A proposed bill at the state legislature would reduce the amount of money that Connecticut’s landlords can charge for security deposits, but faces heated opposition from rental owners and conservative lawmakers.
Under current state law, landlords can require two months’ rent as a security deposit for tenants under the age of 62, according to Department of Housing (DOH) Commissioner Seila Mosquera-Bruno.
DOH proposed a bill that would limit security deposits to one month of rent.
Mosquera-Bruno said her background as a nonprofit affordable housing developer and landlord helped guide the bill’s formation. As a landlord, Mosquera-Bruno said she charged tenants a security deposit of one month’s rent.
“A one-month security deposit will help a family, especially with the rents, how expensive they are right now,” Mosquera-Bruno said. “A single mom with two kids, paying $2,000 for a month, and then they have to come out with another $4,000. It's pretty dramatic economically for those families.”
Mosquera-Bruno was one of more than 280 speakers during a public hearing Tuesday addressing dozens of bills up for consideration by the state’s Housing Committee.
Advocates say the bill would make it easier for renters with limited income to afford apartments and prevent landlords from taking advantage of tenants.
Bill opponents include Republican lawmakers and landlords. They say a single month’s rent as security deposit is often insufficient to cover tenant damages and could discourage landlords from working with renters who have poor credit or rental history.
Landlords with the Connecticut Apartment Association consider the bill anti-tenant for the same reasons.
Republican Rep. Tony Scott, who represents parts of eastern Fairfield County, worries the bill would hurt vulnerable renters.
“Those tenants are actually gonna be left out because they don't have the ability to say, ‘Trust me, take my word and, oh yeah, here's two months security deposit instead of one,’” Scott said. “Maybe they're not gonna take a risk on that individual candidate. They're going to go with someone else who they think is less of a risk.”
