During a lengthy debate over an eviction reform bill on Tuesday, the Senate Republican ranking member of the Housing Committee questioned whether there is an affordable housing crisis in Connecticut and whether race-based landlord discrimination actually occurs.

The comments from Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, occurred during what leaders said they expected to be the last Housing Committee meeting of the session, as lawmakers were poised to approve Senate Bill 257 on Tuesday.

The bill would largely end no-fault evictions in apartment buildings with five or more units. It would also allow evictions for certain personal circumstances, such as when a landlord wants to make the property their primary residence or rent it to an immediate family member.

It’s supported by tenants who say they face discrimination in the form of no-fault or lapse-of-time evictions, which typically occur when leases end. Landlords have opposed the bill, saying it will make it harder for them to provide safe, pleasant housing experiences to all renters. Lawmakers have considered versions of the bill in past sessions, but it hasn’t come to either chamber for a vote.

Much of the discussion Tuesday revolved around ongoing conflicts between Democrats and Sampson over his views on housing and capitalism. Some Democrats were also frustrated by his debate methods, which often last many hours.

“Landlords don’t care about someone’s race or their sexual orientation, or any of that stuff,” Sampson said. “The only color that they tend to care about is green and whether or not you’re making that rental payment.”

There have been many cases of housing discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation and religious affiliation. 

Housing co-chair Sen Martha Marx said in her closing remarks before the bill’s vote that she hoped that landlords cared about more than money. 

“I hope that’s not true,” Marx said. “I think if … you’re really proud of your apartments, and you really want the family to move in, to love their apartment.”

Sampson also questioned the veracity of the claim that there is a lack of affordable housing in Connecticut.

“The truth is, if there’s a lack of housing, that means people are in those properties already, and they’re renting them, and they are paying whatever the price is. So there are people affording the housing that’s out there,” Sampson said.

Many experts and data reports have documented the lack of housing, particularly housing that’s affordable to people with low incomes. Research shows that more than half of Connecticut renters pay more than a third of their incomes to rent.

Lawmakers also referenced Sampson’s tendency to offer lengthy testimony, which came under fire earlier this session. Democrats pushed two bills through early in the session without sending them through the committee process, citing filibustering on the floor.

Speaker of the House Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, referenced one unnamed senator in particular during debate on an emergency-certified bill last month, and Sampson released a statement responding to the comments.

“Debate is not obstruction. Debate is the job, especially when the majority is practicing what I have described as convenience government, abusing the emergency certification process to bypass public hearings, committee debate, and meaningful public input,” Sampson said in the press release.

During Marx’s closing remarks just ahead of the bill vote, she said she’ll be ready for debating Sampson on the floor.

“I just do want to tell the good senator to my right: I will be so ready when we debate this on the floor, because I care about this bill so much,” Marx said.

In the Housing Committee, over the past several years, debate and public testimony over different versions of the eviction reform measure have kept the committee in session well past midnight. On Tuesday, Sampson argued against the bill for over three hours.

He has been a fierce opponent of eviction reform, arguing that the government shouldn’t interfere in a private contract between citizens.

“Who does the government think they are to be able to go and dictate to private citizens who have private contracts with one another that they’ve entered into freely?” he said.

Rep. Larry Butler, D-Waterbury, and Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, also opposed the measure.

Connecticut Apartment Association executive director Jessica Doll said in a statement that the legislature should focus instead on building more housing.

“Leases have a first day and a last day that landlords and tenants both agree to; the bill to nullify apartment leases fails to protect apartment residents from disruptive neighbors and fails to provide a single new unit of housing,” Doll said.

Supporters say that the bill would prevent some of the mass evictions that have been seen after new landlords — particularly large companies — purchase buildings and decide to drive up the rent. They also say that these types of evictions are often used to discriminate against people and discourage renters from joining tenant unions or complaining about poor housing conditions.

“We’re seeing that just cause has real traction this year and real support, and we’re hoping to see it through the finish line,” said Hannah Srajer, president of Connecticut Tenants Union. “We’ve been really clear and consistent, and so have our members, we need the expansion of just cause now.”

Housing Committee co-chair Rep. Antonio Felipe, D-Bridgeport, said he thinks the bill will protect renters and that housing is a crucial service.

“Some people are in this to make money,” Felipe said of landlords. “If you’re in this to make money, good on you. Go for it. But there should be some protections as to how you provide a service such as housing.”