Landlord-Outing Effort Advances

A plan to put a face — or at least a human name — on landlords registered as limited liability companies (LLCs) moved ahead, as part of an effort to improve the city’s residential licensing program by tying sometimes inscrutable companies to ​“natural persons.”

That plan received a favorable recommendation Wednesday night during the latest special meeting of the City Plan Commission. The three-and-a-half-hour virtual meeting took place online via Zoom.

The local land-use commissioners voted unanimously in support of a proposed amendment to Article XIV, Section 17 – 74 of the city’s code of ordinances. That proposed law change concerns — as the amendment’s title puts it — ​“residential rental business licenses and transparency of ownership.”

Click here to read the proposed amendment in full.

At the center of the proposed amendment would be a requirement that landlords who register their multi-family rental properties with the city through the residential rental licensing program provide an actual — or ​“natural” — person’s name and contact information.

The proposal defines ​“natural person” as ​“a living human being, not less than eighteen years of age. Natural person does not include any legal entity or other legal fiction ordinarily granted the status of person under Connecticut State Law.”

That way, if the Livable City Initiative (LCI) — which oversees the licensing program and citywide housing code enforcement — needs to reach a landlord about urgent repairs or tenant concerns or anything else, city inspectors will know exactly which human being to contact, and won’t have to first wade through a Russian nesting doll’s worth of limited liability company (LLC) corporate names.

“We’re trying to bring transparency to the LLCs who own a large portion of the multifamily units” in the city, LCI Executive Director Arlevia Samuel told the City Plan Commissioners Wednesday night.

“The LLC hides details and it makes it very hard sometimes to get to an actual person, to hold someone accountable.”

That means that LCI sometimes has to spend public money making emergency repairs to housing, and then has to spend time and resources tracking down the actual landlord behind the company in a bid to recoup those costs.

“One of the issues we have when we do try to hold landlords to account, they often say, ​‘Well, I didn’t get the notice,’” city attorney Michael Pinto added. ​“This will require that the agent for the service of process be a natural person that they cannot hide behind.”

In an email press release sent out Wednesday night after the City Plan Commission’s favorable vote, Mayor Justin Elicker touted the proposed residential licensing program update as a win for a ​“housing for all agenda” designed to ensure that residents ​“have a place to live that protects their health, safety and wellbeing. No renter should feel powerless to a nameless to them or the city.”

The proposal now advances to a Board of Alders committee for further debate and a public hearing before heading to the full local legislature for a final vote.

“A Piece To The Puzzle”

City Plan Commissioners responded to the residential licensing program update with both enthusiasm about its landlord-accountability intent, and skepticism about its ability to make any kind of meaningful difference in New Haven’s increasingly megalandlord-dominated housing market.

Commissioner Carl Goldfield pointed to the language of the amendment itself as a cause for concern. It is too opaque and incoherent, he said, and is just asking for a savvy landlord to find loopholes.

“I would strongly suggest that somebody go back and redraft that subsection where it defines whose name is supposed to be given,” he said. ​“I found it totally confusing, and the references are inconsistent with the types of entities that are described.”

What does the amendment language actually say?

After requiring that each applicant provide ​“the full legal name, address, telephone number(s), and email address for each owner and registered agent, and the operator (if any) of record,” the amendment goes on to define ​“name” as:

In the case where the owner or operator is a corporation, partnership limited liability company or other legal entity, the name of a managing partner which shall be a natural person, shall be provided, but if there is no managing partner, the names of each general partner shall be provided. If the general partner is a legal entity, the names of all the persons who are partners in any entity shall be disclosed. In the case of a limited liability company, the name of the managing member and the names of the agents(s) registered with the State of Connecticut shall be provided. In the case of a corporation or other business entity, the name of the president, the name of the secretary, and the name of the agents(s) registered with the State of Connecticut of the business entity shall be provided. In the case of a trust, the name of at least one trustee shall be provided. In the case of an estate, the name of the executor, administrator, conservator, or other fiduciary responsible for the estate shall be provided.

The current law, meanwhile, requires that an owner who is ​“not an individual” provide the names and contact information of ​“each member or partner of the owner entity” as well as the name and contact info for ​“the agent or property management company authorized to act on behalf of the owner or owner entity.”

“Why not define the person who owns the majority equity?” Goldfield asked. Or at least make it clear who the city is looking to contact? That is: ​“Who actually owns this thing?”

Commission Vice-Chair Ed Mattison said that this proposed ​“natural person” name requirement is all well and good — but could have little meaningful impact without stepped-up enforcement.

Some of the largest landlords in the city refuse to participate in the residential licensing program, which dates back to 2005, he said, and would rather be sued by the city for not participating in the mandatory program than open themselves up to regular inspections and the ​“risk of having to fix buildings and pay fines.”

“I think it’s pretty good,” he said about the Elicker Administration’s transparency proposal, ​“but it sidesteps the question of how you’re going to make it happen.”

City Economic Development Administrator Michael Piscitelli said that this proposed law change is just ​“a piece to the puzzle” of the city’s broader efforts to hold landlords to account.

In his Wednesday night email press release, Elicker said that the city has conducted 6,645 housing code inspections so far this fiscal year — an increase of 29 percent over this time last, he claimed. He said LCI staff must complete a minimum of six inspections per day, and LCI inspectors are now equipped with tablets and have a new in-field reporting protocol after completing an inspection.

“This is a piece to the puzzle in building best practices and holding to account the landlords who have been problematic, or who just slip up once in a while,” Pinto said. ​“It is a piece of building those best practices so that we’re encouraging good behavior, and not just always chasing bad behavior.”

Before leading her colleagues in a unanimous vote of support, Commission Chair Leslie Radcliffe gave the city ​“an ​‘A’ for effort” with this proposal.

“I have confidence that the city staff involved in this will look at it and say, ​‘Where do we need to make things tighter?’” she said. ​“We need to make sure that it has teeth.” She called on the city to do ​“whatever it takes to close up loopholes … so that people will not have a legal opportunity to escape doing what is right and what is called for.”

As part of their favorable recommendation to the Board of Alders, the City Plan Commissioners also recommended that city legislators and staff look at ​“best practices from other jurisdictions” around the country to see if other municipalities have effective policies on the books for shining a light on who corporate landlords are and making sure they are responsible in the management of their rental properties.