Jimmy McMillan ran for mayor of New York twice, on the Rent is Too Damn High Party.
But if he lived in Westport, and did not like what his landlord charged, he would not have to run for first selectman.
He could complain to the Fair Rent Commission.
If you haven’t heard of it, you’re not alone.
Westport’s newest board was established recently, after a state law was changed to mandate a fair rent commission in any municipality with at least 25,000 residents. (Previously, it was limited to large cities.)
Westport’s population of 27,000+ includes new apartments …
The Commission is just getting organized. The state statute says at least one member must be a tenant, and one a landlord.
First Selectwoman Jen Tooker appointed 5 members: Adrienne Durkin, William Hickson, Tanya Kaur, Marisa Manley and Theresa Miles.
They had their first organizational meeting this week. Assistant Town Attorney Eileen Lavigne Flug helped members understand the ordinance, their roles, and how to hear complaints.
The Commission deals with renters of both apartments and single-family homes. Seasonal rentals (for example, those for just the summer) are excluded.
Michele Onofrio is the Fair Rent Commission administrator. A longtime employee of the town’s Building Department (and administrator of Westport’s Blight Prevention Board), she will receive complaints from tenants about their rent.
Tenants can complain about a rent increase they believe is unfair; a charge for utilities or services that used to be included in the rent; or unsafe or unhealthy conditions that may violate housing, fire or health codes.
Tenants do not need a written lease to complain. They also do not need a lawyer.
… and older ones. A 2-bedroom, 1,000-square foot unit on Franklin Street (above) is listed for $2,300 a month.
Onofrio will then attempt to resolve the issue, with the tenant and landlord. If she cannot, the commission will hear the case.
The law lists 13 factors to be considered when determining fair rent. They include rents charged for similar apartments or houses; health and safety; services supplied by the landlord (utilities, furnishings, etc.); the landlord’s taxes and other expenses; the tenant’s income; previous rent raises, and more.
After a hearing, the commission can decide that the rent is fair, and order the tenant to pay.
The commission can also determine that the increase is unfair, and set it at a fair level and order the landlord to accept it; decide that the increase must be phased in gradually, or delay an increase until repairs are made to fix code violations.
No complaints have been made yet.
Jimmy McMillan: Are you listening?
(For more information on the Fair Rent Commission — including a tenant complaint form — click here. You can also email fair-rent@westportct.gov, or call 203-341-5024.)
Single-family homes are also available. This 3-bedroom, 1,634-square foot house rents for $7,850 a month.
(No other media outlet knows — or covers — Westport like “06880.” But we can’t do it without reader support. You can make a tax-deductibe contribution by clicking here. Thank you!)
Our little town is looking more and more like New York City these days. I wonder why ? ? ?
Why not communism? What a joke…
How does a tenant’s income matter? To a rental price?
And does the landlord have a right of appeal to an actual court with actual jurisdiction or are we now subject to the unilateral decision of an unelected commission, the skill or qualification to make such a decision is unknown. What a bunch of BS.
Maybe some of the other landlords who read this blog will offer an opinion…
Good point. I wish the post would have mentioned the appeal process or if one exists.
We need this, I have heard some landlords say to seniors, if I have to come fix x y and z your rent might go up, that does happen and tenants need to have a place to voice that type of mistreatment.
At the very least this extra-judicial process should be made open and transparent. Is there going to be any record of complaints and adjudications? The new Westport Fair Rent Commission was created by a town ordinance. Are its decisions legally binding? Enforcement? Reminds me of the leaf blower ordinance. So the “losing” landlord will have to go to court anyway to seek an eviction. The “losing” tenant, absent any recourse in state court, will have to move out and the landlord eats several months of subsequent non-revenue.
High rents means people will move to towns where the rent is lower. In their new neighborhood, they’ll buy their groceries, get their gas and boost the revenue of the community. Why pay an extra $600 a month if you can go 8 miles and get a better price.
Jack
By that logic we should all be living in Norwalk or Bridgeport
Norwalk would be the better choice since Wegman’s will be opening up in July and Westporters will be driving there to shop. Once you go there once, you’ll be hooked. By the way, how many For Rent and For Sale signs are on the Post Rd. We haven’t had an update lately. Why were there so many last time? I think it was 60.
I love shipping too. Norwalk Costco and Wegmans are neighbors. Shop Rite is close with great fruit and produce I was on the Fair Rent Commission in Norwalk many years ago. The landlords renter apartments with many housing violations and often refused to fix them. As I recall the maximum rent increase allowable under Norwalk was 10 per cent a year.
While the goals of the Fair Rent Commission may be well-intentioned, it’s important to recognize the potential for imbalance when government bodies intervene in private contractual relationships—especially within a capitalist system that relies on supply, demand, and private property rights.
Landlords already bear the financial risks of property ownership: rising insurance premiums, property taxes, capital expenditures, and the possibility of nonpayment by tenants. To then be subject to an unelected board that can override agreed-upon rent terms based on subjective factors—such as the tenant’s income or perceived fairness—can be fundamentally unfair to those who have invested in housing and are working to maintain it.
That said, there absolutely should be protections for tenants in cases involving unsafe or unhealthy living conditions. No one should be forced to live in substandard housing. In fact, many responsible landlords, myself included, already operate under such oversight. On my properties (which are not in Westport), we’re inspected regularly by state officials—right down to chipped paint—and held to clear, enforceable standards. There’s no ambiguity. If something violates code, it gets fixed. That’s how a fair and transparent system should work.
But when the same body that arbitrates rent also weighs in on subjective claims of “unfairness”—without consistent inspection standards or due process—it opens the door to politicized decision-making. It raises the risk of decisions being driven more by emotion or political optics than by sound economic reasoning. If rents can be adjusted downward because of what a tenant can afford, rather than what the market or the property’s costs dictate, it undermines the incentives that make it viable to invest in and maintain rental housing at all.
True fairness means holding both parties accountable: landlords for maintaining safe and livable housing, and tenants for honoring the agreed-upon terms. Without that balance, the long-term health of the rental market—particularly in communities like Westport—could be at risk.
Let’s not quickly overlook the fact that a lease is a negotiated, mutually agreed-upon arrangement—often carefully calibrated to reflect market conditions and the specific features or risks associated with the property. If a tenant doesn’t like the terms, they are free to go elsewhere. That’s how a functioning market works. But when those terms can later be second-guessed or overridden by a third party, it erodes the predictability and fairness of that agreement for the landlord.