Thomas Breen file photo
LCI's Liam Brennan and Javier Ortiz, out in the field in October.
The Board of Alders has cleared two legal roadblocks that prevented the city from penalizing certain derelict landlords and hotel and rooming house operators — while holding off, for now, on a third proposal to crack down on property owners who retaliate against tenants.
Included in the ordinance amendments that won final approval are provisions that raise anti-blight fines to as high as $1,000 per day, and that scrap a previous requirement for the city to notify landlords of blight violations by certified mail — allowing instead for communication by regular mail and email.
Alders passed two out of three housing, blight, and rooming house ordinance reforms on the table at their August full board meeting on Monday night at City Hall.
The board decided that the third proposal “needed more time,” according to Legislation Committee Chair and Wooster Square Alder Ellen Cupo.
One of the amendments passed on Monday raises the maximum amount that the city’s housing and blight code enforcement agency, the Livable City Initiative (LCI), can fine landlords for violations of the city’s blight code. Such violations can range from from aesthetic infractions, such as graffiti or overgrown shrubs, to health and safety concerns, such as garbage dumping, shattered windows, and fire hazards.
LCI is currently able to impose fines of up to $100 per violation, per day. Once the amendment is officially signed into law, the agency will be able to impose the maximum possible fine enabled by state law. As of legislation passed in 2024, the state caps blight fines at different degrees depending on the size, use, and violation history of the property in question. For a residential building with fewer than seven apartments, for instance, LCI can impose fines of up to $250 per blight violation per day — or up to $1,000 per violation, per day, if that same infraction has been found at the same property at least three times within a year.
Meanwhile, the updated ordinance also no longer requires LCI to notify landlords of blight violations (and the consequential fines) by certified mail, a system that requires landlords to confirm their receipt of the letter with a signature. Instead, LCI will be required to inform landlords of blight violations by ordinary mail (with the option of additionally reaching out to landlords by email).
According to LCI Director Liam Brennan, this seemingly small procedural change is actually one of the more impactful reforms passed on Monday.
The certified mail requirement has provided an avenue for some landlords to dodge blight fines by simply refusing to sign for the letter, according to Brennan. The ability to use non-certified mail to notify landlords of violations will enable LCI to start cracking down on specific problematic properties whose owners have so far evaded fines. “We do have to restart the clock” on those violations, he noted, meaning that landlords will have a ten-day window to correct the violations without facing a fine, even if those violations have been evident for years.
In a separate ordinance amendment that received a final approval on Monday, alders also voted to update the city’s rooming house license ordinance — the law that requires property owners operating hotels or renting out housing units by the room to obtain a license through the city, akin to the residential business license required of more typical landlords.
The amendment enables rooming house or hotel operators to appeal any denials or revocations of such a license to a volunteer hearing officer.
Previously, the appeals mechanism outlined in the ordinance was defunct — meaning that LCI was unable to deny or revoke rooming house licenses without opening the city up to legal challenges.
The new appeals process added to the law on Monday will provide LCI with an avenue to shut down hotels and rooming houses that violate blight and housing codes, or that a police official deems to be facilitating problematic behavior.
LCI, Fair Rent Debate "Retaliation" Domain
Meanwhile, Board of Alders Majority Leader and Amity/Westville Alder Richard Furlow decided Monday to “pass over” a third proposed law — one that, if approved, would enable LCI to revoke a landlord’s license if that landlord was determined to have retaliated against a tenant for filing an LCI or Fair Rent Commission complaint.
Under the original proposal, LCI would have had the ability to investigate and determine whether a landlord has taken a retaliatory action — which could range from a rent hike to an eviction attempt — in response to a tenant’s decision to complain to the city about living conditions or rent increases.
On July 23, Fair Rent Commissioner Wendy Gamba sent a letter to alders advocating against this provision.
Gamba cited the fact that it is currently a responsibility of the Fair Rent Commission to assess whether a landlord has issued a retaliatory rent hike or eviction filing. She argued that providing LCI with an equivalent role would create confusion and conflict.
“Imagine a scenario where LCI investigates a retaliation claim and finds insufficient evidence to revoke a landlord’s license, yet the Fair Rent Commission, examining the exact same set of facts, determines that retaliation occurred and orders relief for the tenant,” she wrote. “Such conflicting outcomes would undermine public trust in both bodies, sow confusion among tenants and landlords alike, and create an environment ripe for legal challenges and appeals.”
Gamba added, “While the desire to ‘add teeth’ to the city’s landlord license program and provide additional avenues for tenant protection is laudable, the proposed LCI-led retaliation process, as currently envisioned, risks creating more problems than it solves.”
In response, Brennan sent a letter to alders on July 28, defending the underlying goal of the legislation while proposing a workaround to Gamba’s concerns about duplicated roles.
He explained that the legislation was proposed in response to public feedback calling for the city to stop issuing rental business licenses to landlords who have a track record of illegally punishing tenants for speaking out. He argued that LCI’s housing code enforcement mission depends on tenants’ ability to speak freely regarding their living conditions
“When we continue to license landlords who retaliate against their tenants for availing themselves of the city’s health and safety protections, our entire regulatory framework is compromised,” Brennan wrote. “While the Fair Rent Commission can provide tenant relief, only LCI can address whether such landlords should maintain the privilege of operating residential businesses in New Haven.”
He suggested reworking the ordinance amendment so that LCI would not be tasked with investigating retaliation complaints; rather, the agency would refer potential cases of retaliation to the Fair Rent Commission and refer to the commission’s determination when considering whether to renew a landlord’s license.
While Cupo did not specify whether this letter exchange contributed to the decision to hold the anti-retaliation amendment, she clarified that alders have not decided to drop the proposal — that, rather, “it needed more time” and consideration before final approval.