January 20, 2026 Hartford Public Hearing on Displaced Tenant Relocation

On January 20, 2026, the Hartford City Council convened a virtual public hearing to consider an ordinance introduced by Councilman Josh Mitchum. The proposed legislation aims to amend Chapter 18, Article 6 of the municipal code to establish clear, adequate relocation services for tenants displaced by events such as residential fires. The hearing featured extensive testimony from displaced residents, community organizers, and legal experts, who overwhelmingly expressed support for the bill while detailing systemic failures in the city's current disaster response protocols.

Consent Calendar

• No routine approvals or unanimous actions were listed on the agenda for this hearing; the session focused solely on the ordinance proposal.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Victor Avala (Displaced Tenant): Expressed a position of urgent need for the law, stating that landlords have failed to return deposits and that the city failed to hold landlords accountable for maintenance issues that led to a fire. He described his family's experience as enduring three years of neglect and emphasized the need for the law to help the community recover.
• Ramon (on behalf of Juana Mendez): Expressed full support for the ordinance, arguing that the current system is inefficient and unfair to single mothers and taxpayers. He stated that the city needs to have a system that streamlines procedures and that the money should be given directly to families, not just landlords, to prevent trauma.
• Ryan Pierre (Displaced Resident): Expressed that the city's response is "ridiculous" and "inadequate," specifically criticizing the delay in receiving the $4,000 support for security deposits. He argued that the city shows "overwhelming apathy" and that families are being forced into unsafe, expensive temporary housing without kitchens.
• Van Born Powell (Displaced Resident): Expressed a position that current policies are unjust and underlining for landlords. He advocated for the city to screen unlicensed landlords and ensure that the people paying taxes receive the same protection and respect as the profit-making landlords.
• Taylor McIntyre (Displaced Resident): Expressed strong support for the bill, describing her family's experience of losing their home to fire and subsequent theft as a trauma that ended with silence and delay from the landlord. She argued that the bill is necessary for families to recover their stability and mental health.
• Marisol Dremelin (Julian Morales reading on behalf of Marisel Hermann, Displaced Tenant): Expressed that the experience was a "nightmare" caused by landlords' irresponsibility and city inaction. She stated she is a taxpayer making up 75% of the city and argued it is unfair that the city prioritizes abusive landlords over working-class families, expressing strong support for the new protections.
• Stefan Keller (reading for Teresa Quintana, Make the Road CT): Expressed that the ordinance is vital because it provides a framework for city responsibilities and the power to recoup expenses from landlords. Teresa Quintana expressed that the current system dehumanizes residents and lacks empathetic leadership, arguing for accountability from elected officials.
• Marisol Navarro (Displaced Tenant): Expressed that she is in favor of the ordinance because she witnessed the same struggles firsthand 1.5 years ago. She criticized the city for a lack of proper training leading to inconsistent information and expressed that the current protocol times are not being handled properly, causing families to stay in inappropriate hotels for months.
• Sarah White (Attorney, CT Fair Housing Center): Expressed strong support for the ordinance, clarifying that it aligns with state law (Uniform Relocation Assistance Act) and court precedents. She noted that the bill would clarify obligations, improve the ability for the city to recoup costs from landlords (even in cases where the landlord is not at fault), and mandate better temporary housing standards.
• Luke Melanikus (CT Tenants Union): Expressed that the ordinance is essential for homelessness prevention and cost-effectiveness. He noted that the city's breakdown in communication and lack of standardized protocols caused significant negative impacts that could have been prevented with better administration and political will.
• Dave Richardson (Displaced Resident): Expressed 100% support for the bill. He stated that the current $4,000 allocation is obsolete, costing residents thousands less than the current market requires. He criticized the mayor and code enforcement for a terrible job and argued that residents are being left out in the cold.
• Amanda Shaflets (Disaster Health Nurse): Expressed strong support, framing displacement as a public health crisis. She emphasized that the bill's provisions for health stabilization (kitchen access, medication retrieval) are necessary measures, not luxuries, to prevent cascading health emergencies.
• Wanda (Displaced Resident): Expressed distress over her situation, stating she has sacrificed years for her life in Hartford. She indicated she is being evicted from her hotel by February 3rd without a plan, as rents are too high for the $4,000 city offer, and she feels abandoned by the system.
• Chelsea Connery (Attorney, CT Fair Housing Center): Expressed support, noting that the bill codifies existing state law and provides a necessary structure to guide the city's actions, which she characterized as previously obstructionist or failing entirely.
• Hannah Schreier (CT Tenants Union): Expressed that the bill addresses a "structural problem" and that the city's response has been preventable distress. She urged the council to act now to stop hearing the same stories again.

Discussion Items

• Discussion on Fault and Liability: Councilman asked Attorney Sarah White about the collectibility of relocation benefits if a fire was caused by tenant negligence rather than landlord fault. White clarified that a 2024 Supreme Court case (PPC Realty vs. City of Hartford) confirmed that the priority lien and city obligations remain valid even when the landlord is not at fault for the fire.
• Discussion on Insurance: Councilman asked if the ordinance should address tenant renter's insurance. White responded that the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act applies regardless of whether a tenant has insurance and that any city pilot programs for insurance should not substitute the city's legal mandate.
• Language Support: Councilwoman Rosado engaged in a brief exchange in Spanish with a resident (Wanda) to confirm the details of her displacement case, specifically regarding the $4,000 aid, the current rent costs, and the lack of a social worker to secure permanent housing.

Key Outcomes

• No Opposition: After the list of supporters was read and a final call for opposition was made three times, no members of the public spoke against the ordinance. The Chair noted the absence of any speakers opposing the measure.
• Agenda Conclusion: The public hearing was adjourned with the sole agenda item of Ordinance by Councilman Josh Mitchum remaining under consideration for final action by the Council.
• Next Steps: Councilwoman Rosado noted she would follow up on the specific case of the resident evicted from the hotel, promising to copy Councilman Gale and continue to assist with housing placement.