim Heckman, general counsel for Connecticut Realtors, submitted testimony during a Housing Committee public hearing on Feb. 17 opposing the legislation, describing it as another unfunded mandate and stating that its purpose is unclear.
“If the intent is to ensure tenants or municipalities can contact a nonresident property owner, the bill does not require the collection of practical contact information, such as an email address or telephone number, which would be more directly responsive to that objective,” he said.
Testifying in support of the bill, Chief States Attorney Patrick Griffin said it addresses an ongoing problem faced by code
enforcement and housing prosecution authorities.
Griffin said the “widespread practice among nonresidential landlords” is to provide only a commercial mailbox as an address or the address of the owned property.
“These practices severely limit the enforcement of fire, health, and housing code violations by municipal agencies,” he said.
Also on the committee’s agenda is HB 5261, which would allow municipalities to prohibit landlords from raising rents after being charged with multiple state or local code violations.
The legislation would apply to landlords who own any building that has received at least two violations of local ordinances on health and safety or the state building code.
According to an analysis of the bill by the Office of Legislative Research, any ordinance adopted by a municipality would specify how an affected landlord will be notified that a unit is subject to a rent freeze for uncorrected violations and how the landlord can contest the rent freeze or have it lifted.
Under existing state law, tenants can challenge their rent or a rent increase — either via a fair rent commission or the courts — when a unit is in need of repairs or doesn’t comply with local health and safety laws or the state building code.
Sarah White, an attorney for the Connecticut Fair Housing Center, submitted testimony during a Housing Committee public hearing on the bill on Feb. 24 stating her organization’s strong support for the bill.
“Landlords who are not providing safe and healthy housing to their tenants and repeatedly violating public safety laws should not be able to demand even higher rent from tenants who are not even getting the bare minimum of a safe place
to live,” said.
John Souza, president of the Connecticut Coalition of Property Owners, submitted testimony opposing the bill during the same hearing. He said municipalities already have “the tools necessary to penalize housing providers who don’t cooperate with violation orders,” and the legislature should not “complicate the business any further.”
The third bill on the agenda for Monday’s meeting is HB 5260, which would prohibit municipalities from adopting or enforcing ordinances that forbid a homeless person from using outdoor areas on public property for certain activities.
The list of activities cited in the bill include, among others, eating or resting; sleeping in a legally parked vehicle; soliciting donations; and accessing medical care.
The bill also generally prohibits municipalities from stopping
homeless people from using publicly accessible hygiene facilities, if other people are allowed to use them.
The legislation would allow municipalities to adopt or enforce ordinances if necessary to “prevent a danger or likely danger to public health, welfare or safety.”
It defines public places as property that is municipally owned or managed and publicly accessible. It specifically excludes “the interior areas of a structure, state-owned property in the custody of the Department of Transportation, commercial airports, or land containing a nursery or K-12 school.”
All three bills were referred to the Planning & Development Committee by the Housing Committee, which approved favorable recommendations for HB 5161 and HB 5261 by identical 12-6 votes and HB 5260 by a 13-6 vote.
The Planning & Development Committee is scheduled to meet Monday at 10:30 a.m. in Room 2A of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.
