Philly court settlement halts City Council vote on renter protections, sending bills back to committee for new hearing

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.

A court settlement has derailed a final vote on City Council legislation aimed at strengthening protections for Philadelphia renters.

Lawmakers were expected to pass the bills Thursday over strong objections from a group representing the city’s independent landlords. That changed after two property owners on Wednesday sued Council’s housing committee, claiming it violated the state’s Sunshine Act during a public hearing two weeks ago.

The act is meant to stop public agencies, including legislative bodies, from making decisions in secret without public input. The suit 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.

Under a settlement agreement with the city, there will not be a vote Thursday and the bills will be returned to committee, where there is expected to be a new public hearing on the legislation, part of the Safe Healthy Homes Act.

The city hasn’t admitted any fault or violation of the law, according to court documents. A spokesperson for the city’s Law Department declined comment.

The delay follows a protracted legislative process that pitted fair housing advocates against independent landlords, who argue the bills will disproportionately harm them while doing little to deter bad actors.

Last June, Councilmember Nicolas O’Rourke agreed to hold the bills in response to pushback from Mayor Cherelle Parker’s administration. The committee reconsidered them this month after a delay advocates attributed to the lobbying efforts of HAPCO Philadelphia, the city’s largest advocacy group for independent landlords and property owners.

O’Rourke did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the city’s Court of Common Pleas, essentially requires the housing committee to retrace its steps. It will also give HAPCO more time to push for amendments to the legislation.

HAPCO is not named as a party in the lawsuit.

The group, which represents around 1,000 landlords in the city, has a list of technical tweaks it would like to make. The main sticking point, however, is a provision that would expand the city’s “good cause” protections to every renter in the city, regardless of the term of their lease.

Currently, the law applies only to month-to-month renters or those with leases that run for less than a year. Landlords must provide written notice stating why they want to terminate or not renew these leases. Acceptable reasons include “habitually” not paying rent or paying late, nuisance activity reported by other tenants or causing “substantial” property damage.

Fair housing 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 aren’t required to justify their decision or even give renters advanced notice. Last year, roughly 90% of eviction filings were tied to leases of a year or more, according to court data.

Landlords argue the expansion will make it harder for them to remove problem tenants, potentially costing them dearly, particularly if other tenants in a building decide to move to get away from a bad tenant.

Paul Cohen, general counsel for HAPCO, said tenants don’t need the legislation.

“The law currently says that you cannot terminate a lease if you are doing it to retaliate against the tenant,” Cohen said. “If the tenant can show that the landlord is retaliating against them, then you can’t terminate the lease agreement.”

However, housing attorneys and tenant organizers say it’s exceedingly difficult to prove that an eviction was retaliatory, particularly if the landlord isn’t required to provide a reason.

“Retaliation is difficult to prove because retaliation requires you to prove a state of mind,” said Jackie Zaneri, supervising attorney at SeniorLAW Center. “The best protection against retaliation … are baseline standards that everyone has to follow.”

In response to the settlement, OnePA Renters United Philadelphia, which helped craft the legislation, is organizing a Thursday morning protest march. Tenants and other advocates will walk from City Hall to HAPCO Philadelphia’s offices in Center City.

According to a news release, they will “line the halls of the fourth floor” to urge lawmakers “not to be intimidated by the dirty tactics of the landlord lobby.”

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.