Committee rejects 30-day pre-eviction notice proposal in 6-7 roll call after heated debate
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers split over HF3424, which would extend Minnesota's pre-eviction notice from 14 to 30 days; tenants and advocates urged the change as necessary time to secure assistance, while opponents warned it would harm small landlords; the committee failed to advance the bill on a 6–7 roll call.
The Housing Finance and Policy Committee debated House File 34,24, which would extend Minnesota’s pre-eviction notice from 14 to 30 days. Public testimony described how 14 days can be insufficient for families to access assistance, while several members warned the change could negatively affect landlords who depend on timely rent payments.
Habibbo Elmi, testifying through a translator, described an eviction case she disputes and urged the committee to "protect families" from unfair evictions. Salma Issa of ACER reported that her organization received 138 rental-assistance requests in the last 30 days—about 14 times their normal monthly volume—and recounted a case where a family needed 45 days to access help. "14 days is simply not enough time," she told the committee.
Samantha Diaz Powell of SEIU Local 26, speaking also for UFCW 663, said sudden income loss and immigration enforcement have left many working families unable to pay rent immediately, creating a broader economic risk if evictions accelerate.
Opponents, led by Representative Nash, argued that a statutory 30-day pre-notice would impose a uniform mandate that could hurt small landlords who rely on timely rent as income. "We're effectively now advocating to interrupt their income," Nash said, arguing the bill insufficiently accounts for landlord cash-flow impacts.
Supporters countered that many cities already use 30-day standards, that more time allows tenants to secure assistance and avoid costly homelessness, and that standardizing a 30-day notice statewide provides parity across municipalities.
Representative Hussain requested a roll call. The clerk recorded individual votes (as read during the roll call). The recorded result was 6 ayes and 7 nays; the motion to refer/passage did not prevail and HF3424 did not move out of committee. The committee discussion emphasized the trade-off between preventing evictions and the potential effects on small rental-property owners.
