Alders Advance $2,000 Fines For Landlords

Landlord fines for housing code violations are on track to jump from $250 apiece to up to $2,000 a day — thanks to a state-enabled local law newly endorsed by an aldermanic committee. 

The Board of Alders Legislation Committee unanimously voted Tuesday night in support of that proposal to amend the city’s housing code. The meeting took place in the Aldermanic Chamber on the second floor of City Hall.

The goal of the proposed amendment submitted by the Elicker administration is to better align city protocol with a recently approved state law that includes a host of policies aimed at boosting tenants’ rights and improving the quality of housing stock. 

One of those state-approved policies allows municipalities to increase fines for housing code violations from $250 to $2,000. (Read a breakdown of the bill here.)

The local law endorsed by alders Tuesday night would allow for the city to fine landlords in line with that state law — that is, up to $2,000 per violation per day. 

Addressing the committee on Tuesday night were new Livable City Initiative (LCI) Director Liam Brennan and city Corporation Counsel Patricia King.

The proposed ordinance amendment heard and endorsed by the committee alders calls for adjusting the role of LCI hearing officers to allow them to adjudicate housing code violations at a city level, rather than passing these cases off to the state-level board of appeals. It would also increase fines for code-violating landlords to a maximum of $2,000 per violation per day. 

The local law doesn’t spell out the dollar amount itself in its own text. Instead, it refences the $2,000-a-day-penalty-enabling state law as allowing for such a fine.

The relevant section of the proposed city law endorsed by alders Tuesday night states: ​“Any person who violates any provision of this title shall be subject to citation and fine, pursuant to the penalties of C.G.S. § 7 – 148(c)(7)(A), and each day’s failure to comply with any such provision shall constitute a separate violation.”

The proposed code amendment now heads to the full Board of Alders for review and a potential final vote. 

Tuesday’s vote of support for the $2,000-a-day-fines proposal follows the Legislation Committee’s first hearing and debate on a similar matter last October. Committee alders voted on Tuesday in support of dropping that proposal, since it has essentially been incorporated into the new ordinance amendment.

Click here, here, and here for previous articles about landlords getting fined in court at the current $250-per-violation rate. And click here to read Tuesday’s proposed ordinance amendment in full.

King noted on Tuesday that hearing officers will have the authority to be flexible with fine deadlines for landlords on a case-by-case basis, should a landlord not be able to pay the fine on time. 

In the current wording of the code, issues of fines require a conviction in court which, according to Brennan, makes fining landlords without going to court functionally impossible.

“Currently, the overlay says you could face a $100-a-day fine,” Brennan clarified. ​“But this has actually not been used. It is a penalty in theory only, but not in actuality.”

With the proposed passage of this new amendment, landlords would be given numerous warnings. With a first notice, landlords might have 24 hours to respond in more urgent situations, such as a carbon monoxide leak. Other code violations might come with periods to come into compliance.

After a re-inspection, if the property still fails, the city will send a second notice of violation, which will lead to a hearing before a hearing officer. If at that point the landlord does not pay the fine, a notice of assessment is issued, and after a 30-day to one-year waiting period, the assessment can be filed to state court.

“The goal here is compliance,” King said. ​“We’re not here to bother people with big fines.”

Hill Alder Evelyn Rodriguez raised concerns about how exactly these hearing officers would be informed on ​“backgrounds” regarding cases. Brennan explained that the officers will be trained in group and individual settings, with the mayor’s office approving their placement. LCI staff will prepare documents and summary files for the officer, who will then make decisions from there.

According to Brennan, for cases that do end up going to state court, the court could place a lien on the property. For those staying in the city and not going to court, LCI would recommend what the penalty should be. But in both situations, the hearing officer would ultimately assess the fine. He further clarified that this is already the process for anti-blight and landlord licensing.

“This is part of a larger effort … to streamline all these processes, so that they conform more to what we think public expectations are,” Brennan said.

Under this proposed amendment, if a landlord were to appeal LCI’s citation to the state court, the fine would still be $2,000 per violation per day. The case could also undergo state-level prosecution by the state’s attorney’s office, as is already an option now, and could receive a fine of $250 per violation. Brennan noted that not many cases actually reach this point, describing the process as ​“extremely onerous.”

In any case, the two options for state prosecution still stand — either through the state’s attorney’s office, or through a landlord’s appeal of the civil citation process, which this amendment would allow if approved. Additionally, if a landlord feels the damage to a property was the fault of the tenant, they can appeal the citation to the Board of Alders, as stated in the amendment.

Hill Alder Carmen Rodriguez raised concerns for residents who are smaller landlords and might not be able to afford the fees enacted by LCI. 

At this, Brennan noted that LCI would ​“work with them,” adding that during the investigation period, different specialists who are familiar with the community would provide details for the hearing officer. He gave an example in which an owner has a residential license for a property that, though the conditions violate housing code, has an exemption from enforcement.

“We see who the owner is. Sometimes we might know that person, or that person is an elderly member of the community, and they didn’t apply for the exemption,” Brennan said.

He explained that the staff would reach out and notify this owner that they didn’t apply for the exemption. Further, he noted that there were cases this week that ​“technically fall under enforcement” but were exempt properties. 

A total of five members of the public testified Tuesday, all in support of both proposals.

Alexis Terry said that abuse from her landlord led to her being back on the streets. Terry, who is an activist with Unhoused Activists Community Team (U‑ACT), has been unhoused for the past few months after what she described as negligence from her landlord for over a year, and loud living conditions that triggered her PTSD. She said that there are no checks on landlords to take care of their tenants, and expressed frustration that the onus often falls on tenants to defend themselves.

“Something needs to be done,” Terry said. ​“There’s a certain trauma with negligent landlords.”

And for former New Haven resident Lisa McKnight, who now lives in West Haven, the additional pressures on landlords are a long time coming. Her own parents who lived in New Haven only learned of a carbon monoxide leak in their home thanks to an LCI’s services. 

“There’s a saying, if it’s broke, don’t fix it. It’s broke. It needs to be fixed.” McKnight said. ​“And this…is the best effort I have ever seen to fix it.”

Ultimately, the Legislation Committee unanimously recommended approval the two amendments. 

“I think all of us on the board receive many complaints from constituents about uptake and unsanitary conditions and rental units, something I’ve experienced as a renter in New Haven as well,” East Rock / Downtown Alder Eli Sabin said, ​“and we all need to make sure that our city is equipped to enforce our housing code and keep tenants safe across the city.”

In a follow-up comment provided to the Independent, Sabin added, ​“I’m very excited that New Haven is going to be one of the first cities in the state to increase our housing code fines under the state law I helped pass in 2023. That law was the result of the many stories coming out of our community about landlords who were getting fined only $250 for failing to address unsafe and unhealthy conditions in their rental units.”

He said that, in his day job at Connecticut Voices for Children, he proposed increasing the maximum fine to $2,000, and the state legislature ultimately adopted that proposal. ​“I’m grateful the city is working to include the increased fine in the amended housing code ordinance so we can protect tenants across our city.”