The hearing on the Safe Healthy Homes bills, originally scheduled last month, has been rescheduled.
Councilmember Nicolas O’Rourke’s Safe Healthy Homes bills will go before City Council on:
📅 March 4, 2026
⏰ 10:00 AM
📍 Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia
Because these measures could substantially affect rental property owners, housing providers are strongly encouraged to testify and ensure their real-world experiences are part of the discussion.
How to Testify
Housing providers who wish to testify should:
-
Email mary.jones@phila.gov directly with your name and email address.
-
If unable to attend in person, written testimony may be submitted to the same email address.
-
Clearly state in your message that you are a housing provider.
Participation is open to all housing providers — you do not need to be a Hapco member to testify. For additional questions, contact: hapcooffice@hapcophiladelphia.com . If you submitted testimony for the previously scheduled hearing, please reply to the same email thread to mary.jones@phila.gov and include the following statement:
“Please consider my testimony from last month for the upcoming March 4 hearing on the same bills.”
Below is the most up-to-date legal analysis of the bills from Paul Cohen, Esq.:
- This bill allows for good-cause eviction to apply to all tenancies, not just for tenancies under one year. Note that the law regarding good-cause evictions only for tenancies under one year was previously negotiated and agreed to by the various landlord organizations, tenant organizations and City Council. It is disingenuous to now change what was already agreed to as a compromise.
- Providing for an abatement of rent for any period during which rent was collected and the owner was noncompliant as defined in Section 9-3903. Note that noncompliance is defined as the failure to obtain or maintain a valid rental license or Certificate of Rental Suitability as required or whose rental license has been suspended. This is contrary to well established legal precedent.
- Requiring the owner provide notice to the tenant of any notice of an L&I violation or rental license suspension within seven (7) days of receipt thereof, even though the owner has thirty (30) days to take an appeal.
- Authorizing the Department to establish a proactive inspection program is too open-ended. The Department can be authorized to “recommend” an inspection program that should then be vetted and approved.
- Placing the burden of proof on the rental property owner to prove there was compliance with the requirements for issuance of a Certificate of Rental Suitability. If the tenant raises this as a defense, the burden of proving that defense should be on the tenant.
- Licenses should be effective from the date of application of the license, not the date specified on the license. There are times when owners are unable to get a license because of an issue with L&I, eClipse, a delay in processing, or some other reason that is beyond the owner’s control. In those instances, the owner should not be denied the right to collect rent since the delay is not their fault.
- Minor notices of violation should not prevent an owner from obtaining a license. Only habitability or life-threatening violations should apply.
- If an owner loses an appeal from a violation, they should be given an opportunity to correct the violation or take a further appeal before their license is suspended.
- The owner should not have to obtain another Certificate of Rental Suitability at any time. This is contrary to the law as it is written and was agreed to in a Consent Decree between the landlord and tenant organizations and the City.
- The owner should not have to “attest” to the Department and the tenants regarding the condition of the property. This language was specifically negotiated and agreed to in a consent decree that was issued between the landlord and tenant organizations and the City.
- If an owner’s rental license is suspended or revoked, what is the procedure for the owner to get their rental license reinstated?
- The law regarding the warranty of habitability and the available remedies for a breach thereof has been well established in Pennsylvania since Pugh v. Holmes, in 1978. There is no need to rewrite the law. Moreover, this bill is not a “codification” of the existing law. The requirements in the bill are unrealistic and the penalties are extreme. It will end up putting many good landlords out of business and will make it almost impossible for a small landlord to stay in business.
⚠️ Special Note: Join our Emergency Ask the Attorney Session on March 3 at 12:30 PM to get fully prepared before the City Council hearing.