Connecticut Housing Committee Advances Eviction Reform Bill

Connecticut’s Housing Committee moved Tuesday toward approving a bill that would largely end no-fault evictions in apartment buildings with five or more units, but the debate turned contentious as the Senate Republican ranking member questioned whether affordable housing shortages and race-based discrimination actually exist.

Senate Bill 257 would prohibit landlords from evicting tenants in larger apartment buildings without cause when a lease ends. The bill does carve out exceptions, allowing evictions when a landlord wants to make the unit their primary residence or move in an immediate family member. Tenant advocates have pushed for the legislation, arguing that lapse-of-time evictions, which happen when leases expire, are used as a backdoor form of discrimination. Landlords have pushed back, saying the bill will make it harder for them to maintain quality housing for renters.

Lawmakers have considered similar versions of the bill in previous sessions, but the legislation has never come to a full chamber vote.

Tuesday’s committee meeting, which leaders described as likely the last of the session, stretched into lengthy debate, much of it driven by Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, the committee’s top Republican. Sampson argued that landlord discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, or other characteristics is not a real factor in how housing decisions get made.

“Landlords don’t care about someone’s race or their sexual orientation, or any of that stuff,” Sampson said. “The only color that they tend to care about is green and whether or not you’re making that rental payment.”

Housing discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and religious affiliation is well-documented, with federal and state cases showing consistent patterns across the country and in Connecticut.

Sampson also challenged the premise that the state faces a genuine affordable housing shortage, suggesting that if units are occupied and rents are being paid, then housing is by definition affordable to those renting it.

“The truth is, if there’s a lack of housing, that means people are in those properties already, and they’re renting them, and they are paying whatever the price is. So there are people affording the housing that’s out there,” Sampson said.

Research tells a different story. More than half of Connecticut renters pay more than a third of their income toward rent, a threshold widely used to define cost-burdened households. Housing researchers, advocacy groups, and state agency reports have repeatedly documented a shortage of units affordable to lower-income residents across the state.

Housing Committee co-chair Sen. Martha Marx offered a pointed response to Sampson’s remarks about landlord motivations before the committee voted.

“I hope that’s not true,” Marx said. “I think if you’re really proud of your apartments, and you really want the family to move in, to love their apartment.”

The debate over the bill also surfaced broader frustration among Democrats with Sampson’s debate tactics. His tendency toward extended testimony has drawn criticism throughout the session. Earlier this year, Democrats moved two bills directly to the floor without the standard committee process, citing what they described as filibustering. Sampson’s approach prompted pointed comments from lawmakers Tuesday who saw it as a deliberate tactic to slow legislation.

The political fault lines here are familiar to anyone who has followed Connecticut housing fights at the Capitol. Democrats have spent years trying to pass tenant protections while navigating opposition from landlord groups and skeptical Republicans. Sampson’s willingness to publicly question whether discrimination and affordability problems exist puts him at odds not just with Democrats, but with a substantial body of housing research and legal precedent.

For tenant advocates, SB 257 represents a meaningful protection, particularly for renters in larger buildings who can be pushed out simply because a lease period ends, with no misconduct required. Landlord groups argue the change tips the balance too far and could reduce their ability to address problem situations or manage their properties effectively.

The bill now moves forward after Tuesday’s committee vote. Whether it will clear the full General Assembly and reach Gov. Ned Lamont’s desk is the next question, one that past sessions suggest won’t have an easy answer.