Landlords across the state are concerned for their personal safety after Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into law a public act that will allow municipalities to pass laws requiring “absentee landlords” to register their residential addresses with the city or town that houses their property.
But the state representative who introduced the bill said the only feedback she ever received was in favor of the idea, and that she would have been open to compromise.
The law, which Rell signed on July 6, is meant to make it easier for municipalities to serve landlords with court orders or with state or municipal orders relating to maintenance of the property. The bill is aimed at any “nonresident owner” – a term that is not defined in the text of the law – of occupied or vacant rental property. The statute enables municipalities to pass laws requiring those nonresident owners to file their current residential address – or the residential address of the agent in charge of the building, if the owner is a corporation, partnership or trust – with the local tax assessor or with another municipal office. If the owner does not file an address, the address to which the municipality sends property tax bills will be considered the property address.
The address on file will be considered sufficient proof that any orders were served if the matter goes to civil or criminal court.
If the landlord violates the law, it allows municipalities to charge a civil penalty of not more than $250 for the first infraction, and not more than $1,000 for any subsequent violation.
Members of the Connecticut Property Owners Association say they do not understand the need for the bill.
“It seems like a burden placed on landlords unnecessarily,” said Leonard Campbell, chairman of the association’s Legislative Committee.
There are many ways to get in touch with a landlord without requiring them to make their residential address so easily obtainable to the public, as the new law will presumably do, said Mary Campbell, Leonard Campbell’s wife and a member of the association’s Legislative Committee.
Even good landlords can run into tenants whom – because of nonpayment of rent or other problems – they are forced to evict, Mary Campbell said. And some of those tenants could be dangerous to the person who evicted them. By requiring landlords to list their home address, that could put their safety in question, she said.
“You don’t need to complicate matters by having to feel that your family is in jeopardy,” Mary Campbell said.
The association would have liked to see the requirement that a residential address be provided were changed to one that required a physical address, she added.
“That way [the landlord] could still be reached,” she said.
But even when landlords list a business address, it can still be difficult to get in touch with them in an emergency, said Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, who introduced the bill.
Last winter in Hartford, some of Gonzalez’s elderly constituents who lived in the same building lost heat. It took more than a week to find the landlord – who had a post office box listed with the city Assessor’s Office, where all property owners’ contact information is listed – and get the heating problem fixed, she said.
Gonzalez said that should never happen.
“I think [introducing this bill was] the right thing to do,” said Gonzalez, who is a landlord herself. “If you decide you want to be a landlord, that’s your choice.”
The bill will especially help crack down on landlords who list only a post office box, Gonzalez said. It can be difficult for towns to find landlords sometimes if they fail to pay their taxes, she said.
But a physical address must be listed for someone to get a post office box, according to the U.S. Postal Service. And with a court order, that address can be obtained.
Leonard Campbell said he worked in the planning office of a local government for many years and was always able to find a property owner’s address.
“We never had difficulty finding out where people were,” he said.
But the law will be helpful to tenants across the state, Rell said.
“This legislation will help to improve the quality of life in cities and towns across the state,” she said in a prepared statement. “Absentee landlords can be very difficult for housing courts to locate when they are cited for poor management, upkeep, health hazards and other housing code violations that exist in or on their properties. This law prevents landlords from evading their responsibilities and should help cities and towns fight blight.”
Although the Connecticut Property Owners Association opposed the bill, Gonzalez said she never heard from the group during the legislative process, and that she would have been open to sitting down with its members and compromising.
“That’s why we’ve got public hearings,” she said.
Landlords did testify against the bill during the public hearing, according to Leonard Campbell.
“I don’t know why she would say she didn’t hear from us,” he said.
Mary Campbell added that many of the changes opposed by the association did not get added to the bill until after the public hearing was over.
When the bill was first proposed, it would have required a “landlord or an agent of the landlord to provide notice of the name and address of the person authorized to manage the premises to both the tenant and any applicable municipal department.” The bill was meant to “assure the availability of the name and address of the responsible party for landlord-related issues.”
But before the public hearing, which was held on Feb. 22, the bill was amended to become an enabling statute and to require the residential addresses of property owners.
The association also has a concern that municipalities will use the law as a moneymaker and charge a fee for landlords to register their address. The law was not intended to be used that way, Gonzalez said, but it makes no mention of a fee.
The Connecticut Property Owners Association will continue to fight the potential law in municipalities that are considering it, Mary Campbell said.
“We’ll try to have some input that way,” she said.