BRATTLEBORO — A petition seeks to do away with what are known as “no-cause evictions” in a March 7 vote to amend the Town Charter.
The Reformer quotes Marta Gossage, who submitted the petition and makes sweeping unsubstantiated statements that tenants are getting evicted without cause at a greater rate than in the past. Even if she’s accurate, what does that statistic say? She gives an emotional description of the experience of a single friend who received a 60-day notice to vacate for no cause. She never says why the notice was actually given.
Vermont law allows evictions for both cause (non-payment of rent, breach of the lease, etc.) and for no cause. Speaking from my experience as a property owner and from speaking with other property owners, property managers, tenants, and attorneys, there are three primary reasons a no-cause notice of termination is given.
The first is when one tenant is endangering the peace and safety of other tenants but the other tenants do not want to have to testify for fear of retribution while they all live under the same roof during the lengthy eviction process. By pursuing a no-cause eviction, the property owner is able to protect the other tenants.
The second, somewhat-related reason is when a tenant’s behavior is in violation of the lease and/or the law but is difficult to prove. The most common example of this is suspected drug dealing. The police will not act on evidence that a tenant has frequent “guests” for short durations at all hours.
What is a property owner to do? Let the behavior continue? Hope that a Judge in civil court will agree there is adequate evidence of illegal activity? No, the property owner may give notice of termination for no cause, putting an end to the activity and, again, protecting the other tenants.
The third instance of when notices of no-cause termination are given is when a property owner chooses not to renew a tenant’s lease that has expired by its own agreed-upon terms.
The proposed charter amendment would do away with a property owner’s ability to protect their good tenants without subjecting them to further harassment, if not outright danger, from the offending tenant. It would also require a property owner to allow a tenant to remain in possession of their apartment forever, essentially giving the tenant more rights over what happens with the property than the owner.
From the property owners and managers and tenants that I have spoken with, evictions of any kind are undesired and difficult for both landlord and tenant. I think it is important for voters in Brattleboro to see property owners, managers, and tenants as being on the same side, so to speak, in the housing market. Most often, they work together for the benefit of both parties.
Landlords are not all bad, tenants are not all good. The majority of both groups are, in fact, very good.
The housing crisis is much more complex, and we as a community need to work together to make this work for everyone in the community. Putting these kinds of restraints on property owners only seeks to widen the divide.