On March 17, 2023, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania struck down a City of Pittsburgh ordinance known as the Residential Housing Rental Permit Program, Chapter 781—a resounding victory for local landlords. The Pittsburgh City Council passed the ordinance on December 16, 2015, and it was signed into law by the Mayor of Pittsburgh just two days later. However, within a few weeks, the first of several lawsuits were filed by a group of landlords, landlord associations and property management companies challenging the ordinance and seeking to have it stricken. The ordinance has been tied up in litigation ever since.
The Rental Ordinance
The ordinance is broad and audacious in its scope and requires, among other things, that rental property owners obtain a permit and allow inspections of each rental unit periodically, with or without a tenant’s permission. It also requires landlords to report personal and private data to the city for disclosure to the public and to designate a responsible local agent for non-local owners. In addition, the local agent must be a local property management company and allow government officials to enter their properties to conduct inspections and accept legal process on behalf of the property owner. Other provisions of the ordinance impose various excessive fees (the legality of the fees is being litigated separately).
The Commonwealth Court’s Ruling
The court agreed with the appellants that the ordinance exceeds the city’s authority as conferred by the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law. While the Home Charter affords a home rule municipality broad powers, those powers are not unlimited. The court relied upon §2962(f) of the Home Charter Law (and related cases) regarding regulations imposed upon businesses that prohibits a home rule municipality from doing so “except as expressly provided by statutes which are applicable in every part of the commonwealth or which are applicable to all municipalities or to a class or classes of municipalities.” The court held that the ordinance exceeded the city’s police powers and imposed overly burdensome affirmative duties upon landlords in the absence of a statute promulgated by the Pennsylvania General Assembly allowing it to do so.
In reaching its decision, the court analyzed prior cases involving rental registration and inspection ordinances that were previously upheld as valid exercises of police power. The court pointed out, among other things, that the prior cases were not as extensive in scope, especially concerning the imposition upon landlords of burdensome affirmative duties and requirements, and none of the cases raised Section 2962(f) of the Home Charter Law.
While it is too early to know whether the ruling will be appealed, the city council will likely continue its efforts to impose unwarranted oversight on landlords operating in Pittsburgh.
