At House Judiciary Committee, renters want relief, landlords want more power and money

"It’s getting harder and harder for all our children, but it does not have to be this way. There’s nothing inevitable or natural about the housing crisis."

Landlord Same Levy in a “NO TO RENT CONTROL” tee shirt

The Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee heard a slate of housing bills on Wednesday, during which proponents of tenant protections argued that the current housing crisis necessitates legislative intervention to address a severe power imbalance between landlords and tenants. They contended, with the help of economic justice organizations such as Economic Progress Institute, the Rhode Island Center for Justice, Reclaim Rhode Island, and the Childhood Lead Action Project that measures like “just cause” eviction (H8109), rent stabilization (H8108), and right to counsel in Housing Court (H8141) are essential to prevent homelessness, provide stability for families, and ensure housing is treated as a human right rather than a simple commodity.

Opposing tenant-protection bills were advanced by well-financed, politically connected members of the landlord lobby, mostly under the banners of the Rhode Island Association of Realtors and the Rhode Island Coalition of Housing Providers. They argued that legally mandated tenant protections are counterproductive, discourage development, and ultimately shrink the housing supply. Instead, landlords wanted legislation that would enable them to more easily evict “squatters” (H8066), weaken the state’s lead mitigation laws (H7559 & H7560), and allow them to require up to two months’ rent as a security deposit to mitigate their rising costs and risks (H8112).

Clearly, the two sides of this ongoing debate have very different ideas about the landlord-tenant relationship and about the legislature’s role in setting the terms of the debate.

You can watch all the public testimony here:

RENT STABILIZATION

Representative Brandon Potter (Democrat, District 16, Cranston) got into this dichotomy during the introduction of his rent stabilization bill, which seeks to limit rent increases to 4% annually, with some built-in exceptions:

“When I first introduced this bill, I heard from landlords and property owners what I would say were good-faith arguments that the legislation didn’t account for how taxes and insurance have gone up tremendously over the last couple of years. I thought that was a fair point and incorporated it into this bill. But as I continued having conversations about this bill, it became clear that the real disagreement was not about recognizing the realities of the insurance market and property taxes, or about whether the proposed cap amount is realistic and fair.

“It was really a fundamental disagreement about whether or not we should be regulating rental prices whatsoever because the opposition to this bill and this issue generally, I would say, argue that what people pay to house themselves and their families should be subject to no price regulation whatsoever, that a landlord should be able to charge whatever they want, whenever they want with no regulation, and the market condition will just sort itself out.

“I would argue to the committee that housing is not a normal commodity. It is a basic human necessity, and we should treat it as such. People can choose whether they’re going to go out and buy goods. People can choose whether they’re going to delay a purchase based on market conditions. People are not choosing to be unable to afford to live. People are not choosing to live outside or in a homeless shelter.

“That is exactly why we regulate other markets that are essential, like healthcare and utilities, because when something is essential for people’s survival or dignity, we recognize that market forces alone are not enough - and they’re certainly not enough when we have the market conditions and the reality [we see today]...

“We’re having this conversation at a time when the consequences of inaction on housing policy [can be seen] everywhere. We have record levels of homelessness. There are people living in tents along the highways. There are panhandlers all over the place. Shelters are completely overrun. We don’t have enough beds to house people. We have people freezing to death in cars outside of hospitals, and, at the same time, working people are being priced out of their homes. People cannot afford to live.

“So when we hear the argument that we should just let this all be delegated to supply and demand, I want to be clear: I am not disputing that building up supply is the essential part of how we solve our housing crisis. We absolutely need to build more housing. That is the sustainable solution, but it does not have to be an either/or. That is a long-term solution that does nothing for the person who right now has their rent go up 15-40%. It does nothing for a family that’s being forced out onto the street because they can’t afford the rental increase. The simple fact is people cannot wait for long-term solutions.”

[I’m putting the rest of what Representative Potter said in this footnote.¹]

JUST CAUSE EVICTION

Representative Cheri Cruz (Democrat, District 58, Pawtucket) introduced the Just Cause Eviction:

“This simply says if a tenant is paying their rent, abiding by their lease, or not doing anything wrong, then they don’t receive an arbitrary eviction. An arbitrary eviction can happen in many ways. It can happen if a tenant asks for a repair, which is a common theme if you’re not a renter. Landlords will tell you that if you don’t like it, you can leave. We have text messages from many of them here. They’ll tell you to leave instead of fixing it. There’s just no choice in that, and that’s troubling.

“They’ll also raise the rent 80%, yet nothing has changed within that unit. When you apply for a unit, you give your income, so they know how much you make. They’ve got all your information. So they know that if they raise the rent, you won’t be able to afford it, and that circumvents evictions. The sad part is that I see this overwhelmingly with seniors. I’ve had seniors crying to me about their rent doubling, they have nowhere to go, and now they’re in the shelter because of this arbitrary rent increase.

“This is a tenant who paid their rent on time, lived there 10 to 15 years, but they’re told it’s the market’s fault. But you know what? It’s a person making that decision. A person who owns many properties is deciding to raise the rent, and they know how much that person earns.

“In states like California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington state, Colorado, New York City, DC, Baltimore, Maryland, and St. Paul, Minnesota, they recognize that this is an issue and that renters need protection.

“There are landlords of old and the landlords of new. The landlords of new are real estate investors. The landlords of old are the ones we hear stories about, who want good tenants for a long time and want them to have a consistent income. We hear that. I know those landlords. They have people living in their units for 10, 15, 20 years. They raise generations in their rental units. Those landlords know that any increase beyond a certain amount could put tenants on the street, and they take that into account.

“But the landlord of new, that’s not part of the equation for them. It’s a matter of profit. Tenants are not people. They’re money, a paycheck. It’s not about stable tenants. It’s about whoever can pay me the most.

“I keep hearing landlords say they want to be called housing providers. Then provide. If a tenant is paying, why evict? If a tenant’s not violating the lease, why evict? If a tenant asks for a repair that you’re responsible for or if the landlord is responsible, under the law, for providing heat, why threaten to evict?

“Tell me, if you care about people and providing housing, why would you be against this? Why would you want to put a “good tenant” out? That’s all Just Cause does. It provides a mechanism so families can feel safe, stable, and have the predictability that when they do the right thing, their landlord will do the right thing.”

THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN HOUSING COURT

Attorney Miguel Garcia of the Center for Justice spoke in favor of Representative Cruz’s right-to-counsel bill, drawing on his experience in Housing Court.

“I’m here in strong support of H8141 on the right to counsel. Along with Rhode Island Legal Services, the Center for Justice regularly provides same-day representation to tenants facing eviction at Providence and Kent County help desks. I want to be very clear. The bill does not tilt the balance of the merits in a tenant’s favor. It simply ensures that the rules and processes mandated by court rules, the legislature, and the federal government are followed. We are in eviction court every single day. We see crowded courtrooms. We see unrepresented tenants waiting for their names to be called, and eviction cases moving forward against people with no lawyer, very little understanding of the process, and no realistic ability to protect their interests. That should trouble this committee.

“When shelter, and for subsidized properties, public funds, are on the line, access to counsel should not depend on whether someone happens to reach our help desk on time. It should not depend on whether legal services have enough capacity for that day. Landlords have lawyers 83% of the time; tenants, 4%. This is why, in this kind of system, outcomes are shaped not just by the law but also by who is equipped to use this process. When tenants appear without counsel, their defenses are missed, defective claims go unanswered, and people can lose their housing without ever having a meaningful opportunity to assert their rights. This erodes the rule of law and its structural imbalance.

“H8141 is a direct response to that. It’s also fiscally sensible because evictions don’t eliminate any costs or make a landlord whole. They transfer the costs to shelters, schools, health systems, and the public.

“A system that provides counsel in such situations is more just and fiscally responsible. From our perspective, this need is immediate and real. We don’t see it in the abstract; we see it every single day: 50 cases on the help desk, every single theoretical scenario that has been presented here in this committee, we’ve seen it. So for these reasons, we strongly recommend passage of H8141.”

A LEAD LAW “CLAWBACK”

Representative Stephen Casey (Democrat, District 50, Woonsocket) introduced two bills to roll back key elements of the recently passed rental registry:

“Both of the bills that I’m introducing have to do with the lead laws and are somewhat similar. Essentially, we’re looking at kind of a clawback or a take-back.

“7559 focuses on the rental registry [properties] that pose a lead risk. We’re clarifying the law by limiting the registry to properties built before 1978. Everything built after 1978 is lead-free by design, so including those homes and properties is a waste of our limited state resources. By focusing on the older housing stock, the state can concentrate efforts on properties where lead hazards are actually possible. It also allows the Department of Health to direct inspections, enforcement, and outreach towards the buildings that need it most.

“The bill specifies that the registry is intended only for the enforcement of lead hazard mitigation laws, the promotion of lead safety, and the protection of our children from lead exposure. This bill also aims to protect property owners. We want to limit the amount of personal information that is included in the registry. We want to exclude the landlord’s personal home address from that public database. We have too many online scams, frauds, and identity thefts. This registry should be a safety tool, not a directory that scammers could exploit. This bill prevents the registry data from being shared across government agencies and restricts the Department of Health from sharing the rental registry data with other government agencies, providing additional safeguards that the registry remains narrowly focused on public health services.

“Lastly, this piece of legislation removes the eviction restriction tied to the lead certification. Under current law, landlords cannot evict a tenant for nonpayment of rent if the unit lacks a lead certificate. This provision has unintended consequences. It can prevent landlords from addressing nonpayment even when the tenant may not be part of an at-risk population, and it can also reduce the rental income landlords rely on to cover mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, and repairs. The current rule also reduces the cash flow required for remediation.”

Representative Casey also opined about his role as a landlord and the difficulties he experiences:

“I want to say, briefly, that landlords, most of the people behind me, my constituents, and myself as a property owner, we’re not the bad guys. Many people whose livelihoods depend on this. This is how they earn their own income and take care of their own families. This is a very difficult subject because, in many ways, people will see the landlord as the bad guy for making money. Yes. Is this their livelihood? Yes. I have a job I go to every day, but I also own two properties. I bust my hump to maintain those properties, and I have mortgages to pay. I have insurance and all those other things that are entailed with this. It’s a very difficult balance.

“It’s part of, for a lot of people, their American dream. Some people will look at it and say it’s a business and needs to be regulated. Other people will say, ‘It’s not. I’m trying to build generational wealth. I want to pass something on to my family. I want to try to do the right thing.’

“Yes, these subjects of homelessness and all of these things pull at our heartstrings, and there is a cyclical problem. We can say it comes from many different things, such as a lack of fair wages. You can start with that, and people can’t afford their rent. We don’t have enough electricians and plumbers to help you. You try to ask the people behind me, you try to find a plumber or an electrician. I’m lucky I have friends because it’s very difficult to get something fixed on time.

“And when you have the building inspector coming down on you because somebody has an issue or your house is in disrepair, these are the things that affect you as a landlord, and you want to take care of that. Nobody wants to be uncompliant. Nobody wants to be non-compliant with their business, livelihood, and home. I think there’s a certain amount of pride that landlords and housing providers provide. I’m a very proud homeowner. I have a very good relationship with my tenants. That’s not always the case with property owners and landlords. It’s difficult because the world is made up of all kinds of different people, and some people have difficulty getting along with others. We all know that.

“I believe that there are solutions. I don’t believe rent control is a solution because I don’t believe someone should be telling me what I can or should do with my property, which I have worked for, strived for, and tried to maintain on my own. Many people are on the cusp because of expenses; even though they own a property, they’re living paycheck to paycheck, trying to figure it out. “My roof’s going to need to get done. I’ve got to save $25,000 over the next year before the building inspector comes down on me and says, ‘You got a hole in your roof, you got to fix it.’

“It’s not an easy subject. It’s something that I hope you can consider from all standpoints.”

DeeAnn Guo, a community organizer with the Childhood Lead Action Project, expertly opposed the bills:

“Versions of these bills were introduced last year, and the General Assembly chose to maintain our lead protections for Rhode Islanders. We urge you to do the same this year.

“Adding an exemption from lead safety requirements for rental properties that do not house at-risk occupants is illogical... Children do not stay in one home for their entire childhood. They might visit family and friends. Families move, and people who are not currently pregnant may choose to have children. Also, while it is true that younger children are the most at risk for lead poisoning, lead is a toxin that can negatively impact neurological, cardiovascular, and reproductive health in all members of a household, from older children to adults to even pets. This proposal would unintentionally lead to ‘quiet discrimination‘ against families with children looking to rent, as landlords use it to skirt the lead inspection requirement.

“As for the rental registry, the General Assembly passed it in 2023, and it was a good decision. It’s already working. The monthly rate of lead certificate issuance has more than doubled, and thousands of units have been made lead-safe. The benefit of the registry, though, goes beyond lead safety. It is a transparency and consumer protection measure. We have a business registry that is no more invasive in terms of the information it collects and shares with the public.”

Guo also noted that the part of the law that restricts landlords from evicting a tenant for nonpayment of rent if the unit lacks a lead certificate “is extremely important and is key to the power of the legislation, and we should not walk it back.”

“SQUATTERS”

Representative Jacquelyn Baginski (Democrat, District 17, Cranston) introduced two bills to weaken tenant protections and benefit landlords. The first concerned the issue of “squatters.”

“I want to remind everyone, there’s a flaw in our current statute. When someone occupies an empty dwelling without any legal claim to it, the police, when they’re called, cannot remove that person. Instead, they refer the landlord to civil court and ask the landlord to have this person legally classified as a squatter to resolve the matter through litigation. We heard and internalized all the feedback we received at last year’s hearing, and we’ve updated the bill to reflect your well-received concerns. We changed the language that defines a squatter. It’s now much clearer.

“It specifically does not apply to any person who has, or ever has, any rental agreement, whether it’s formally codified in writing as a lease or a less formal verbal agreement. The bill does not apply to any person who has had any legal access or authority to enter the dwelling at any time. And we’ve had some preliminary conversations with advocates this year who suggested that we further limit the bill to exclude homeless people on public land, so we’d be happy to make that change as well.

“While this doesn’t happen often, when it does, it’s a real problem for landlords. Imagine you come home from work one day and you find a stranger sitting on your living room couch. You call the police, and when the police arrive, they say, ‘Well, I don’t know that he doesn’t actually belong here, so he’s going just to sit here while you go to civil court and figure it out.’

“When squatters occupy vacant dwellings, they prevent those units from being rented to lawful tenants. They often cause significant damage that is expensive to repair and expose other tenants in the building to undue risk. The goal of this legislation is to make sure that small landlords can keep their units on the market. If we alienate small landlords when the risks of renting outweigh the benefits, they’ll sell those properties to institutional investors. I want to leave you with a quote from the City of Providence 2025 Housing Crisis Task Force Report addressing this very transition. It says, ‘Homes that once passed between generations, now more than ever, are being sold to investment firms that may never visit the city at all.’ And that’s unfortunate. It’s not going to help the housing crisis.

INCREASING THE UPFRONT COSTS OF RENTERS

Representative Baginski’s second bill seeks to enable landlords to take a larger security deposit.

“To ensure that landlords are effective in addressing the housing crisis, we have to take their input about what works in the process. We’ve all heard that costs are going up. It’s important that landlords feel like they have some tools to continue renting the units they have on the market. Because Providence is the largest city and has the clearest data, a 2024 report shows that 622 new units were permitted. That same year, only 139 were actually put on the market. So there’s a clear problem implied here: In practice, it is too difficult for landlords to bring new units to market.

“This bill is one tool that would allow them to protect their investment, reduce their risk, and incentivize them to continue renting.”

Representative Cruz replies:

“Costs are going up for everyone. This bill is extremely troublesome because it requires that, at a rent of $2,000, tenants must pay $6,000 to move in. I don’t have $6,000 on hand to move somewhere. This bill will exacerbate homelessness, there’s no doubt. Our current law is that you cannot ask for more than one month’s rent, but we know what’s happening. Renters across the state know that landlords are asking for more. I see this as a way to skirt the current law because landlords have been doing it to tenants who didn’t know the law. I’m going to ask you to please stop, because tenants can’t afford it.

“This is the most troubling piece of legislation I’ve seen tonight. I can’t imagine anyone coming up with $6,000 to move into a unit, especially when we have a problem with tenants getting their security deposits back in the first place. We have a problem with getting one month’s rent back and landlords abiding by that law. So now two months? They’ll never be able to move or go anywhere.”

WRAPPING UP:

The meeting lasted over four hours, with many opinions expressed and a few other bills discussed, which I’m neglecting to report on due to time constraints. I’m going to let Reclaim RI’s Naoko Shibusawa wrap things up. From her testimony:

“I strongly support all the bills that advance housing justice. These are commonsense measures that prevent needless cruelty to our fellow Rhode Islanders. This is why I also oppose House bills 8112, 8066, 7560, and 7759. These bills would cruelly add burdens on tenants or impair their right to safety. Housing justice isn’t simply about humanity and decency. Housing justice is about creating an upward spiral and wellbeing in our communities.

“Tenants with more money in their pockets will spend those dollars in our local economy. Schoolchildren whose families do not constantly fear eviction will grow up to be healthier. They could focus better in school. Stable communities are safer. People who know each other look out for each other. I’m a homeowner, but my 27-year-old daughter doubts she will ever become one. It’s getting harder and harder for all our children, but it does not have to be this way.

“There’s nothing inevitable or natural about the housing crisis. Rhode Island legislators have the opportunity, and I would say the responsibility, to deal with this crisis in a systemic way that gives immediate relief. Our state government should act in the interest of the many over the few. We also need to be very aware of the disingenuous tactics that present the interests of the few as if they are in the interest of the many.

“I urge you all to think about housing justice expansively, about how to think about our community here in Rhode Island.”

1. Representative Potter continued:

“I want to respond to some of the arguments that I’ve recently heard, primarily before the Providence City Council, when a similar proposal came up there. We’ve heard that policies like this will discourage development. People are going to stop building. It’s important to address that directly because, admittedly, there is some evidence that indicates that if you have a very strict and inflexible rent stabilization policy, it might negatively impact supply. I would argue that those studies have very questionable reliability because in truth, it’s impossible to control for the variables that are also at play here, but that brings me back to one variable that I think would the one the committee should focus on, which is that those policies and that negative effect is when it’s not paired with policies that increase supply, because ultimately, development decisions are going to be based on permitting, land costs, zoning, and interest rates.

“That context is important because, I would argue, we’ve had the benefit of having a Speaker of the House who has made housing policy and solving our housing crisis the collective priority of this house. And we have done so much on that. We’ve passed dozens of laws to reduce barriers to development, to streamline permitting, and to increase production. All of the things that opponents to this bill argue that we need to do. We’ve created a housing production fund. We’ve created a cabinet-level director of housing. We’ve reformed zoning laws. We’ve allowed ADUs by right. We’ve worked to cut so much red tape. It’s been a very serious effort at the highest level of our leadership here. And yet, despite all of that work, we’re still here.

“People are still seeing their rents rise to a point where they can’t afford them. We still see people getting priced out of their homes, and we see homelessness increasing. So we have to be honest. Supply-side solutions are necessary, but they take time. They do not solve the immediate crisis that people are facing right now. But even if you accept that increasing housing supply is the long-term solution, and again, I do, then that brings us to the next question, which is, what do we do in the meantime? What do we do while people are struggling right now? This is not about choosing between building more housing and protecting tenants. We need to do both. But until we reach the level of housing supply needed to meet demand, I believe we have an obligation to protect people right now. I would argue that this bill should be looked at as a bridge.

“It’s a way to provide reasonable protections to people right now while we continue to work on those long-term solutions, because at the end of the day, this is about real people. When someone’s rent goes up, and they can’t afford to live, and they’re out on the street, what do we tell that person? Do we tell them, “I’m sorry, we couldn’t do anything, but at least we protected some fair market, free market principles?” That’s not a serious answer, and it’s not a humane answer. I would argue this is a real policy response to a real crisis. It should be seriously considered. And most importantly, it recognizes that housing is just too important an issue to leave entirely unregulated when it comes to what people are paying for rent.”