Philly renters just secured new protections from landlord retaliation. A lawsuit could undo them

Have a question about Philly’s neighborhoods or the systems that shape them? PlanPhilly reporters want to hear from you! Ask us a question or send us a story idea you think we should cover.

Philadelphia City Council has passed a pair of bills aimed at strengthening renter protections and reducing instances of landlord retaliation, potentially ending a protracted legislative process that has pitted fair housing advocates against independent landlords.

Tenant organizers are celebrating. They say the bills will empower renters to speak out about dangerous living conditions and help hold negligent landlords accountable.

“This is a victory for our people-powered movement,” said Melissa Monts, a member of OnePA Renters United Philadelphia.

“We thank City Council for hearing the voices of hundreds of renters who have been organizing for years just to get the basic right to live in homes that will not make our families and children sick.”

And yet their victory could be short-lived. Thursday’s vote came as a federal lawsuit threatened to invalidate the legislation. The complaint alleges the bills are unconstitutional and claims that lawmakers advanced them after violating the state’s open meetings law.

A federal judge is expected to consider a motion for contempt in the coming weeks. If she rules against the city, the legislation could be killed.

“I will be very surprised if it’s not overturned,” said Paul Cohen, general counsel for HAPCO Philadelphia, the city’s largest advocacy group for landlords and property managers. The group, which has about 1,000 members, is not a party to the lawsuit.

The fight is largely rooted in a pair of provisions.

The legislation, introduced by City Councilmember Nicolas O’Rourke, expands “good cause” protections to all renters. That means, regardless of the term of a tenant’s lease, landlords must state in writing the legitimate, legally defined reason why they want to terminate or not renew a lease. Currently, the law only applies to month-to-month leases and leases that run for less than a year.

Advocates say the exemption has provided cover for unscrupulous landlords to use this form of eviction to retaliate against tenants with longer leases — because they weren’t required to justify their decision or even give renters advance notice.

O’Rourke’s bills also clarify that tenants have the right to sue for back rent if their landlord has illegally collected payment. Under the law, landlords must have an active rental license and a certificate of rental suitability to collect rent. Landlords would not be penalized if they lack those documents because of administrative delays at the city, including the Department of Licenses and Development.

Opponents argue the legislation could put independent landlords out of business by making it harder — and likely more costly — for them to remove problem tenants, while also potentially requiring them to give out rebates they can’t afford.

HAPCO board member Seth Floyd, one of the landlords who filed the lawsuit, has said the legislation could be “catastrophic” for him and others.

“I could run into the wrong tenant with this legislation, not be able to make my mortgage on my properties and end up in foreclosure,” said Floyd, adding that landlords are “already under a lot of strain.”

A monthslong legislative process

Thursday’s vote came roughly a year after City Councilmember Nicolas O’Rourke introduced the bills as part of his Safe Healthy Homes Act, a legislative package drafted in partnership with fair housing advocates.

Council previously passed legislation authorizing the city to create a displacement fund for tenants forced to move because their property has become uninhabitable. Facing pushback from Mayor Cherelle Parker’s administration, O’Rourke agreed to hold the remaining bills to allow more time for negotiations and related amendments.

Lawmakers were expected to approve those measures last month. But a day before the vote, two landlords took the unusual step of suing the housing committee. A settlement reached the same day sent the bills back to committee, requiring council members to effectively retrace their steps ahead of Thursday’s final vote.

The committee held three public hearings on the legislative package before Thursday’s vote, which O’Rourke called a “major move.” He also had a warning for landlords.

“For any landlord of any size who’s neglectful, who’s negligent, who’s not concerned about maintaining the property you’re drawing income from … it’s time to get yourself in order, straighten up and fly right,” O’Rourke said.

The bills must be signed by Mayor Cherelle Parker. They are set to take effect on Nov. 1.

Before then, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone is expected to decide whether Council’s housing committee violated the state’s Sunshine Act ahead of Thursday’s vote.

The law is meant to stop public agencies, including legislative bodies, from making decisions in secret without public input. The suit alleges the committee deliberated and reached a consensus on the bills behind closed doors before a public hearing started in early March.

The same judge is expected to rule on the underlying case, which alleges the legislation violates “fundamental property rights” spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

Either track could derail O’Rourke’s bills.

Jackie Zaneri, supervising attorney at SeniorLAW Center, said landlords likely have an “uphill battle” on both fronts.

“The city going ahead and voting on the bills suggests that, internally, they believe that the landlords do not have a high likelihood of success,” said Zaneri, who is not part of the case.