Pittsburgh must have the power to create a rental registry
Pittsburgh needs a rental property registry. After years of battles between the city and landlords’ associations, the fight has finally reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The court should permit the city to inspect, analyze and regulate its own rental market — like many other municipalities across the commonwealth already do.
As a Post-Gazette investigation found last year, out-of-state LLCs have bought up hundreds of crumbling homes that are racking up citations, often in neighborhoods with high rates of renters like Carrick and Homewood. Without a registry it’s impossible to know whether these companies or other negligent landlords are renting out unsafe homes.
A registry will protect renters by requiring regular inspections of units, and owners to provide a local point of contact for every leased property.
There have been at least four attempts to bring the idea to fruition, beginning with Mayor Luke Ravenstahl in 2008, but landlords associations’ have successfully fought back each time, arguing that the rules are beyond the scope of second-class city powers under state law, and that the “fees” the city proposes to collect amount to “taxes” that violate the home rule charter.
While past registry attempts have been susceptible to the tax argument due to high fees, the most recent version is capped at the city’s costs as certified by the city clerk. That cannot be called a tax.
Further, the city argues, rightly, that regulating the maintenance of rental units falls under its public health and safety powers, and that it can’t track down bad actors without a registration. Plus, Allentown, Erie, and Philadelphia all have their own rental rental registries and accompanying
fees that are higher than what’s in the city’s most recent legislation.
A rental registry will only be one tool in the fight against out-of-town LLCs and other negligent landlords. Many companies continue to get away with unsafe practices because true ownership is intentionally obscured, and courts can’t contact the responsible parties. Detailed ownership information for all these properties should be mandatory.
Information about Pittsburgh’s rental market will also be a vital resource as the city grapples with a larger problem of a housing market that’s mismatched with the city’s needs. A central database will make it possible to take stock of the rental market, inspect homes regularly and hold landlords accountable for decrepit and unsafe conditions.
As some detractors have pointed out, the costs of the rental registry will likely be passed on to renters through new fees. But a few dollars a month — a 20-unit landlord will have to pay about $300 every few years — is a small price to pay for the confidence that landlords will provide housing that is safe and properly maintained.
But first, the state Supreme Court needs to uphold a common sense law that exists in various forms in communities across Pennsylvania. And if the court declines to do so, state legislators need to amend state law to empower Pittsburgh to protect its people.