A Philly lawmaker wants to protect more renters from retaliatory evictions. He’s running into resistance

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 quiet battle is brewing over City Council legislation aimed at strengthening protections against retaliatory evictions, an ongoing concern that has become more acute amid a tight housing market with little mobility for renters.

The fight pits fair housing advocates against independent landlords, who argue the measure will disproportionately harm them while doing little to deter bad actors.

“This is huge. It really hurts landlords,” said Paul Cohen, general counsel for HAPCO Philadelphia, the city’s largest advocacy group for property owners and landlords.

The group, which represents roughly 2,000 landlords in the city, is pushing to change the bill before it receives a preliminary vote. The effort may be one reason why a required public hearing on the legislation has not yet been scheduled.

City Council President Kenyatta Johnson, who is responsible for setting hearings, told reporters Thursday his office is still reviewing the measure and listening to the concerns of stakeholders.

“We’re doing our due diligence,” Johnson said.

Expanding ‘good cause’ protections

The conflict is rooted in legislation approved in 2017. That year, lawmakers passed a bill requiring property owners and landlords to give certain tenants a “good cause” reason if they wanted to terminate or not renew their lease. Examples include habitually not paying rent or paying late, nuisance activity reported by other tenants, or causing “substantial” property damage.

Under a compromise, the law applies only to renters with month-to-month leases or with leases that run less than a year, enabling landlords to avoid filing for an eviction in court.

City Councilmember Nicolas O’Rourke wants to expand “good cause” protections to all renters in Philadelphia, the overwhelming majority of which have leases of a year or more.

For housing advocates like O’Rourke, the provision is about equal protection and empowering tenants. Right now, landlords are not required to tell tenants with leases of a year or more why they want to terminate or not renew their agreement, making it difficult for renters to dispute the decision if they suspect the eviction is retaliatory.

“It’s not necessarily a hard and fast rule, but it makes it really hard to challenge it when you’re kind of fighting against silence,” Public Interest Law Center staff attorney Madison Gray said. The group had a hand in crafting the legislation.

To HAPCO’s Cohen, expanding “good cause” protections would make it even harder for landlords to remove problematic tenants, particularly if their conduct doesn’t warrant filing for an eviction or if it would be difficult to demonstrate the need for one.

Cohen said it is exceedingly difficult to get tenants to testify against other tenants who are creating issues in their building, typically because they’re afraid of repercussions if their neighbor finds out. This is especially true in cases where a tenant is harassing other tenants.

“Without their testimony, we can’t win in court,” Cohen said. “So the landlords’ hands are tied. The landlord can’t terminate the lease with a ‘good cause’ requirement.”

HAPCO argues it could be financially disastrous for a landlord if a tenant’s continued presence causes other tenants to leave the building.

Housing advocates don’t buy Cohen’s logic. Gray said the city’s “good cause” requirement is intentionally flexible, meaning landlords have considerable latitude when it comes to explaining why they want to stop renting to someone.

“I can’t think of a situation that’s not already provided in the statute. But it’s not exhaustive for that reason,” Gray said.

And while a tenant can file an appeal, a landlord can ask a judge to reject it if they believe the argument to be in “bad faith.” Regardless of the outcome, a landlord could still move forward with an eviction filing after going through the city’s diversion program, a requirement before the matter can proceed to court.

It can now take up to eight months for the Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office to perform a lockout, said Cohen.

Passing the Safe Healthy Homes Act

The debate over “good cause” evictions is part of a broader legislative effort by O’Rourke to better protect renters in Philadelphia, particularly low-income tenants who often fear retaliation for speaking up about their living conditions.

This session, the council member hopes to pass two bills introduced in April through the Safe Healthy Homes Act. The legislative package is guided by three rights the lawmaker says must be preserved for tenants — the right to safety, the right to repairs and the right to relocation — especially at a time when historically high rents continue to put pressure on cost-burdened renters.

The federal government defines “cost-burdened” as spending more than 30% of household income on housing. In Philadelphia, more than half of all renters fit that description.

Last summer, Council passed a measure authorizing the city to create an antidisplacement fund for tenants forced to move because their property has become uninhabitable. Dollars for the fund, which will provide one-time payments to tenants, were added to the first budget for the mayor’s Housing Opportunities Made Easy, or H.O.M.E., initiative.

Following a public hearing last year, O’Rourke agreed to hold two of the three measures comprising the package. Now he’s pushing to get them passed.

“Even affordability isn’t enough if your home is not safe. You should not have to be submitted and subjected to living in accommodations that are unhealthy for you,” said O’Rourke at a Thursday news conference.

Passage would authorize the city to create a program to conduct proactive inspections of rental properties on a “regular cycle,” a longtime priority for advocates seeking tenant displacement protections.

The legislation would also clarify when a tenant can receive a rental rebate. Under the proposal, a tenant could sue for relief if a landlord collected monthly rent without having an active rental license or certificate of rental suitability. Both are required for landlords to legally collect rent.

As it stands, the law only allows a renter to stop paying rent if they find their landlord is in violation. They are not entitled to recoup any rent they have already paid.

HAPCO Philadelphia is strongly opposed to this provision, saying a landlord could be put out of business if multiple tenants sue — and win — over these technical violations.

In Philadelphia, one rental license can cover an entire building. And under O’Rourke’s legislation, the city would have to notify tenants if their landlord has a suspended rental license. The same is true if a landlord is not meeting the requirements for a valid certificate of rental suitability.

“When the city comes up with additional regulations, and the landlord has to pay additional money, that money has to get passed onto the tenant in the form of additional rent,” Cohen said.

O’Rourke said Thursday that every member of Council’s housing committee has verbally committed to advancing the bills for a full Council vote.

A spokesperson for O’Rourke said the council member has enough votes to send the measure to Mayor Cherelle Parker’s desk.