Pittsburgh rental registration ordinance struck down by court

A state appeals court on Friday ruled that the City of Pittsburgh did not have the authority under Pennsylvania law to enact its ordinance governing rental unit registrations, which would have required a per unit registration fee and a litany of other rules.

It is not the registration of rental units that is the problem, the Commonwealth Court wrote, but all of the accompanying requirements.

“It is the inspection without permission of an owner and lessee, together with the obligation of rental unit owners to hire a responsible local agent, to follow best practices, to attend a landlord academy and to have their registration and inspection information put on a public, online database that place affirmative ‘duties, responsibilities (and) requirements’ on rental unit owners,” the court wrote.

The city failed to identify a Pennsylvania statute authorizing such wide regulation, the three-judge panel wrote, and, therefore, the ordinance must fail.

Lawrence H. Fisher, the attorney representing the Apartment Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh, praised the decision, saying it views it as “safeguarding the rights of the people to be free from the city’s grossly improper overreach.”

In a statement, Mayor Ed Gainey said he was disappointed in the decision.

“Pittsburgh is a majority renter city, and everyone who lives here deserves protection and the knowledge that their rented home meets basic standards of living,” he said. “This commonsense legislation is good for the health and safety of our residents.”

The city said it will appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The ordinance initially was passed by City Council in 2015, establishing a set of rules and a registration fee structure to ensure that rental units in Pittsburgh meet building standards.

However, the Landlord Service Bureau and Apartment Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh sued, alleging the program was unconstitutional.

In July 2017, an Allegheny County judge ruled in the city’s favor, finding that the rental ordinance “was a valid exercise of police powers, enacted to protect the health and safety of rental housing residents,” the Commonwealth Court wrote.

Land Services Bureau and the AAMP appealed, arguing that the rental ordinance was forbidden by Pittsburgh’s Home Rule Charter and that it was unconstitutional.

Specifically, they argued that there was no statewide statute authorizing such regulation.

The city, however, claimed that it was authorized by its broad police power to protect the health and well being of those residents who rent.

In the Commonwealth Court opinion, the three-judge panel found that the requirements placed on the rental unit owners — including allowing inspections of each rental unit with or without tenant permission, allowing inspectors into the properties for inspection and having a responsible local agent for out-of-county owners — were prohibited by state law.