Christopher Sheppard carries his families bags from a Motel 6 to WoodSprings Suites just up the road on Thursday, Feb. 2, 2023. After being evicted from their apartment last summer, the Sheppard’s sold everything they owned, including their car, with the exception of a few suitcases, a half-dozen bags and backpacks, a TV and their sons Xbox. (Parker Seibold, The Gazette)
Christopher Sheppard carries his families bags from a Motel 6 to WoodSprings Suites just up the road on Thursday, Feb. 2, 2023. After being evicted from their apartment last summer, the Sheppard’s sold everything they owned, including their car, with the exception of a few suitcases, a half-dozen bags and backpacks, a TV and their sons Xbox. (Parker Seibold, The Gazette)
A two-year effort to add more stringent requirements before a landlord can evict a renter cleared a major hurdle on Tuesday, when the state Senate approved a House measure on a close vote.
On Monday, the measure, which requires landlords to show “cause” before evicting a tenant, went through a six-hour debate in the Senate. Republicans and moderate Democrats tried to water it down with a half-dozen amendments.
In ultimately approving the bill on a 19-15 vote, the Senate made several amendments that will now go before the House.
In 2023, a similar proposal failed to make it out of the state Senate, dying on the calendar in the last day of the session.
At its core, this year’s House Bill 1098 limits the ability of landlords to evict a tenant and identifies specific “causes” under which eviction is permissible.
Under HB 1098, eviction “causes” apply to a single-family home, apartment, or mobile home that is not on a rent-to-own contract. It outlines several causes under which a landlord could evict a tenant, such as failure to pay rent, the landlord deciding to sell the property or use it for a family member, lease violations, intent to demolish or make substantial repairs to the property by the landlord, or when a tenant has engaged in conduct that creates a nuisance that disturbs the landlord or other tenants or damages the property.
Supporters offered stories of evictions they effectively described as unjust or unwarranted, saying the measure would prevent them from happening.
Critics, on the other hand, argued that the bill offers too broad of a brush, and that several of its provisions are untenable for property owners.
In pushing for the measure, co-sponsor Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, D-Pueblo, recounted a story sent by a 67-year-old constituent who had lived in an apartment in Pueblo for seven years and had always paid the rent on time.
Here’s how this issue unfolded, according to Hinrichsen’s recounting of the details. Not long ago, a management company took over, and that’s when the problems started, beginning with the apartment’s heating. The heater, according to the constituent, exploded “like a blow torch next to my bed.”
The property manager sent someone to test it and deemed it safe. But it happened again, and the manager said, “find somewhere else to live,” according to the constituent. The heating company came out again and found an illegal exhaust pipe. It was replaced, and that fixed it. But another problem surfaced.
Two weeks later, the renter got a 60-day notice to vacate without a reason given, Hinrichsen said.
“It’s retaliation,” the renter told Hinrichsen. “This bill is meant for people like me.”
Hinrichsen said there can be a healthy balance between a renter’s need for safe and stable housing and the property owner’s right to use the property to develop wealth. But too often, he claimed, there have been cases in which tenants asserting their rights is used to move them out when the lease is up.
He said there have also been eviction cases where a landlord makes unwanted advances on a tenant or disagrees with a tenant’s political views.
A tenant should not have to decide between reporting a problem and risking losing the place, he said.
One of the major points of contention during the debate on Monday occurred over the bill’s requirement that a landlord give a tenant a 90-day written notice prior to eviction.
“Too long,” said lawmakers who attempted, without success, to reduce the notice to 30 days.
Rural lawmakers said the problem with evictions without cause is an urban one, but the measure applies a statewide solution that isn’t necessary for their districts.
One of the most substantial amendments offered Monday — from co-sponsor Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver — would allow a tenant the first right of refusal to return to the property after a landlord makes repairs that require the tenant to vacate for at least 30 days.
Sen. Kyle Mullica, D-Thornton, also attempted a wholesale rewrite of the bill.
His strike-below amendment would have added renewal of a lease to the protections covered under the state’s fair housing law. The amendment also would have required ample notice if the landlord chooses not to renew the lease, at 120 days, with a penalty of losing the tenant’s deposit for violations.
“We are creating a situation where one party of a contract is forced to stay in that contract for perpetuity,” Mullica said of the bill as it arrived on the Senate floor.
Gonzales said the middle ground proposed by Mullica would strike the entire bill, which she said as amended drew neutral positions from realtors, the apartment association and the governor.
The amendment failed.
The bill’s supporters also had to overcome concerns from Senate President Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder, who told reporters his reservations were based on a need to balance support for tenants with the rights of property owners to have the flexibility on how their properties are used.
Fenberg indicated that a lot, but not all, of his concerns were addressed in the amendments adopted Monday.
Fenberg was among the 19 Democrats who voted for the bill on Tuesday.
Major measures on housing are starting to move at the state Capitol this week, which saw the first hearings on some of the roughly 260 bills i…
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
Your comment has been submitted.
Reported
There was a problem reporting this.
Log In
Post a comment as Guest
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.
Colorado Politics is published both in print and online. Our website features subscriber-only news stories daily, designed for public policy arena professionals. Member subscribers also receive the weekly print edition of our award-winning newspaper, containing outstanding features and news stories, in their mailboxes every Saturday.
Secure your subscription to Colorado’s premier political news journal, in continuous publication since 1898. You can be in the know right alongside Colorado’s political insiders. Want the real scoop? Subscribe to Colorado Politics today!
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
