Date: Fri 05-Jul-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

FHH-Winslow-tenants-employees

Full Text:

Tenants At FHH Seek To Block Their Removal

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

A lawyer representing 15 of about two dozen state workers still living in

dormitories at Fairfield Hills is seeking a court order to force the state to

follow proper procedures in having the tenants move out of their quarters,

rather than threatening them with firings and a cut-off of utilities unless

they leave soon.

State Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) officials

told the tenants June 20 that unless they move from their residences by July

13, they will be fired for insubordination and the utilities in their rental

residences will be shut off on that date.

But that is not a legal way for a landlord to get a tenant to move from his or

her rent, according to Attorney Heidi Winslow of Newtown, who represents the

15 state workers.

A landlord can say that it no longer wants a tenant, but a landlord must go

through a legal eviction process to force a tenant to move out, she said. The

state isn't exempted from the formal eviction process because the tenants are

DMHAS employees, according to Ms Winslow.

In a request for a permanent restraining order submitted to Danbury Superior

Court, Ms Winslow asks the court to prevent the state from:

Shutting off the workers' utilities or threatening to do so as a means of

getting them to leave their dwelling units.

Firing the workers or threatening to do so as a means of getting them to leave

their dormitories.

Forcing out the tenants from their homes by any means other than the lawful

methods set forth by state law.

Formal eviction proceedings can take two to eight months, according to Ms

Winslow.

The state wants the workers to move out of their dormitories in Stamford Hall

and Watertown Hall as part of its plans to market Fairfield Hills to private

companies on a long-term basis to generate rental income for the state.

DMHAS closed Fairfield Hills Hospital last December. The dormitory tenants

were former Fairfield Hills employees. After the mental institution closed,

they found DMHAS work elsewhere, but continued living on the hospital grounds.

There is little activity now at Fairfield Hills, the once-bustling facility

which formerly housed 3,500 psychiatric patients.

Claudette Carveth, a DMHAS spokeswoman, has said that when the injunction is

filed in court, both sides will present their cases to a judge.

"At this point, we're taking things step by step," she said, adding DMHAS

hopes the employees will comply with the order to vacate the premises.

The state has no other housing facilities available for the workers now living

at Fairfield Hills, she said. Housing at Fairfield Hills was intended for

people who worked at Fairfield Hills, according to Ms Carveth.

The DMHAS employees still living at Fairfield Hills are now working in DMHAS

facilities elsewhere, and so must find housing elsewhere, she said.

In her complaint to the court, Ms Winslow states the plaintiffs pay rent to

the state for their dormitories on a biweekly basis and most tenants have

lived in their residences for 15 years or more.

Ms Winslow notes that the state received and accepted rent from each of the

plaintiffs on June 20. The minimal rental payments are deducted from the

employees' biweekly pay checks.

The plaintiffs' residences in state-owned facilities aren't related to their

job descriptions or duties of their current employment in any way, according

to Ms Winslow.

In the complaint, Ms Winslow states "rather than risk loss of employment and

living without utilities, the plaintiffs are being forced to leave their homes

and shelter. The plaintiffs do not have safe and secure alternative places to

live."

If a restraining order isn't granted, the plaintiffs will suffer immediate,

irreparable harm and their safety and security will be jeopardy, according to

the lawyer.

Ms Winslow's request on behalf of the plaintiffs for a permanent restraining

order is scheduled to be heard by a judge July 11 in Danbury Superior Court.