The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) commends the Pennsylvania House for unanimously passing House Bill 1796, sponsored by Rep. Todd Stephens, R-Montgomery, which eliminates local “nuisance” ordinances that threaten domestic violence victims with eviction if they call the police multiple times.
No one should have to choose between taking a beating and having a roof overhead.
At least 19 Pennsylvania communities — including Pittsburgh, Allentown, Lancaster, Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre and York — have adopted policies that require landlords to evict an individual deemed a nuisance if police are called to that tenant's residence on multiple occasions (usually three times within a year).
Landlords who do not evict “nuisance'' tenants face fines and penalties, including revocation of their rental license.
The dedicated and hardworking staffs at PCADV's 60 community-based programs around the state understand the chilling effect these “nuisance” ordinances have on domestic violence victims.
PCADV worked with Rep. Stephens to ensure the bill considered the safety of victims and their children.
Stephens has proven to be a champion for victims who are faced with difficult choices when they need help the most.
As the state Senate considers the bill, PCADV urges our senators to agree that no victim should ever be forced to choose between help and homelessness.
Peg J. Dierkers
The writer is executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (pcadv.org).
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.