St. Johnsbury landlord urges faster evictions, warns current nonpayment process deters small landlords

Steve Dolgin, a landlord from St. Johnsbury with roughly 40 apartments across 11 buildings, told the House Committee on General & Housing on Feb. 12 that Vermont's nonpayment eviction process takes too long and deters private investment in housing.

"We must drastically shorten the time it takes to evict the nonpaying tenants from our apartments," Dolgin said, describing a sequence of notice and court steps that, in his experience, can stretch to seven months or more from the initial notice to physical eviction. He described the typical progression: a notice to quit (minimum 14 days under state law, 30 days in some federally covered buildings under the CARES Act), filing in court, a first hearing often focused on a motion to pay rent into court, a subsequent merits hearing, then a writ of possession and scheduling with the sheriff for a physical eviction. He estimated the total—filing, hearings, writ and sheriff—could add up to "7 months or more." He said sheriff availability is not generally the limiting factor but the intermediate procedural steps are, and that repairs and unpaid costs can leave landlords financially exposed during that period.

Dolgin described material and financial consequences landlords face: legal fees (he cited attorney, court and sheriff costs "$2,000 and up"), months of lost rent, utility and maintenance expenses while units are vacant or repaired, and repair bills he said often run from $5,000 to $10,000 per severely damaged unit. He also said damage and abandonment create safety and habitability problems for remaining tenants and impose cleanup and repair costs on owners.

Dolgin urged the committee to look at states with shorter procedures—he cited Louisiana as an example with a faster nonpayment timeline—and to consider legislation this session to shorten timelines. He said shortening the process would reduce landlords' losses and encourage private investors to rehabilitate blighted properties and to add rental units. He also defended the availability of no-cause evictions as a necessary tool for landlords to address problematic tenancy situations during a lease term when criminal prosecution or witness testimony is unlikely.

Committee members asked for clarifications on frequency and outcomes. Dolgin estimated that among cases that reach a final court eviction process, roughly one-third proceed to a physical sheriff-enforced eviction; he said the more serious damage and abandonment cases tend to be shorter-term tenants (under a year) rather than long-term residents. He acknowledged many landlords try to work with tenants experiencing temporary hardship and said those situations differ from the "dark side" of repeated nonpayment and intentional damage that he described.

Dolgin also raised concerns about renovation costs charged by some nonprofit developers and said overspending on per-unit rehabilitation reduces available funds for broader housing production, a point he asked the committee to examine separately.

Why it matters: testimony highlighted financial and operational burdens landlords say they face under current eviction timelines and argued that faster, clearer processes could encourage private investment in rental housing. Committee members asked for data on the number and outcomes of eviction cases statewide and noted differing policy trade-offs between tenant protections and incentives for private rental supply.

No formal action was taken at the hearing; committee members indicated they would continue to gather evidence and witness testimony as they develop a committee bill.