Advocates tell Senate H772 would speed evictions and lacks disability protections

Advocates for people experiencing homelessness told the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee that the landlord‑tenant bill H772, as drafted, would speed up evictions and leave tenants — particularly people with disabilities — with inadequate protections.

"We cannot support H772 as drafted," Brenda Seagull, executive director of End Homelessness Vermont, told the committee, urging lawmakers to add explicit disability and notice protections before any statutory acceleration of eviction timelines.

Seagull summarized the organization’s statewide research and services: in 2025 End Homelessness Vermont answered more than 3,000 calls, provided ongoing support to about 600 people and hands‑on assistance to roughly 300, and helped 80 people into permanent housing with a reported 97.5% retention in that cohort. She said the group’s voluntary survey of 200 people in 10 towns and five counties found 84 eviction experiences among respondents, including 41 no‑cause evictions and 20 instances tied to condemned housing. Seagull emphasized that many respondents reported health or safety problems in their units that they attributed to landlords.

Seagull and ACLU policy advocate Alice Grammlas pressed two related points: first, many people who face eviction have serious health and disability needs — Seagull cited 76.4% reporting physical‑health conditions and 92.5% reporting mental‑health conditions among respondents — and second, the practical ability to receive, understand and act on notices is limited for some tenants. Seagull noted 9.5% of respondents reported difficulty reading or writing (5% could not read or write, 4.5% had trouble), and warned that shorter statutory notice and response windows would disadvantage people who cannot access or comprehend notices without accommodations.

Grammlas framed the statewide context for those risks: landlords are far more likely to have counsel in eviction proceedings (she cited 70–80% representation for landlords versus 15–20% for tenants), Vermont’s vacancy rate is among the lowest nationally, rents have risen substantially since the pandemic (she cited about a 35% increase), and an estimated 4,000–5,000 people are experiencing homelessness while community shelter capacity is roughly 690 beds. Against that backdrop, she argued, accelerating eviction processes risks producing more homelessness rather than solving court delays.

Both witnesses also questioned whether statutory timeline changes would materially speed case resolution. Grammlas cited a 2025 report saying judicial vacancies—not statutory rules—were the single largest driver of eviction backlogs, and she pointed to research finding that evictions drive homelessness and incur system costs (one cost–benefit analysis she cited estimated about $8,000 per eviction, mostly from increased shelter use).

Seagull outlined program‑level consequences and timelines to illustrate the mismatch between expedited eviction calendars and relief options: the Housing Opportunity Program (HOP) can provide rental repayment but, in practice, can take months to process; Seagull described a client case where applying and obtaining repayment involved months of planning and delayed payments.

Both witnesses said they would submit written recommendations. Seagull said she would provide a detailed chart of proposed language changes to add disability protections and stronger notice requirements, and Grammlas urged lawmakers to view the bill against current housing market constraints and unequal legal representation.

The committee did not take any votes during the session; Chair acknowledged receipt of testimony and written materials and said committee staff and legislators would continue working on the bill.