Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Marshals, landlords clash over bill to shift storage of evicted tenants’ belongings
Loading...
Summary
State marshals and landlord groups clashed at a public hearing over SB 337, which would shift responsibility for storing possessions left after evictions from municipalities to housing providers. Marshals warned of safety and liability risks; landlords and some elected officials asked for clearer processes and cost sharing.
The committee heard sharply divergent views on SB 337, which would change how personal property left after evictions is handled. State marshals, municipal officials, legal‑aid attorneys and landlord associations all testified.
Brian Mezic/Mezick (S14), a Connecticut state marshal, described the current practice: marshals remove tenants’ possessions at eviction executions, municipalities store items (public works or contracted storage) for at least 15 days, and procedures vary by town. He warned that shifting storage responsibility to landlords would create logistical and liability problems and potentially dangerous confrontations. "To create a process where we're just knocking on the door and say, get out and you gotta get your stuff back from the landlord ... those are two parties that are already in conflict," he said.
Landlord groups and small property owners also testified. Morgan Miller (S28) of the Connecticut Apartment Association and Brian Lemire (S47) said they understand the intent to streamline turnover but warned that requiring providers to inventory, store and safeguard former tenants’ belongings would be onerous and expensive—especially for small providers—and could delay unit turnover during a housing shortage.
Legal aid advocates and tenant advocates opposed shifting the neutral municipal role. Raphael Podolski (S9) argued the bills risk removing due process protections and could be misused to deprive tenants of property. Several committee members pressed witnesses on the municipal practice differences: some towns auction items, some do not charge storage fees, and the content that is stored is decided on the morning of execution.
Witnesses suggested alternatives: clarifying statute language about what must be stored (personal effects versus damaged or perishable goods), standardizing minimum municipal practices, and exploring cost‑sharing or clearer liability rules rather than transferring full responsibility to private housing providers. The committee requested technical language proposals to reduce municipal fiscal burdens while preserving a neutral third‑party storage process.
