A proposed change to Burlington’s city charter that could ultimately bar evictions without “just cause” passed a critical hurdle Friday and is poised for final approval by the state House of Representatives.
The charter change — which would allow city councilors to pass an ordinance restricting the situations in which a landlord can evict tenants or not renew their leases — was approved by the House in a 98-49 vote, with four Democrats, two independents and all but one of the Republicans who were present opposing it. Rep. Thomas Burditt of West Rutland was the sole GOP member in favor.
To pass, the charter amendment must clear the House one more time and get approval from the Senate and governor.
The measure that lawmakers signed off on has more caveats than the language endorsed by 63% of Burlington voters in 2021 after the House Committee on Government Operations tweaked the bill earlier this week.
Committee members proposed those amendments to remedy what they saw as a lack of detail in the charter change language. City leaders defended their version of the bill, saying that the charter change doesn’t create policy but carves out what city councilors have the authority to do.
In the latest version of the bill, any just cause eviction ordinance the council passes must give landlords a chance not to renew a lease after tenants have lived there for one year.
The committee also added amendments enumerating what actions warrant a just cause eviction. If a tenant or their guests commits a crime in the rental unit or “adversely affects the health and safety of the other tenants, the landlord, or the landlord’s representative,” the property owner has grounds for an eviction, according to the bill.
Another amendment required councilors to “mitigate potential impacts” the ordinance could have on small landlords, though it held back from defining what defined a small landlord.
Provisions left unchanged from the proposal’s original language would outlaw “unreasonable rent increases” that result in “de facto evictions or nonrenewals.” The committee also left alone language that would allow landlords to evict a tenant for “substantial renovations that preclude occupancy.”
Republican lawmakers and one independent spoke out against the bill Friday. An attempt by Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe, to have the House Committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs inspect the bill was shot down by voice vote.
Rep. Carl Rosenquist, R-Georgia, said the bill makes obsolete the agreement landlords and tenants sign when leasing an apartment.
“It’s hard for me to believe that contracts between people … don’t live up to what the contract actually says,” Rosenquist said. “If the rental agreement was to terminate after a year … and if the landlord wanted to move forward with having the tenant leave, he could not essentially count on that being the case.”
Yet Rep. Barbara Rachelson, D-Burlington, challenged the notion that just cause evictions are a radical policy, pointing to a number of states — including New Hampshire — where the practice is cemented in law.
“This is not some, ‘Wow, Vermont is going to pass this new, cutting-edge law,’” Rachelson said.
During the debate, Rep. Mark Higley, R-Lowell, expressed concern about the standards required to evict a problematic tenant. To be granted “just cause,” a landlord would have to get neighbors to testify against a tenant in court, Higley said.
Rep. Scott Beck, R-St. Johnsbury, inquired as to whether the charter change would forbid landlords from clearing out tenants if they “decided to go in a different direction with the property.”
“Quite frankly, I think the question would need to be more specific,” responded Rep. Bob Hooper, D-Burlington, who reported the amended bill to the floor. “If the different direction you were going is to rent to family members, (the ordinance) would not apply. If the direction is to put in a hot tub and charge a whole lot more rent, (it) does apply.”
The bill’s fate beyond the House is uncertain. Though he has not declared his stance on the proposed charter amendment, Republican Gov. Phil Scott has asked the state Department of Housing to study whether the proposal could end up reducing housing supply — a concern voiced by some Republican lawmakers Friday.
“Instead of focusing on new rules and regulations, we believe the the (sic) Legislature should instead be focusing on funding the Governor’s historic housing package and reducing red tape to allow the construction of more housing,” Scott spokesperson Jason Maulucci told VTDigger in an email.
Correction: This story has been updated to more accurately reflect the full party breakdown of the House vote. Also, gubernatorial spokesperson Jason Maulucci’s surname had been misspelled.
