Landlords have become the scapegoats for Democratic state legislators who want to show they are doing something about the high cost of rental housing and the difficulties many face finding apartments.

Yet the real problem is a lack of such housing. But that is a tougher and more politically difficult problem to solve. It is easier to dump on the landlords.

At some point, this approach will prove counterproductive. Those legitimate businesspeople who want to see a decent profit, while treating tenants fairly, will be driven away. They will decide, as some already have, that the rental business is no longer worth the hassles. Bad tenants — fortified with new protections — will cost them too much in mental health problems and lower profits for them to continue.

No doubt there are plenty of unscrupulous landlords out there, those who take advantage of the desperate. They provide substandard housing and calculate that their tenants, fearful of losing the housing they have, won’t complain about it to the authorities.

The thing is, another set of so-called tenant protections are more likely to drive out the good landlords, not the bad ones. Unethical landlords and soulless corporate operations will just dismiss any new rules as the cost of doing business. They will keep law firms on retainers to find loopholes and deal with their violations, while passing along the cost in rent hikes.

As local landlords bail out of the system, out-of-state corporate landlords — less accountable — are replacing them.

Yet at the end of February the Housing Committee, with Democrats in favor and Republicans against, passed along more renter-protection proposals for consideration by the legislature.

Latest proposals

Senate Bill 143 would prohibit a landlord from evicting a tenant when a lease expires. Unless a landlord can show cause, such as property destruction or nonpayment of rent, a tenant could not be removed, even with the lease long expired. The rule would apply to apartment buildings with five or more units. It is a protection already afforded to those 62 and older and to the disabled.

House Bill 5242 would prohibit landlords, when deciding whether to rent to someone, to consider the prospective tenant’s criminal record if it dates back more than three years. It is unclear how such a rule would be enforced. Exceptions to the don’t-look rule would be few, including sex offenders with registration requirements and, in the case of public housing, ex-cons with a history of running drug factories in public housing.

Rep. Aundre Bumgardner of Groton is among the co-sponsors of the proposed lease rule, while Rep. Anthony Nolan of New London is a co-sponsor of the criminal record legislation. Both are Democrats.

Landlords testifying to the Housing Committee gave good reasons why the proposals don’t make practical sense and could work against the goals of providing decent housing. Landlords said the protection of a lease can make them more likely to rent to someone with a poor credit record or past landlord problems. Worst case, they can remove them when the lease expires. Without that option, landlords testified they would have to be more discerning, making finding good housing more problematic for those on the economic margins.

The Housing Committee heard stories that the ending of a lease is sometimes the only way to remove a tenant who has made life miserable for their fellow renters due to noise or questionable characters constantly coming and going. Proving a case of nuisance in court is difficult, they said, with other tenants usually fearful to come forward.

There were also concerns voiced that as the ranks of tenants without leases grows, and renters are free to leave without penalty, bank financing for improvements or the purchasing of apartment buildings will prove more difficult to get. Banks like certainty. Leases provide more of it.

Don’t look

As for the changes in criminal background checks, it is understandable why some rental advocates want to require landlords to turn a blind eye to criminal records. Former criminals need housing too, and background checks can make it extremely difficult for them to get an apartment.

But telling landlords that they can’t consider past criminal behavior in assessing the worthiness of a tenant is unreasonable and potentially dangerous.

“I deal with my tenants directly, often entering into their homes to perform routine maintenance alone,” testified a woman who is a landlord. “It is important for me to feel safe and to know that the tenants I am renting to are not placing me — or the neighbors living next door to them — at an elevated risk to their personal safety.”

Landlords should be free to consider the worthiness of prospective tenants on a case-by-case basis. It is a problem if those with any criminal record are automatically disqualified as potential tenants. But this solution — you can’t look — is not a good one. Interestingly, landlords testified the existence of a lease makes them more willing to rent to someone with a questionable past. But with the other bill, the legislature would strip away much of that lease protection.

It is worth noting that Connecticut has a progressive “Clean Slate” law. It automatically erases criminal records of people seven years after the date of their conviction for a misdemeanor or 10 years after the date of their conviction for low-level felonies — if they have not been convicted of other crimes. That means those past misdeeds shouldn’t be a hindrance to finding rental housing.

Tenants already have substantial rights. And those protections have been boosted in recent legislative sessions. Greater attention should be given to providing tenants with information about those rights, and the legal means to pursue them, rather than piling more rules on landlords. There has also been a movement towards creating tenant unions. That is a great approach.

More housing

The solution to the lack of housing is more multifamily housing, with policies and subsidies to make it affordable. The Connecticut Housing Finance Authority places the shortage of affordable housing at 92,500 units. Boost supply to meet demand and market forces should help limit rent hikes. But that approach would mean forcing more Connecticut suburban towns to accept such housing by not allowing zoning rules to be used as a fortification to block it. Current rules aimed at supporting affordable housing are toothless.

But pushing for affordable housing is not a politically popular position for lawmakers representing those communities to take. Republicans are nearly unanimous in their opposition to eroding “home rule” when it comes to housing and there is substantial weakness in support among Democrats.

In the meantime, many Democrats, to show they care, will keep turning the screws on the landlords. Republicans will be happy to oppose them, without offering any real housing solutions of their own.

Paul Choiniere is the former editorial page editor of The Day, now retired. He can be reached at p.choiniere@yahoo.com.