-- and I say that you can stay here on the week or for the month, and I'm going to provide certain services -- either meals or social services and the like -- and it seems like there's some kind of either contract or lease between me and you, and I thought you said earlier that that relationship is 49 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 not a landlord-tenant relationship, according to the case law.
Under the case law. Am I able to then draw up a list of rules and regulations of conduct and behavior and expectations for you to be in my boardinghouse, the violation of which will automatically allow me to do certain things, including termination.
My answer to that question would be yes, and that would be a question that would be litigated if and when any of those conditions were violated, and the legality of that would be determined by the court.
Then, lastly, what did you say earlier about there were certain prohibitions about self-help? What did that mean, what does that mean? Where?
Not where does it come from. What does it apply to? Where are self-help provisions not allowed?
There are cases, and I can 50 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 -- you know, one of them is a -- there's actually not a lot of even appellate-level decisions on this. There's a Court of Common Pleas decision called Wolford versus Vavrick (ph.), where the court enjoined a landlord who had padlocked the tenant's door and terminated water and electricity supplies from the victim-tenants through self-help measures. So it's through an injunction by a court saying you can't do this. And another source, I guess, would be in the Philadelphia Code, in this section. There is a rather extensive list of what self-help eviction practices are, what constitutes self-help eviction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does the term "nonprofit" change any of the issues that are being discussed here? When we speak of boardinghouses, I think we're speaking of 51 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 it in the context as a nonprofit. Does a nonprofit have less rights, more rights? Does it change the circumstances? Or what is the distinction between the two, profit versus nonprofit? Because I'm certain there are for-profit boardinghouses out there.
I'm sure it does have some impact; I can't really say what it is. Again, we're operating not with a lot of guidance from the courts. In this case that's the 1914 case, there probably wasn't such a clear distinction back then between profit and nonprofit, or such a legal distinction. And so I can't really answer that. I think there would be a distinction, but I can't tell you what it is.
I mean, for me having gone through the Coles House, I compare that kind of to a bed-and-breakfast, where there's a common place and there are many common areas that distinguish those kinds of buildings or facilities from an apartment house where you generally have a private entrance, private facilities, your own bathroom, and your own 52 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 kitchen facilities, for the most part. I mean, that's generally what apartments are all about. And there is a separation of the tenants. In the Coles House, with the exception of bedrooms. And maybe in some cases, some of the units may have their own private bathrooms, everything else is a common area. Does that give, or should that give the landlord of these boardinghouses more flexibility in how they treat problems or problem tenants?
I guess the question is, are these individuals residing in this property a tenant or a boarder? And I think there may be a distinction between a tenant under the law, both statutory law and case law, and the term or the issue of a border, which I think is distinctly different from a contracted tenant. Councilmember Cohen?
I think the discussion that's taking place is indicative of the concerns that I would have about the bill. I think there's confusion between boarders, between 53 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 boardinghouses. A boardinghouse may be a nonprofit or it may be for-profit, depending on -- nature of the ownership determines whether it's for-profit or nonprofit. It has nothing to do with the spatial arrangements, whether there are separate apartments or not. There can be such things as nonprofit companies that run apartment houses. So I don't know what the relevancy might or might not be about nonprofits. All I know is that I participated very strongly in the '80s. I was about to claim ownership of the bill, but Ortiz claimed it before. (Laughter.)
But I think the real author, as far as I've been able to determine very quickly, is that -- I think former President Street was, in fact, the introducer of the bill. I haven't been able to pin that down, but I think it was sometime in the '80s. There were many complaints about behavior by landlords, and a real study was made over time. We had a number of hearings, we tried to develop a relationship between landlords and 54 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 tenants that seemed fair, that seemed to provide recourse to a tenant who complained about improper practices by a landlord and that sought to provide recourse to landlords if there were improper procedures by tenant. As a matter of fact, I understand that today, the housing courts of the City operate very quickly, that you can get a hearing within a short a period as a two-week period, and that you can get redress, if necessary. Now, of course, each party has their rights. And, of course, to a landlord, it's never quick enough; and to many tenants, it's never slow enough, you know, to protect their rights. But I think this kind of a subject needs all kinds of study. There's very little case law, as the City Solicitor's representative indicates. And I think, to base legislation upon a single instance of concern, to me doesn't add up to a sound basis for a legislation which may impact upon many others that we don't know. Once you draft legislation and put it into effect, it can be applied by courts in circumstances that are totally unknown. 55 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 That's why Mr. Nardone who is not here basically -- you're not here in support of the bill; you're in here expressing concern that maybe this bill would hurt the rights of tenants in the kinds of situations you described, which is not the normal landlord-tenant relationship, and you wanted to make sure that it could not hurt them. Am I right in my --
Well, I think that my general conclusion, based on the information I have, is that it doesn't affect the City programs, and that at least the --
It does not. And that my initial read is that because it is limited to nonprofit boarding homes, that -- at least in my knowledge and the people that I have talked to -- that it is not a broad definition of "providers." I guess what I wanted to -- the reason for proposing the language was because I was aware that Coles House did have in place a -- some procedural protections that I thought beared (sic) consideration in terms of applying to if you were 56 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 going to extend this nonprofits, that at least these protections should be in place.
Well, I think any lawyer representing any tenant would not believe that any protections that are set by a landlord who seeks to evict him provide him any protection at all. There are all kind of questions like that, and I think this legislation threatens the whole structure. Just this little piece of legislation threatens the whole structure of tenant-landlord relationships. And I think legislation is the wrong way to go in this direction. If there were failures in the court system, let's deal with those.
If I could just make one additional comment. For all of our discussion here today about whether or not a boardinghouse is a landlord and whether or not the prohibition against self-help applies, if a State court were to find in the future, after this bill is enacted, were to find that either way, if a boardinghouse is 57 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 subject to the prohibition against self-help or isn't, that would take precedence over this ordinance. So if there is -- if this ordinance 6 says that boardinghouses can use self-help, and a court later finds that they cannot, that that would -- you know, the State law would be supreme there.
Well, we have a City law, don't we? Isn't it the City law that controls in the eviction process, not the State law?
But you say currently, it's the State law. Well, let's hear from -- we're going to hear from legal analysis, the Community Legal Services is here, and I would like to hear their investigation. 'Cause it's my understanding that City Council enacted an ordinance related to eviction procedures, and it's the ordinance that this ordinance seeks to change, and it's that ordinance 25 which controls eviction in the City of 58 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 Philadelphia, not the State law.
To the -- it's my understanding that to the extent that there's any inconsistency between the State law and the ordinance, that the State law would control.
But there's no 8 inconsistency we're talking about. The reason for the introduction of this amendment is that the Councilmember representing the constituent's interest, the constituent believes that the City ordinance, as presently constituted, prevents the landlord -- let's call her a landlord currently because we don't know to the contrary -- prevents her from carrying out an eviction in which she believes is a timely manner. So she's seeking a change in the City ordinance; she's not seeking any change in any State law, and of course, we couldn't do anything about a State law. It's the City ordinance that creates the problem in the mind of the Councilmember introducing this ordinance. So I'm not certain why you're referring to State law. We're dealing with the ordinance.
I think her 59 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 example, Councilman, was that if we were to pass this law -- whether we do or whether we don't -- in a State court, the State law precedent would supercede any action that we take on this bill.
Well, that's all her point was; her point was that. And that, I think, was enough. I mean, I understood it, and I'm not a lawyer, thanks.
Because you didn't understand all the complexities that revolve around it.
Is that what it is? You guys do complex things, don't you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. The Chair calls to the table Brad Moss and Susan Lewis. 60 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 (Mr. Moss and Ms. Lewis come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Bradley K. Moss, and with me is -- do you want to introduce yourself?
Susan Lewis, who is the Executive Director of the Coles House. I am counsel to the Coles House. We've handed up some testimony, and let me go through that, and also amplify on that in light of the enlightening discussion that we just had about the law. I promise that, although I am a lawyer, Councilman Kenney, I won't digress into legalese.
Thanks a lot. For the record, how many weeks does it take to get a hearing in landlord-tenant court?
I wish that Councilman Cohen was correct. You know, from his lips to the court's ears.
So it's a little 61 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 more than two weeks, I guess?
We are here today to provide testimony in support of Bill No. 980048. The proposed legislation is needed to ensure the long-term survival of facilities like the Coles House. It will not detrimentally impact low-income persons, and it will not exacerbate the incidents of homelessness among the City's low-income persons. Bill No. 980048 proposes to amend Chapter 9-1600 of the Philadelphia Code, which is the City ordinance which Councilman Ortiz as well as Councilman Cohen have taken the credit of having introduced a while ago. It would except from the prohibition against self-help eviction practices any nonprofit landlord which operates a house containing furnished rooms or apartments, kept principally for the residents or permanent guests which are let out by the week or month, with full or limited meal service. 62 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 Chapter 9-1600 prohibits landlords -- that's the law that we currently have that Councilman Cohen and Ortiz have been referring to. It currently prohibits landlords from engaging in self-help eviction practices, and those practices or defined in the ordinance. It was enacted -- and this is important -- in 1987 to help protect low-income persons who are perceived to be unable to avail themselves of the judicial process to protect them from unlawful eviction. Without Chapter 9-1600, it was believed at the time that there would be an exacerbation in the incidence of homelessness among the City's low-income population. So that's the context in which the legislation was originally enacted. The Coles House is a nonprofit institution which has the mission of preventing homelessness among low-income women in transaction, by providing a safe, comfortable, and affordable room and board. Miss Mary Coles established the house in 1865. Since 1872, it's been located on the 900 block of Clinton Street. Today the Coles House consists of four adjoining townhouses that were altered to form one 63 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 residence, in which 61 single women live in 61 rental units. The average stay for the residents is between three and six months. Most of the women come from the Philadelphia area. Approximately 75 percent at the Cole House are African- or Asian-Americans. There are about 400 women who are residents in the Coles House each year. The Coles House helps to prevent homelessness by providing room and board at below-market rates. The rental rates are between $78 and $125 per week, or between $336 and $560 per month. In addition to a room, the Coles House offers its residents breakfast and supper each day, weekly room-cleaning, living, dining, and TV rooms, a snack kitchen for personal use, a coin-operated laundry, a study, a soundproof recreation room, and a secluded outdoor patio. What's the Coles house experience with eviction? The Coles House evicts four or five residents a year as a result of the long-term failure of a resident to pay rent significantly. And, by the way, we would agree with the amendment which has been suggested, which -- there is a need 64 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 for procedural due process. The Coles House, with its own experience, as I'll explain does, not use self-help in the instance that there's a problem. Rather, there is an elaborate procedural due process procedure which protects against the types of issues that Councilman Cohen and some of the other people here to testify are concerned about. The Coles House has a procedure that affords its residents with many opportunities to cure a failure to pay rent before the locks on the resident's room will be changed. A resident who fails to pay rent will receive notices after payments are two, three, and four weeks late. That's three notices that are given.
In most cases, payment is made or a satisfactory arrangement is agreed upon, and that arrangement is either moving the person to a less expensive room or even asking that person to contribute to the house by working in the kitchen or in some other fashion. And that is the process that's used. And those people, for the last seven years, Susan Lewis has been the Executive Director, and she's the person that those people 65 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 talk with. A notice is delivered giving the resident the choice of moving out or having the locks changed, only if there is no resolution 6 after six weeks. The Coles House relies heavily on the rental income that is paid by its residents. Now, the Coles House has an average operating budget of approximately $350,000. It does not receive funds from the City and is not, as was explained before, the type of institution that has contracts with the City. Of that budget of $350,000, approximately $200,000 to $225,000 comes from rental income. $60,000 comes from the income of a trust, approximately. And there is a guest room 18 that provides about 7 or $8,000 a year. For the past several years, there be an operating deficit, which is only covered as a result of income as well as principle from a small endowment. So the long-term survival of the Coles House is jeopardized unless it is exempted from the current law, which is Chapter 9-1600. Requiring the Coles House to obtain a judgment of 66 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 possession, which is what would be required right now under that law, before it can evict a resident will result in the Coles House not realizing any income from the room at issue while seeking to obtain the requisite judgment. Additionally, the Coles House will be forced to spend scarce financial resources on attorneys' fees and costs to obtain the judgment. In light of the fair procedure used by the Coles House and its mission, the balance between the long-term survival of the Coles House and protecting its residents from unlawful eviction practices tips in favor of exempting the Coles House from Chapter 9-1600. Now, there's been a question raised as to, is this just legislation for the Coles House? And as far as we know, there are at least two other institutions in the city that would also be beneficially affected by this legislation. There's the Lucy Eden Smith House, which is located on the 1900 block, if you're familiar with it, the 1900 block of Sansom Street. And there is St. Mary's, which is located at Fifth and Locust. St. Mary's only has 15 or so rooms. The Lucy Eden 67 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 Smith house has I don't know how many rooms, but it is larger than the Coles House. All three of those institutions, I believe -- certainly the Coles House -- would come under the definition of "a boardinghouse," as it is proposed in this amendment to the legislation. It is ironic that the long-term survival of the Coles House and those institutions like it whose mission is to help to prevent single low-income women from being homeless is jeopardized by Chapter 9-1600, which is an ordinance enacted to prevent homelessness. As you've heard from Mr. Nardone, enacting the proposed amendment will not have a detrimental impact on homelessness in Philadelphia or the services which the City oversees to take care of that. I would say, with respect to what Councilman Cohen had mentioned at one point, that I think it's a little unfair, Councilman, that -- to say that, and I believe you said it in good faith, obviously. But you don't know the Coles House. And to make a blanket statement that landlords cannot be trusted to come up with 68 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 procedures that will protect the people that live in their spaces is somewhat unfair, certainly as it applies to the Coles House.
I said no tenant's lawyer would accept the notion that a landlord's process would be fair.
That the tenant would feel that he or she is entitled to a court to make that distinction.
Then I misunderstood you, Councilman. And what I would like to point out -- and perhaps you would agree -- is that the procedure that has been set up and has been set up by the Coles House is a fair procedure. And the amendment that has been suggested by Mr. Nardone will ensure that fair procedures will have to be set up if --
How would that be 69 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 enforced?
Let me just -- can I -- (Unintelligible, parties speaking over each other.)
Okay, thank you. What I'd like to do, if possible, is to have you finish your testimony, not engage in a colloquy --
And then maybe we could hear from Ms. Lewis and then we'll have our question-go-round.
I'd just like to thank everyone for the opportunity to present testimony. Miss Lewis and I are here and are 70 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 pleased to answer any questions that anyone has about the Coles House or about this legislation in particular.
Ms. Lewis, would you like to give some testimony as to what some of your experiences have been or anything you would like to offer? And, please, you have to identify yourself for the record and pull the microphone closer to you.
Please -- I'm sorry, you got to pull the microphone down right towards you. Thank you.
Okay. Back in '96, when Councilman DiCicco came to Coles House, we had an incident where we did do self-help, and I was arrested, and it cost us $18,000 in legal fees to get to go to court.
Could you kind of describe the circumstances of the arrest and what 71 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 happened and why the action was taken. Why the action -- you said -- you described it as "self-help." Could you explain what the circumstances were and --
We went through our procedures where we give 'em notice and remind 'em that they're late, sit down to speak with 'em. And we sent her a letter stating that if she didn't come -- she ignored everything. And if she didn't come forward, we were going to change the locks on her door.
What period of time was it that she was delinquent in her pay?
Right. And I'm sorry, just please proceed with your -- with the circumstances.
So she went to the 6th District and said that we had did a self-help eviction, and then they came over and --
I couldn't get that. Could you repeat that? And speak, please, into the microphone, get a little closer. 72 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
What was the action taken that was considered to be self-help?
Okay. And she left went to the 6th District to complain?
They called me over at Coles House and told me they were going to come and arrest me.
All right. Do you have any other testimony that you want to offer as far as what -- in addition to what Mr. Moss has given?
Okay. The question I have is that during the course -- Mr. Moss testified that during the course of a given year, there are maybe four or five evictions from Coles House. Can you give me an idea as to the average length of time a person is in arrears and what action Coles House takes in order to effect the eviction?
Typically, they're in arrears for about six weeks before we take any kind of action, but we do work with them. We offer them more credits in the kitchen, they can waitress. Sometimes I'll just ask 'em to draw up a plan of how they want to pay me back. It might be, you know, $30 a week versus $75 a week. And it just -- they do it long term like that.
Mm-hmm. And how are these evictions accomplished, the four or five a year? Is it a normal eviction process that you 74 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 go through?
Okay. And has anyone taken Coles House or yourself to court as a result of these actions?
Okay. And during the course of a year, do you have any idea as to what it costs Coles House to basically pay for those tenants' rents during the course of the six weeks to two or three months before they are actually evicted and what the loss of revenue is and the loss of space is for people who are low-income and would like to play by the rules?
The loss of revenue runs around 12,000 a year -- just from nonpayment of rent.
And do you have any kind of a waiting list where people are waiting to 75 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 get in to your --
So there are periods of time where people who refuse to pay their rent are keeping other individuals who want shelter, that are willing to pay this moderate price, from getting into the property?
Now, often these landlord-tenant ordinances and bills are passed as a result of landlords who are unscrupulous and non-responsive and don't fix the water pipes or the heater or other things, and then there becomes a dispute between the landlord and tenant about the payment of rent based on things that the landlord hasn't done or that the landlord has taken advantage of people in an apartment building or in some other rental facility. How would you characterize the conditions of Coles House, the experience of the tenants? What kind of living conditions are they in? I mean, is it something that is a bad place to live? Do you have leaky water pipes and a bad 76 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 heater?
Or are there any infestation of vermin, mice, roaches? Any of that stuff?
Okay. So people are basically just refusing to pay -- well, they're not refusing to pay but refusing to even cooperate in a payment plan or in a work-payment plan.
Miss Lewis, first, in the process that you follow, have you taken these people to court or not?
And the loss of rent 77 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 comes from your following the process; is that right?
And you say you've lost what sum of money did you say? Was it $12,000 in the course of the year?
So you didn't lose it because of court action or anything else; you lost it because you went through a process. What happened at the end of the process?
They moved out. Now, I didn't know whether Councilman Kenney was suggesting that the way to save the money is to eliminate the process. The loss of the money is as a result of their carrying out whatever process they chose to carry out, which they proclaim is a fair process.
Well, let me recharacterize my question 'cause I think you 78 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 characterized it incorrectly. It's my understanding that the loss of a revenue is based on the fact that the people refused to pay it. I mean, I think the basic premise here is not their process, but the fact that someone that's living in this particular facility has decided for one reason or another that they're not only going to not pay what it is they owe, but they're going to refuse to enter into an agrement to either work off the rent or to pay at a lower rate.
But the only way you could effectuate a savings on that is to cut down on their process. But as soon as they complete their process, they have taken the steps to evict the tenant.
No one is -- I'm sorry. No 19 one is suggesting that the Coles House is going to change its process so that it cannot lose as much money. What we're suggesting, Councilman, is that without this relief, to follow the law and to use -- and not to permit us to use self-help would provide even greater losses, and you would not have the Coles House. 79 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Well, I haven't heard a word of testimony, not a single word of testimony, to indicate what you've just said.
She has testified, and she has stated that at the end of the process when the people did not pay the rent, steps were taken to evict them. Those steps, whatever they were, occurred, and the tenant left.
So that all that happened was that any loss -- and everybody regrets the loss, but the loss occurred as a result of a process. It did not occur because of the --
That is the most twisted logic I've ever heard. The reason -- the loss occurred as a result of --
Councilman Kenney, I can't help you in your analysis. 80 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
But the only way she could have avoided that, Councilman Kenney, which you don't understand, apparently, is by immediately throwing the person out of the place without having a process.
And this amendment from the City would require the process.
A process, yes. And they're satisfied with their process, which they're proclaiming as fair.
Well, if you go by what you're saying, you put them under the process of the landlord-tenant court, and those people could be living there rent-free for another year.
You are, Councilman Kenney, trying to assert that somehow, the loss of money is a terrible thing, we're going to stop that loss of money.
No, we're going to keep the Coles House from closing. 81 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
I'm trying to get you to understand that the only way, in these particular cases, you would save that money would be by short-cutting that process. And that's one of the reasons why we're very concerned about processes set by the landlords and giving the landlords the right to shortcut processes.
Sitting on this side of the room, Councilman Cohen, that's not what I understood -- at least what I understood Councilman Kenney to say at all.
Well, it's what I understood Councilman Kenney to say very clearly.
So that I hope you understand what we're saying on behalf of the Coles House. We're not --
And you would not -- you're not suggesting that we -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Don't worry about being interrupted; it happens all the time. Go ahead.
I'm not. But, yes, I 82 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 believe you just said -- we're not suggesting that the process -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I don't believe anybody's suggesting that the process isn't important, shouldn't be followed. And, in fact, I think, to Mr. Nardone's credit, he came prepared with an amendment which clarifies and makes sure that there is a process. Because, as I think -- and I don't know, I don't think anybody in this room's going to tell you that having a process is not important.
Well, Councilman Kenney seems to be very disturbed by that loss of money, and the only way I know that money could be saved would be by short-cutting the process.
First of all, it's not my money so I'm not disturbed. The problem basically is, is that this place -- and remember this quote, because it really applies to you -- that no good deed goes unpunished. So what you have established and what you're working for is a nonprofit operation which 83 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 gives people the opportunity to avoid homelessness. And because of the fact that the four or five individuals a year decide to take advantage of that charitable attitude, that you wind up losing money and losing space that could go to people in need and money that could be used to further your program. And that's my only point. I'm upset about the loss of money because people feel that they can take advantage of people with good intentions. And those four or five people who do that every year jeopardize the program and the whole process for the entire group of people who live there. And that's all it is. It's not the vast majority of people who live there; it's four or five deadbeats who decide they want to take advantage of the system. And I understand your concern and I understand your problem, and what I would like to see is Coles House continue to be serving the community as it has, with the ability to remove those people who simply refuse to pay their fair share. And that's it.
And that's the reason, 84 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 Councilman Kenney, that --
Eviction for nonpayment of rent. My understanding of the situation was just the opposite, actually, when I sought to get information. I understood it was never a case of money; I understood it was a case of bad habits. That's what I was told was the problem that was involved. But in any event, I'm also interested in finding out why did it cost you $18,000 in that arrest case? It sounds to me like a simple case: they came and arrested you, got out on bail. What happened as a result of the arrest?
We had to appear in court three times. And we had, you know, one of the bigger law firms in the city. So it just -- the numbers ran up and the case went on for six months. And that girl was able to live there for six months.
That was my question I was going to ask. She remained living in the Coles House during the litigation period of six months.
Oh, no, no. That's absolutely false, as you will hear from testimony about to be given by Community Legal Services. That's just landlord propaganda.
So she remained in the Coles House for the six months during the time you were appearing in court for trying to evict someone who had not been paying rent.
And that was because of a court prohibition upon your evicting her, right? You didn't have a right during that six 86 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 month period to evict her.
And that was because of the legislation, that the court's trying to grapple with the legislation that you and Councilman Ortiz enacted.
And that's what you'll hear from landlords all the time. Every time they can't evict a tenant at their own will, they say that.
Councilman, I'm just saying that the charges, the summary offense -- I mean, it's a fact. The summary offense that was brought, and I was -- neither I nor my firm were involved in defending Ms. Lewis in that matter. But the summary offense that was brought was brought as an alleged violation of the ordinance. And that's all I'm saying.
And I don't view Miss Lewis and the Coles House folks as landlords under the definition of "a landlord" because it is a nonprofit entity. And you and I, Miss Lewis, got to know each other because you were seeking some help to do improvements to the facility so that you can 87 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 upgrade the building to accommodate the people that you care about. There were some electrical problems, if I'm not mistaken, where you tried to get Local 98 to come down and see if we could get some reduction in the price to do the work and do the carpentry work also.
Things like that. And you, as Councilman Cohen would suggest, as a landlord, would just do what any landlord or anyone would do if someone doesn't pay you for services provided to you -- tell you to leave. And in that process, you wound up in court.
And having incurred over $18,000 in legal fees while the girl lived there for the next six months free. And the other tenants were paying their rent.
And which basically were subsidizing the legal fees that the Coles House had incurred to remove someone who wasn't paying her fair share. 88 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Apparently, the police thought there was a criminal offense involved in whatever was done by --
Well, that's what we're here to do, to see if we can remove that so it doesn't happen in the future and so that Ms. Lewis doesn't go to jail for putting a lock on the door for someone who hasn't paid their rent from six weeks to eight weeks or beyond that.
And that's the reason you want to jeopardize all the tenants in the city.
It's nonprofit boarding homes that we're talking about here.
It's nonprofit boarding homes. 89 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048