Philly renter protections advance toward final vote after a landlord lawsuit forced a redo

Legislation aimed at strengthening protections for Philadelphia renters passed through a key City Council committee Monday for the second time, a procedural move that became necessary after landlords took the rare step of suing Council and stalling the bill.

Council’s Committee on Housing unanimously passed the two bills, which were authored by Councilmember Nicolas O’Rourke. The legislation says that tenants are entitled to a rent abatement if their landlord does not have an active rental license or fails to repair code violations in a timely manner.

The legislation also includes protections from retaliation for renters who complain about housing conditions, requires landlords to have “good cause” to not renew a tenant’s lease, and increases penalties for landlords who rack up code violations.

The bills could be up for final passage by the full Council as early as April 16, however some members are continuing to advocate for amendments to the legislation.

The upcoming final vote will represent the culmination of a yearslong process that was spurred by housing and tenants’ rights activists who have called for lawmakers to bolster legal protections for renters — nearly half of Philadelphia’s residents.

Tenants have told lawmakers harrowing stories of unsafe living conditions and negligent landlords who have failed to abate mold and pests, or repair leaks and broken heat.

“This is not about penalizing a landlord for a mistake or something that’s out of your control,” O’Rourke said during the hearing Monday. “This is about protecting tenants from landlords who refuse to follow the law, who neglect to apply for a license, who refuse to repair crumbling properties, and then all the while collect rent from vulnerable residents and tenants.”

O’Rourke, a member of the progressive Working Families Party, introduced a package of “Safe Healthy Homes” legislation nearly a year ago. Council last year passed a bill that created an anti-displacement fund for renters.

The bills now up for consideration have undergone a series of amendments amid fierce opposition from organizations that represent landlords.

The groups, including the Homeowners Association of Philadelphia (HAPCO Philadelphia) and the Pennsylvania Apartment Association, say the legislation would place significant new burdens on property owners by expanding when tenants are eligible for rent abatements and adding new compliance obligations.

They say the legislation would especially harm small property owners who operate on thin margins and can’t absorb compliance expenses or new penalties.

“You’re not siding with working-class Philadelphians,” said Timothy Lewis, who testified in opposition to the legislation Monday. “You’re pricing them out of ownership and reserving housing investment for private equity, who are detached from tenant well-being and undeterred by municipal punishment.”

Tensions reached a new level earlier this month after the bills sailed through the Housing Committee on March 4 and were poised to be voted on by the full Council.

Ahead of the expected final vote, two Philadelphia landlords — one of whom is HAPCO Philadelphia’s political chair — sued City Council, stalling the bills. They argued that Council members discussed amendments to the legislation in private and then voted on them before allowing public comment, violating the state’s Sunshine Act that requires public government meetings and the opportunity for open testimony.

» READ MORE: In a rare move, Philly landlords sued to delay a City Council vote on legislation meant to protect renters

Council and the landlords reached a settlement agreement shortly after the suit was filed, with lawmakers agreeing to send the bills back to the Housing Committee to be voted on again. Council did not admit to violating the law.

On Monday, a bevy of property owners and officials from the organizations that represent them advocated for additional amendments to the legislation, including expanding the grace period for landlords to address fire safety code violations from 30 to 60 days.

Lev Kravinsky, the CEO of the Pennsylvania Apartment Association, also asked O’Rourke to clarify a provision that penalizes landlords if they can’t produce a certificate of rental suitability.

Kravinsky said there are a variety of “small and technical” reasons that a property owner may not be able to quickly obtain the certification.

“Our intent here is not to lessen penalties or punishments for those truly bad actors who are taking advantage of the power imbalance in the tenants’ relationship with the housing provider,” Kravinsky said. “But I do believe that housing providers require safe harbors for legitimate and good faith situations beyond their control.”

O’Rourke said he’s open to continued conversations about amendments, but said that some of the requests have already been addressed in the legislation and amount to “delay tactics.”

His supporters — many affiliated with the housing and economic justice organizations One PA Renters United Philadelphia and Philly Thrive — said further amendments would dilute the legislation’s intent.

Theresa Howell, a member of One PA, said the 30-day grace period for landlords that’s currently in the legislation is “already too much.”

“I had to deal with an infestation of rats, raccoons, leaks, mold, and a child in my home ended up with lead poisoning,” she said. “To have to survive for 30 days seems unreasonable. These bills are the bare minimum.”

But O’Rourke may need to make further adjustments to the legislation to win over some of his colleagues before final passage.

Councilmember Curtis Jones Jr., a Democrat who represents parts of Northwest and West Philadelphia, voted to pass the legislation out of committee Monday, but indicated the bills need further changes before the full Council votes.

“We believe in the character of our member and that he is earnest in his willingness to work with the other lobbyists and the other organizations to come up with reasonable amendments,” Jones said. He then addressed O’Rourke directly, adding: “We want to hold you to that word.”