Anti-Eviction Fight Returns To Capitol

Hartford – Connecticut Tenants Union President and New Havener Hannah Srajer was in the middle of laying into the ​“unchecked greed” of corporate landlords who use no-fault evictions to hike rents when the co-chair of the state legislature’s Housing Committee said her three minutes were up. She asked Srajer to summarize the rest of her testimony. 

“The tenant movement is here to stay,” Srajer concluded. ​“We’re not raising new problems. We’re just making them more visible. Let’s get this done.”

What Srajer and other tenants union advocates who turned out to a marathon state Housing Committee hearing on Tuesday were looking to get done is passing Raised House Bill (H.B.) 6889: An Act Concerning Evictions For Cause.

If passed and signed into law, the bill would prohibit a landlord from evicting a rent-paying tenant simply because their lease has expired, so long as that tenant has lived in an apartment building with five or more units for at least a year. The same protections already exist for disabled and elderly tenants, and a similar bill was heard by the Housing Committee last year.

This year’s proposal is co-sponsored by rookie State Reps. Steve Winter of New Haven and Laurie Sweet of Hamden, among more than half a dozen fellow Democrats. The ​“just cause” expansion bill comes a year after a similar bill made it through the Housing Committee on a party-line vote, but ultimately failed for lack of support from state lawmakers.

More than 280 members of the public signed up to testify at Tuesday’s hearing on 26 Housing Committee bills, including the ​“just cause” expansion proposal. 

Supporters of the bill, like Srajer and Downtown/East Rock Alder Eli Sabin (who wrote in with pre-submitted testimony), argued that expanded ​“just cause” protections will create a more stable rental market and reduce evictions and their manifold associated harms for tenants at no cost — and right away — by tapping into a law that has been on the books for certain renters since the 1980s.

“If I could blink my eyes and build 150,000 new units immediately, I would do that,” Srajer said on Tuesday, referencing the argument that the best way to address the state’s housing crisis is to add lots more supply. ​“This [just cause bill] is a way to safeguard the housing stock that we have.”

Just like last year, landlords from across Connecticut — including New Haven — came out in full force against the bill. They submitted dozens of pieces of written testimony criticizing the proposal as exaggerating the prevalence of so-called ​“lapse of time” evictions and by essentially requiring landlords to house problem tenants so long as they continue to pay rent.

“Cause is a very difficult thing to prove and can take years and courts to reach a conclusion,” Wooster Square landlord Adam Bonoff of Easton stressed in his own written testimony. ​“A drug dealer may be a very good payer but very bad for a building, as is a child molester, thief or other type of intimidator. If this becomes law it will help way more bad guys and harm many more good people.”

Meanwhile, Srajer’s appearance before the Housing Committee as a lead proponent of this anti-eviction bill was just the latest indication of the growing political statewide power of a New Haven-grown tenants union movement. Fellow city residents and tenants union leaders Luke Melonakos-Harrison and Jessica Stamp were also scheduled to testify in support of the bill later in the day.

"Sick And Tired"

Roughly three hours in to the ongoing hearing, Srajer took her turn to urge the legislators to back the bill after Democratic State Rep. Ann Hughes of Easton ceded the majority of her public testimony time to the New Haven-based statewide tenants union organizer.

Srajer told the committee members that the hundreds of Connecticut Tenants Union members she represents are ​“sick and tired of watching out-of-state corporate landlords evict whole neighborhoods, whole communities, so they can raise the rent for maximum profit.” They’re sick and tired of advocating for timely repairs, preventative maintenance, and reasonable rents ​“only for landlords to retaliate with no-fault evictions.”

She framed H.B. 6889 as an ​“easy, no-cost step to solving the record-high displacement, insecurity, and instability that renters in Connecticut face.” She pointed out that these very protections have existed for four decades for renters over the age of 62 and those with physical and mental disabilities. It’s time to expand these protections to an even wider group of tenants.

When Democratic State Sen. Martha Marx of New London asked her to wrap up her testimony and Srajer responded with the tenant movement’s staying power, members of the public sitting behind her — including those wearing white shirts emblazoned with bold black text reading ​“Expand Just Cause” — burst into applause. Marx asked attendees not to clap at the public hearing; Democratic State Rep. and Housing Committee Co-Chair Antonio Felipe, of Bridgeport, asked attendees to instead raise and wave their hands quietly when they want to indicate their support for a certain piece of testimony.

The only Housing Committee member to push back on Srajer’s testimony Tuesday was Ranking Member and Republican State Rep. Tony Scott of Monroe.

What happens if a landlord needs to remove a tenant from a building in order to make needed repairs? he asked. ​“Really, truly renovating that unit” often requires getting a tenant out. How could one do that if evictions were only allowed for ​“just cause” like nonpayment of rent?

Srajer replied that passing this bill would empower more tenants to speak up to landlords about parts of their properties that most need to be fixed. Right now, she said, so many tenants are too afraid of a potential no-fault eviction to ask their landlords to make needed repairs. ​“What passing an expanded just cause law would do is enable folks who right now fear retaliation for speaking out for repairs to say, ​‘Hey, I really need you to look at the heating.’ ”

She added that, if a landlord needs to make major fixes to an apartment, then they should temporarily house a tenant elsewhere — as is the case after, say, a fire — and then move that tenant back into the unit when the repairs are done. 

“I just want to say thank you for being here,” Committee Co-Chair Felipe said to Srajer. ​“I know this is a big priority for you guys” at the Connecticut Tenants Union. He said that, in his district of Bridgeport, he’s seen ​“mass evictions” of tenants by landlords looking to raise rents. 

Srajer agreed. ​“If it’s not in your district, it is coming for your districts.” Unless, she said, if this bill is passed.

"Blatantly Unconstitutional" Vs. "Fundamental Dignity Of Renters"

In written testimony submitted to the committee, local landlord and property manager David Parisier, speaking up as a member of the Connecticut Apartment Association, wrote that ​“lapse of time” — the legal term for an eviction due to the expiration of a lease — ​“is not an eviction” at all. ​“It is simply the conclusion of a pre-agreed upon lease contract between a tenant and a landlord.”

He added that ​“lapse of time is rarely used — and it is a housing provider’s only way of removing a resident who is breaking the terms of a lease and threatening the quiet enjoyment of the entire community. … The narrative that landlords use lapse of time to clear out a building, renovate, and increase rents is overblown — nobody wants to get rid of a good resident.” 

(The written testimony Parisier submitted was a form letter, which was signed and submitted by a number of different landlords from across the city and the state, including, among others, Scott Ferguson of Cue Residential, which owns the Liberty apartment building downtown.)

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional interference with private contracts,” wrote landlord lawyer Robert Chesson, ​“it is a ​‘taking’ of property under a variety of protections, and cannot be supported by a compelling government interest.”

A number of tenants and tenant advocates, meanwhile, wrote in in support of the bill.

Downtown/East Rock Alder Eli Sabin, writing in his job as legislative coordinator for Connecticut Voices for Children, submitted testimony in support of the proposal.

“These requirements are not unprecedented. Connecticut’s just cause eviction statute, established in the 1980s, has been vital in ensuring that elderly and disabled residents cannot be evicted without reason,” Sabin wrote. ​“H.B. 6889 is a natural progression of this statute, and other states such as New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, and California have already implemented just cause protections for all renters.” 

This bill would ​“improve housing stability and work to slow or even reverse the trend of rising evictions,” Sabin continued. ​“By expanding just cause evictions, as proposed by H.B. 6889, no-fault move-out notices and evictions in the state can be reduced by more than 11 percent, increasing housing stability for Connecticut’s tenants and families and preventing more people from experiencing homelessness.

Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness CEO Sarah Fox agreed. ​“Connecticut is in the midst of a housing affordability and homelessness crisis,” she wrote. ​“We cannot afford to let unjust evictions undermine the stability of thousands of families. By passing H.B. 6889, you can strengthen communities, prevent unnecessary homelessness, and protect the fundamental dignity of renters who have done everything right.”

Thomas Connolly, a West Hartford resident, also submitted testimony on behalf of New Haven’s Peoples Center, in support of the bill.

“What’s the holdup? Hardworking tenants who pay rent and follow the rules are being evicted simply because landlords want higher profits,” he wrote. ​“Many of these landlords are from out of state, focused solely on maximizing their earnings with no regard for Connecticut residents.” The only reason not to pass this bill, he said, is ​“pressure from unscrupulous landlords.”