Connecticut hearing features stark split on 'just cause' eviction bill as tenants recount harassment and landlords warn of lost tools

Connecticut legislators heard nearly a day and night of testimony on HB 6889, a bill that would expand so-called ‘‘just cause’’ eviction protections to more tenants across the state. Tenants, tenant organizers and lawyers described nonrenewal and lapses-of-time as tools landlords use to displace residents without proving lease violations; landlord groups and property owners said the bill would remove essential, fast remedies for dangerous or unauthorized occupants.

Attorney Chessen, who represents landlords, told the committee the ‘‘number 1 reason’’ landlords use lapse-of-time nonrenewals is the cost and difficulty of proving lease-violation or nuisance cases in housing court, especially when neighbors are too fearful to testify. "The cost and difficulty of a successful trial on a lease violation, lapse of time or serious nuisance case isn't justified," Chessen said during questions from committee members.

Tenants and organizers offered contrasting accounts. Greta Blau, vice president of the Hamden Tenant Union, testified she had survived an 18-month eviction that she ultimately beat and said leases are often ‘‘take it or leave it’’ for renters. "A lease is not a real negotiation like other contracts," Blau said, urging the committee to expand protections so tenants can pursue repairs and report abuse without fear of losing housing.

Other tenants described maintenance neglect, threats of nonrenewal after complaints, and targeted notices following organizing or public events. Gladys Silva Perales, a tenant union vice president and U.S. Army veteran, said a property manager posted a notice to quit accusing her of "inciting a riot" after a press event — a claim she said was retaliatory.

Tenant-side lawyers and advocates also pressed on the practical barriers for landlords who must prove nuisance: Jeff Gentz, who supervises a law school housing clinic and represents tenants, said lack of just-cause protections gives landlords "free rein" to retaliate and that many tenants live month-to-month rather than on year-long leases.

Landlords’ groups and housing providers argued the bill would undercut property rights and remove important remedies. Jeff Ferroni, who manages thousands of apartments in Connecticut, said lapse-of-time and nonrenewal are often the only practical way to stop disruptive occupants when neighbors are unwilling to testify and warned of longer-lasting harms to communities if housing providers cannot act quickly. Several housing-industry witnesses also said the package of housing bills under consideration — including security-deposit and holdover-fee limits — would reduce incentives to maintain and build housing.

Committee members asked detailed questions about drafting: Chessen warned that if statutory cross-references (notably to Connecticut General Statutes chapter 47-8-23) are not correctly handled, the bill might unintentionally eliminate existing eviction grounds such as unauthorized occupants and foreclosure-related possession claims. Supporters emphasized that the bill retains eviction-for-cause tools for tenants who violate leases, commit crimes, or pose documented safety risks.

No formal vote was recorded at the hearing. Legislators received dozens of written and oral statements from tenants, organizers, landlords, builders and legal-aid groups. Next steps are expected to include committee deliberations and possible technical amendments to clarify which causes remain available and how the change would interact with existing housing-code and fair-rent processes.

The hearing highlighted a key tension for lawmakers: balancing protections for long-term and vulnerable tenants against landlords’ need to remove dangerous or unauthorized occupants and to maintain the viability of rental investment. Several witnesses on both sides suggested technical drafting fixes could narrow the dispute; others said the disagreement reflects fundamentally different policy goals about how Connecticut should shape its housing market.

The committee is expected to continue work on HB 6889 and related bills in the coming weeks. If passed, HB 6889 would extend just-cause safeguards beyond the limited groups now protected, changing how nonrenewals and lapse-of-time cases are treated in the state.