Fair Rent Commission Meeting – May 29, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Fair Rent Commission Meeting – May 29, 2026
The Fair Rent Commission met on May 29, 2026, beginning at 7:00 PM and adjourning at 9:27 PM. The meeting addressed three contested matters: a jurisdictional review, a retaliation hearing, and a compliance hearing, along with a second retaliation hearing late in the evening. Numerous votes were taken, including a 5-0 dismissal and a 4-1 dismissal.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes of May 13, 2026: Approved unanimously by voice vote.
- Correspondence: None.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public spoke during the public comment period.
Discussion Items
- Jurisdictional Review – Nester vs. Middletown Housing Authority: Attorney Emilio Estrella, representing the Housing Authority, argued that the complaint lacked jurisdiction because the Housing Authority is not the landlord and the rent did not increase; the tenant’s share rose due to reduced household size and Section 8 eligibility changes. The complainant (Ms. Nester) was not present. The Commission dismissed the complaint after a roll-call vote (5-0; all commissioners in favor – Cronenberger, Fennel, Gonishau, Calvo, Rosenthal).
- Retaliation Hearing – Williams vs. Middletown Housing Authority: The tenant, Ms. Williams, testified that she received an eviction notice after disputing excessive recertification demands (bank statements for six accounts) and a $500 rent increase. She claimed the housing authority retaliated after she filed a complaint with the Commission. The landlord’s attorney, David Carlson, argued that the initial termination in March 2025 was for failure to recertify, and the May 2026 notice to quit was sent in error and would not be pursued. The Commission’s counsel explained the three possible grounds for retaliation under Section 14-81. After discussion, the parties agreed to a stipulated order: the Housing Authority would withdraw both notices to quit and cease eviction proceedings. The Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to table the matter with that order.
- Compliance Hearing – McPearson vs. 260-280 East Main Street LLC: Attorney for the tenant (Mr. McPherson) argued that the landlord failed to comply with a September 15, 2025 order to repair the heating system and provide reports from the health department, building department, and fire marshal. The landlord (Mr. Beskovich) presented invoices and inspection notes but admitted he did not know reports were required. The Commission noted the landlord had continued to charge full rent despite the order reducing rent to zero after October 4, 2025. The landlord had also filed an eviction action. The Commission tabled the compliance matter (unanimous roll-call aye, 5-0) to allow informal settlement discussions, and strongly urged the landlord to withdraw the eviction. The parties scheduled a Zoom settlement conference for the next day (May 30) at 2:00 PM.
- Retaliation Hearing – DeLeon vs. Monarca Properties: The tenant, Mr. DeLeon, stated he received a notice to quit (lapse of time) on April 28, 2026, 45 days’ notice to vacate by June 12. He had previously filed a complaint and the Commission found retaliation in November 2025. He noted he has a major surgery scheduled for July 27 and is on fixed disability income. The landlord’s attorney argued the notice was for lapse of time, not related to the complaint, and over six months had passed. The Commission voted to dismiss the complaint 4-1 (Commissioner Fennel voting against dismissal). The offer of informal settlement was declined.
Key Outcomes
- Nester complaint dismissed (5-0) for lack of jurisdiction.
- Williams vs. Housing Authority: Stipulated order to withdraw both notices to quit and cease eviction; matter tabled.
- McPearson compliance: Tabled (5-0) for informal settlement; eviction strongly urged to be withdrawn; settlement conference scheduled for May 30.
- DeLeon retaliation complaint dismissed (4-1).
- The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 2026, with possibility of a special meeting if needed.
Meeting Transcript
All right, sir. We should be we should be off that on the meetings to order at 7. The first thing on the agenda is public comment. Anybody from the public would like to speak. Seeing none. Next we'll go to the minutes from the May 13th, 2026 right now meeting. We have a motion so we chose the minutes. Any discussion? All in favor? I mean opposed or abstain. Next we have correspondent. No correspondence. So we'll get right into old business. We have the jurisdictional review of the NASCAR Middle South Housing Authority matter. So Mr. Yeah, Attorney Estrella is here on behalf of Middletown Housing, and I think you'll see that Ms. Hartline is here and Mr. Bear are here remotely. If there's if there's any witness, not a turn, but if there's any witness who plans to testify uh in their matter tonight, I'm just asking to raise your right hand. And if you're online and you plan to testify, please go on to Dammer and raise your right hand. Bear with me, I'm just waiting for Mr. Bear. Mr. Bear, are you planning to testify? Well, not really, but if I have to, so you might as well. All right. Uh do the oath. Uh do you solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm as the case may be that the testimony you shall give concerning your case shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So I hope you got her on penalty approach. I do. Okay. Thank you very much, everyone. Uh and so with respect to that, Attorney Estrella is here. Um do not see the plain and Miss Nester uh in the room or on video, just for the record. And this is the case where the person named on the complaint is not the land. That is correct. So would you if you you may sit if you'd like, or yeah, I'm not I'm not sure uh if we have a preference. I guess I'll stand over here so that I'm not uh behind anybody. Sorry. So I I realize that the complainant is not here. Um so I'll keep my remarks brief, but um, you know that you've identified one of the essential issues with this complaint, right? I think what we have here is a jurisdictional issue because the claim is being brought against the middle town housing authority. I'm Emilio Estrella, by the way. Um it's being brought against the housing authority, but there's a couple of of issues. The first is that the complaint of increase, first of all, was actually not an increase to the contract rent, right? So that stayed at the same amount. Middletown housing authority is not the landlord. What happened here was that the household size was reduced. Um so thus the eligibility for section eight payments was subsequently reduced, leading to a higher tenant's share of the same contract rent. But again, um we're not the landlord.
openpublica.com