In November 1988, a “just cause” eviction ordinance was up for a vote in Burlington.
For months, local tenant advocates had campaigned for the protections, which would bar landlords from evicting tenants without legal cause. They had the backing of then-mayor Bernie Sanders. But that winter, the ballot question failed, 53% to 47%.
On Town Meeting Day last week — more than 30 years after it first appeared on the ballot — Burlington voters again considered just cause. And though debate on the policy had turned heated in recent weeks, the measure passed easily this time, capturing 63% of the vote.
Activists celebrated the win on Tuesday. But the decades-long debate over just cause evictions in Burlington is not over. Now, the proposal heads to the Vermont Statehouse, where it’s subject to approval by state lawmakers as part of a charter change.
The March 2 vote “was a huge step forward for just cause, but this was just one part of the journey, really,” said Tom Proctor, a local activist. “We’ve got a long way yet.”
Just cause was one of four proposed Burlington charter changes that passed on March 2, all of which are subject to approval by the state. Some of those changes, such as a proposal to give Burlington the authority to levy carbon taxes on buildings, are largely unprecedented in Vermont, and stirred up controversy locally. Whether the Legislature approves the changes will be a test of the state’s openness to Burlington’s progressive policies.
And while the future of Burlington’s left-leaning charter changes are uncertain, popular support for just cause evictions sheds light on a changing city.
An initial victory
Despite disparate outcomes, this year’s campaign for just cause evictions bore striking resemblance to that of 1988.
The debate then played out in the pages of the Burlington Free Press. One article from February of that year pitted a local landlord, Rick Sharp, against Brian Pine, at that time the chair of a tenants advocacy group, and now a city councilor.
The ordinance, Sharp said, was “ill-conceived, unwise and unfair, and it should be rejected for those reasons.” Pine countered: “The need for such a law is well documented and urgent.”
Over the past few weeks, Burlington has split along similar lines. The proposed charter change contains many of the same provisions as the 1988 proposal, and drew opposition, once again, from local landlords and Realtors.
The current proposal prevents landlords from evicting tenants at the expiration of a lease, unless they have just cause to do so. Proponents of the policy, which has been adopted in several cities nationally and statewide in New Jersey, say it provides greater stability for tenants — particularly in tight housing markets like Burlington’s.
“Just cause” for an eviction would include nonpayment of rent, violating the lease, or breaking the law. There would be exceptions in certain circumstances — if a landlord was taking the property off the rental market, for instance.
Over the past weeks, the proposal roused vocal opposition in Burlington — which at times employed misleading tactics, critics charge.
One anonymous group of landlords distributed lawn signs that suggested the eviction protections could harm people of color. The messaging was widely condemned. A political action committee called “Vermonters for Housing Affordability,” funded by the Vermont Association of Realtors, distributed mailers falsely describing the proposal as a form of “rent control,” a policy that is distinct from just cause protections.
Pine believes that in 1988, this kind of campaigning sank just cause. At the time, according to Free Press coverage, landlords had also claimed that the policy was part of an effort to bring rent control to the city.
“There was real fear being spread about what this would mean,” Pine said. “That had an impact in those days. It fell flat this time around.”
On Tuesday, the just cause ballot item received a majority of votes in each of Burlington’s eight wards — though narrowly in some. Back in 1988, the measure failed in the more affluent New North End and South End neighborhoods. This week, those districts supported just cause by thin margins: by 51% in Ward 4, for instance, and 52% in Ward 6.
Predictably, just cause was most successful in the city’s more progressive districts, capturing nearly 90% of the vote in Ward 8, where UVM students are concentrated.
But the measure performed well across party lines. In Ward 7, Progressive candidate for mayor Max Tracy received a meager 430 votes — just 21% of the total. Yet the ballot item received 1,043 votes in that ward, a 53% victory.
The opposition’s controversial lawn signs, which ignited a scandal just weeks before the vote, may have contributed to the success. “I can’t say whether it backfired,” Pine said of the tactic. “But it certainly didn’t have the intended outcome.”
The opposition’s campaign frustrated some tenants in the city. Nicholas Browne, a renter in Burlington’s South End, told VTDigger that an individual — claiming to represent Bissonette Properties, his landlord and one of Burlington’s largest property owners — had set up the controversial lawn signs opposing just cause outside Browne’s home. When Browne asked him to remove them, he refused.
“To think that the place that I live and come and go has this blatant falsehood that’s intended to misinform and confuse voters — it’s a cynical tactic,” Browne said.
Bill Bissonette did not return multiple requests for comment, and a representative for Bissonette Properties told VTDigger that she had “no knowledge” of the company’s involvement. The group that distributed the signs, which included several local landlords, remains anonymous.
Landlords, tenants react
The ballot item’s passage has some landlords worried. “It gets more and more difficult to be a landlord in this city,” said Barb Sullenger, who owns properties in Burlington.
Sullenger said the policy is an overreach. “I believe that a landlord should have the right to manage their property,” she said.
The proposal would grant the city “way too much control” over property owners, Sullenger said.
She says the policy could affect the city’s rental stock, by making landlords more unwilling to rent in the city — a common refrain among opponents to the measure. She’s not planning to stop renting any of her own units, she said.
Some of the city’s renters, meanwhile, have felt cautious optimism since Tuesday.
One tenant who spoke with VTDigger lives in a price-controlled apartment, regulated by Burlington’s inclusionary zoning ordinances. When her landlord raised her rent above the maximum “affordable” price earlier this year, the tenant was nervous about contacting the city, for fear that her lease might not be renewed.
“That was a huge reason why we were kind of forced to ‘go along to get along,’ so to speak,” she said. Just cause protections, she said, are “amazing news,” and would “definitely ease that worry.”
(The renter requested she not be named, to protect herself and her family from potential retaliation. VTDigger was able to corroborate the events via emails sent at the time.)
Housing groups in the city — such as the Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition — have celebrated the victory. And Proctor says he thinks the measure might usher in further reforms.
“Burlington is ready to really get serious about renter protections and renter rights,” he said. “And this is just the tip of the iceberg.”
But it will be several years before the proposal can become law. The next step is the Statehouse.
A challenge in Montpelier
In 2014, Burlington voters passed three charter changes to strengthen gun control in the city, by wide margins. The measures, however, stalled in the Statehouse the next year, and ultimately failed when they encountered robust opposition from lawmakers.
Proponents of just cause, and the other charter changes that passed on Town Meeting Day, worry that the eviction policy could meet the same fate.
“It’s going to take a lot of vigilance [to pass it in Montpelier]. It’s going to take a lot of activism,” Proctor said. “We have to make sure we’re there in force.”
It’s not uncommon for municipal charter changes to stall or fail in the Legislature, even when they hold strong support locally. A group of Vermont towns is lobbying to change this system, saying it harms local governance and autonomy.
State Rep. Barbara Rachelson, D-Burlington, says she is working with the rest of the Burlington delegation to win support for the just cause charter change. She expects action on the changes by April or May, though the vote could be delayed until next year.
Rachelson is optimistic that the charter change will make it through the Statehouse. “I think guns are a different beast in Vermont,” she said of the former proposals. “I don’t think this bill can get up the same emotions that that one did.”
But, she said, its fate could hinge on the strength of the opposition. “I’m hoping that there’s no lobby that will descend on it,” she said.
In Burlington, the opposition to just cause was well-financed. According to a Feb. 26 campaign filing, the PAC run by the Vermont Association of Realtors received a contribution of $33,277 from the D.C.-based National Association of Realtors in the days leading up to the election. The PAC reported more than $37,000 in campaign contributions overall.
The PAC campaigning for just cause evictions, meanwhile, raised less than a tenth of that total — $3,200. It reported just two donations over $100.
The Vermont Association of Realtors did not return a request for comment regarding its plans for advocacy on the state level.
Pine believes, though, that Tuesday’s vote was a clear sign to legislators.
“Passing by 63% is a different outcome than if it had passed by 2, 3, even 5 percent,” he said. “That really is a threshold of support that is pretty exceptional when it comes to a policy of this nature.”
Pine attributed the support in part to Burlington’s stubborn housing crisis, which has persisted for years.
“I think that there is a consensus that we’ve tried to make improvements. We’ve tried to expand the supply for both market-rate and affordable housing,” he said. “And we’ve done all of that. And it hasn’t been enough.”
CORRECTION: The original story misidentified the first name of landlord Rick Sharp.