Witnesses split over H 7 72: Legal aid warns tenant rights would erode while VSHA urges federal exemptions; landlords cite small‑owner risks

The House Committee on General and Housing heard lengthy testimony and questions on H 7 72, a bill that would change residential rental agreements, eviction timelines and create a rental payment credit and reporting program. Witnesses representing legal aid, the Vermont State Housing Authority and landlords presented sharply different views about whether the proposal strengthens tenant protections or creates conflicting obligations with federal housing rules.

"There's a housing crisis in Vermont. There's not enough housing," Jean Murray, senior housing attorney at Vermont Legal Aid, told the committee. Murray described a low vacancy rate (she cited roughly 2.5 percent) and presented eviction data gathered during pandemic‑era outreach: a large share of filings in her sample were for nonpayment (she cited about 72%) and a meaningful share were no‑cause terminations (about 22%). Murray argued H 7 72’s shorter notice windows and show‑cause provisions could deprive tenants of meaningful time to seek assistance, undermine the courts' ability to adjudicate cases fairly and reduce tenant bargaining power. She recommended measures such as tenant right to counsel, confidential eviction records and a rental registry as alternatives or complements to the proposed changes.

Kathleen Burke, speaking for the Vermont State Housing Authority, framed the bill through the requirements that govern federally assisted housing. "It is important to understand that federal regulations always preempt state law and HUD‑funded housing programs," Burke said, and she urged the committee to add explicit statutory exemptions to ensure federally assisted tenancies remain governed by federal due‑process and subsidy rules. Burke also briefed the committee on a Rental Arrears Assistance Fund: VSHA received $2,500,000 in fiscal year 2025 to prevent evictions and H 7 72 proposes an additional $1,000,000 to sustain the program past May 2026. Burke recommended distinguishing PHA‑paid rent from tenant‑paid rent in any nonpayment standard and preserving federally required timelines for hearings and appeals.

Representing property owners and managers, Brian Armstrong, a broker and operator of property management firms in Burlington, urged the committee to preserve tools landlords use to manage risk. Armstrong said that small landlords often operate on thin margins and depend on the ability to nonrenew leases to remove tenants who pose safety, nuisance or payment risks. "No cause eviction was essential," he said, adding that protracted eviction timelines and expanded obligations risk pushing small owners out of the market and reducing the housing supply. Armstrong proposed keeping a no‑cause nonrenewal option, shortening total eviction process timelines (he preferred a 60‑day target over longer processes), and keeping access to some screening tools such as credit checks.

Why it matters: Committee members repeatedly raised the risk that state changes could conflict with HUD and other federal rules for assisted housing, creating compliance problems or threatening federal funding for some programs. Witnesses urged the committee to balance tenant stability, enforcement capacity, and the financial viability of small landlords—and to craft exemptions or clarifying language when federal requirements apply.

Next steps: The committee thanked witnesses, asked staff to circulate follow‑up materials and indicated it would invite additional testimony (witnesses named for a future date included Michael Monney and Chris Donnelly). No vote occurred in this session.