Winooski holds second public hearing on just-cause eviction charter change as resident warns of unintended harms

Winooski opened a second statutorily required public hearing Feb. 3 on a resident-driven charter change that would limit no-cause evictions, drawing an extended public comment from a longtime local property owner who warned the change could have unintended consequences for small landlords and housing availability.

The petition under consideration would add a just-cause eviction requirement to the Winooski charter. The measure is resident-driven and has already been forwarded to the Vermont Legislature; the council does not itself adopt charter changes without legislative action, a council member said during the meeting.

Bridal Armstrong, who identified herself as a Winooski-area property owner and real estate agent with more than 20 years in local housing, told the council she supports tenants but urged caution before removing no-cause evictions. "It's really easy to sink our teeth into this and say it makes sense," Armstrong said. "But I think if we dive deeper, there could be some significant long term effects to people who wish to not only buy Winooski, but more importantly, live and own in Winooski." She described situations where landlords use no-cause eviction as an exit strategy for tenants the landlord believes are creating safety or habitability problems that are otherwise hard to prove in court.

Armstrong said legal timelines in Vermont can stretch the landlord-tenant resolution process. "If they want to fight it, they're gonna fight it, and they're gonna be in that property for probably six plus months," she said, and added that jury trials can extend the timeframe further. She cited concerns about drug dealing, hoarding and other tenant behaviors that, in her view, can be difficult to remedy through lease enforcement alone.

Armstrong also raised the potential financial effects on small, long-term landlords who count on property equity and resale to fund retirement or pay mortgages. "Is it possible that those landlords ... have no other option but then to bring the rents up to market to make their mortgages?" she asked. She urged the council to consider the cumulative effect on tax rolls, school funding and housing supply.

A council member clarified process and limitations: the measure is a "resident-driven petition" already forwarded to the Legislature, which may approve, amend or take no action. If the Legislature acts and returns a change to the city, the council would need to evaluate implementation details — including enforcement and whether the city would adopt implementing ordinances — and public hearings would be required again, the council member said. The council member also noted that eviction proceedings currently proceed through the state court system and that the city does not presently handle evictions.

City Manager Elaine Wong (City Manager, Winooski) spoke during the meeting’s city updates about upcoming budget and engagement events but did not propose any local implementation steps related to the petition during the hearing. Deputy Mayor Thomas Reiner (Deputy Mayor, Winooski City Council) opened the meeting and led the pledge of allegiance before the public hearing; other councilors participated in the hearing and thanked the resident for attending in person.

The public hearing closed after the council received no additional in-person or online comments.

Votes at a glance

The meeting included a handful of routine votes not tied to the eviction petition: the council approved the consent agenda (motion by Deputy Mayor Thomas Reiner, second by Councilor Aurora; voice vote), unanimously approved a Black History Month resolution (motion by Councilor Charlie, second by Deputy Mayor Reiner; voice vote), and voted to enter executive session to discuss the city manager review process under Vermont statutory provisions (motions and seconds recorded; voice votes). The council noted the executive session was taken pursuant to state statute language referenced at the meeting and that further action, if any, would be handled in accordance with applicable statutes and council rules.

Why this matters

If the Legislature approves a charter change, the city will face follow-up decisions about how to implement any new requirement. Councilors and commenters emphasized that implementation questions — enforcement authority, administrative costs, and interaction with state courts — remain unresolved and would require additional policy work and public input before any change takes effect.

Next steps

The petition’s legislative progress will determine whether the council must act later. City staff and councilors said they would monitor any action by the Vermont Legislature and schedule additional public hearings and ordinance work if a charter change is returned to the city for implementation.