What is wrong with this picture? There is a rental suitability law in Philly, that largely protects low-income people from slumlords. (The bill was pushed through by Rick Mariano, right before he resigned to go to prison, so that he could have a legitimate legacy before he left.) It was a nice gesture, and was passed over opposition from landlord groups.

However, now the Nutter administration has decided that amidst a lawsuit from landlord groups, it is not going to enforce the law, until those lobbying groups approve of changes to the bill. Fox, meet henhouse. Please lock the door on the way out, and don't choke on too many feathers.

Given what is actually in the bill, that there is even a mild controversy over this is pretty strange. Because what controversial things did the rental suitability law actually say?

1. That the landlord has completed all requirements from L and I, and has no violations. (Crazy!)
2. That the unit has working smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. (No!)
3. That the unit doesn’t have problems- like lead paint- that can cause health problems in tenants. (Bastards!)
4. That these requirements will be maintained while the tenant is renting the property. (How could they!)

If you were renting a property from someone, wouldn’t you expect/demand that anyway? Of course you would- because if you are reading this blog you are likely reasonably well-educated, more likely than not middle-class, and have a basic understanding that you are entitled to certain crazy things, like a home free of lead paint.

The 'controversy,' in theory, is because landlord groups are complaining that the bill gives tenants too many rights and is too vague. They allege this:

Lawrence Fischer, an attorney for the Apartment Association of Greater Philadelphia, counters that the law is too vague, citing "health and safety" without defining those terms. And Fischer said it lets a tenant manipulate the law to avoid being evicted.

"That's just not right," he said. "Any person who is about to get evicted, all they have to do is concoct an allegation of a violation and it stops the process."

This is frankly laughable. Maybe things have greatly changed from a year ago, but I have actually sat in on Landlord-Tenant Court, at least a year after the bill was passed. To say that the Court or law was in any way stacked towards tenants is a total joke. And, to imply tenants can win by simply inventing violations is a flat out lie.

Landlord-Tenant Court is a piece of Municipal Court that is- as the name suggests- a place where tenants and landlords are supposed to be able to bring and settle disputes. However, tenants almost never actually use their rights, and LT court could more aptly be described as eviction court. What you generally have are low-income tenants, almost never with counsel and almost never with an understanding of their rights, facing landlords, often represented by counsel, who have been through this process before. The power dynamic is dramatically tilted to the landlord. And, while I am sure the tenant must win sometime, I never saw it, on a daily docket with about 30 cases.

Basically, Philly landlords got used to a court that quickly served their needs. Then this law passed, and despite the fact that the overall power dynamic hasn’t changed (because most tenants still don't have counsel and don't know their rights) - landlords got pissed. Now, despite his vote for the bill as a City Councilman, landlords appear to have an ally in Mayor Nutter and the City Solicitor. We have reached bizarro world when the City Solicitor states she is suspending a law protecting low-income people because she doesn't know if it is enforceable, and because... it might not be consistent with the Mayor's goals.

First, what goals are those? And second, I must have missed the lesson in civics class where the Mayor can stop enforcing laws he doesn't care for.

I challenge anyone- for example, the Mayor or the City Solicitor- to sit in on a few sessions of LT court, and then tell us with a straight face that tenants in this city have too much power in the eviction process. As tenant after tenant either doesn’t show up, or has no understanding of their rights nor any comfort level defending themselves, and are then evicted or pressured into a behind-closed-doors mediation process, the reality of the situation will become quite clear.

If the problem here is vagueness- then take the issue to City Council, and let them modify the bill. Because, when low-income advocates get City Council to pass a good bill, and the Mayor simply decides to stop enforcing it, there are some pretty crappy implications that can be drawn.

The Mayor should go back to actually enforcing the law that is on the books, and City Council can- out in the open- hold hearings on possible changes. A situation where the City simply cuts a deal with landlord groups is a shameful joke.