Philadelphia landlords oppose the bills
During Monday’s hearing, tenants urged the committee to again pass legislation they say will help improve the lives of low-income residents across Philadelphia, most of whom cannot afford to move when their apartment becomes uninhabitable.
“These bills are the bare minimum for landlords to follow,” said Theresa Howell, a member of OnePA Renters United Philadelphia, which helped craft the legislation.
Landlords and property managers told lawmakers they support the bills’ intent but raised concerns about unintended consequences they said they’ll have on their businesses. Several suggested technical changes to the legislation that they say would help mitigate those concerns.
“The title of the bill is great … but the language needs work,” said Seth Floyd, a longtime landlord and realtor.
Lev Kravinsky, CEO of the Lindy Communities Company, argued the legislation will inadvertently harm law-abiding landlords facing administrative delays who are making a “good faith” effort to cure code violations at their properties. For example, he said the city’s Department of Licenses and Inspections often takes weeks to clear violations due to scheduling constraints — violations that can prevent a landlord from being able to legally collect rent.
“I urge the council members present today to hold these bills until they can be amended so as not to upend the property management industry. I truly believe that protecting tenants is not at odds with regulating property management,” said Kravinsky, who’s also the secretary for the Pennsylvania Apartment Association.
O’Rourke said the bill addresses this issue with a “safe harbor” provision meant to protect landlords against being penalized when the city is to blame.
The opposition came roughly two weeks after Floyd sued City Council’s housing committee for allegedly violating the state’s Sunshine Act during a public hearing in early March.
The measure is meant to stop public agencies, including legislative bodies, from making decisions in secret without public input. The lawsuit alleges the committee violated the law, as well as the city’s home rule charter, by deliberating and reaching a consensus on the bills behind closed doors before the hearing started.
The suit was filed and settled a day before Council was scheduled to take a final vote on the legislation. Under an agreement with the city, O’Rourke’s bills were instead sent back to committee so a new hearing — and a new vote — could take place.