COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, April 7, 2025 10:25 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. ALSO PRESENT:
Hello, everyone. I now note that the hour has come and this hearing is called to order. This is the public hearing of the City Council Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and The Homeless. The purpose of this public hearing is to hear testimony on Bill Nos. 250044 and 250045. Ms. Jones, would you please call the roll.
Thank you, Ms. Jones. Joining us is also Minority Whip Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke. I note for the record that a quorum of this Committee is present and this hearing is called to order. Good morning, members of the Committee and those watching here and at home. Thank you so much for joining us. As a renter myself, I'm always perplexed by how expensive it is to move. Many landlords force prospective tenants to pay three months' rent or more upfront, first, last and security deposit. And when you add in movers, application fees and other costs, you start to realize just how expensive moving is. I am lucky. On a City Council salary, these costs may be annoying but they are not out of the question. But more than half of the renters I represent spend more on rent than they can actually afford. For so many of my constituents, moving is such a significant financial hurdle that they have to choose between saving up to move or non-negotiables like putting food on the table or going to the doctor to get their cough checked out. Every day my office receives calls from renters dealing with problems like chronic pests or radiators that haven't turned on all winter long. These renters are asking themselves, do they continue to live in unhealthy or even unsafe conditions because the rent is good or do they go to bed hungry to save enough money to finally move into a decent place to lay their heads at night. I see excessive rental fees as a form of discrimination. Some landlords want it to be expensive to apply and move into their units. It is a way for them to make sure that their tenants look a certain way and come from a certain background. So it is no surprise to me that Councilmember Landau, who has made it her life's work to achieve housing justice and protect vulnerable populations from discrimination, is putting a stake in the ground. Thank you, Councilmember Landau, for taking a stand and making it easier for families to access safe, stable and affordable housing. I am very much looking forward to today's discussion. Vice-Chair Landau, any opening remarks?
I do. Thank you so much. Thank you all for being here today on this cold and rainy April day. Bring in our May flowers, I hope. Just wanted to state a brief opening that, you know, I've spent my entire career committing to fighting for the right to safe, affordable and accessible housing. This fight was instrumental in leading me to run for City Council in the first place and I'm extremely grateful to be the Vice-Chair of the Housing Committee here today alongside Chair Councilmember Jamie Gauthier. Today the Committee will review my Move-in Affordability Plan, which I and many Philly renters believe to be a critical step toward lowering the barriers to affordable housing by making upfront costs more manageable for the average Philadelphian. Nearly half of Philadelphia households are renters, and the number of renters has grown by 11% in the past decade. They might be senior citizens or a low-to-moderate wage worker or new college graduates. They could be formally incarcerated or transitioning from an unstable housing situation or escaping a violent home. 5% are cost-burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on rent. And as they say, the rent is too damn high. My bills do two simple things: They cap application fees at $20 per application, like the entire state of New York, and allows renters to pay their security deposit, usually a full two months' rent and four installment payments. This is a win for renters who will have more financial breathing room and landlords who have a greater group of potential tenants to rent their properties. Here's the reality: Rent prices keep climbing and for many Philadelphians trying to move in to get a fresh start feels further and further out of reach for anyone struggling to make ends meet. The Philadelphia metro area is now one of the least affordable in the country for apartment renters based on income. By the end of last year, the median rent in the city soared to $1,865 per month, the median rent, a price far out of reach for too many of our neighbors. And yet before renters even get the chance to sign a lease, they're being hit with excessive upfront costs. To be considered to rent an apartment or a place, renters have to pay an application fee. We've heard from constituents that these fees range from $65 to $100 to sometimes even more, and you have to pay it whether or not you get the apartment. And if you don't get it, you have to pay it again every time you apply. These fees aren't regulated by any laws and some unscrupulous landlords can and will charge excessive fees. Sadly, housing discrimination adds to this cost since marginalized people, communities of color, immigrants, the disabled, the LGBTQ+ community, especially the transgender community, often have to apply to many more units before they are selected for housing. When someone's approved for a unit, landlords often require first month's rent, last month's rent and a security deposit amounting to three times the monthly rent just to move in. That means a renter looking for a median price apartment might have to come up with $5500 upfront, $5500. To come up with that much money before you have the keys is excessive and expensive for most of our residents. And reminder, state law allows your previous landlord 30 days to return your security deposit to you, so you don't even have that money to put into the new unit. You still got to come up with a $5500. The financial burden of first, last and security upfront can be too much for many people to conquer, especially those who are elderly, low-income or starting a new chapter in their life. Not to mention young people who want to stay in the city, and we want them here, but who might be looking for greener pastures if overly cost- burdened by this move-in costs.
Philadelphia already looks to our strong state law that governs security deposits, limiting them initially to two months' rent and outlining how they must be handled and returned, including after the first year a landlord is only allowed to hold one month's rent, not two. Most tenants don't know that and I believe even some landlords don't know that. These protections need to be made more flexible and specialized for Philadelphia. That's why this plan will help. Upfront costs shouldn't be the reason someone is priced out of housing before they even get the chance to get their keys. Let's make Philly a place for folks that they want to move to and they know they can afford. So today we're looking forward to hearing testimony from advocates. We're so thankful those who have taken their time out to come here to tell us their stories. Thank you very much. )
Thank you, Vice-Chair Landau. Councilmember Jones.
Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. And I want to thank the author of this legislation for her steadfast diligence on fairness and the issue of. And I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge my Jiminy Cricket conscious, Kendra Brooks and Nicolas O'Rourke as well Jamie, who have constantly been the voice of fairness. And what I wanted to say today was the thing that I hope that comes out of these hearings and testimony is balance. Why do I say balance? Because I have been both a property owner and I've also been evicted. A lot of people don't know that. When I first hooked up and had a baby, I didn't had a baby -- but me and my wife had a baby and we lost our apartment. And there's nothing more humiliating to a human being than to be homeless, even if it's temporarily. So I get the balance that is needed. I also have grown up with people in my neighborhood that aren't rich landlords, that aren't the oligarchs of property ownership. They are the onesies, twosies, threesies that worked all their life in jobs and made investments that they hoped at the fourth quarter of their life would be something that they could derive their pension from. And I've talked to them. I am the author of Good Cause, the original. Not the 2.0 version, but the original, right. I was sitting in that chair when we stopped and caused a moratorium on foreclosures, which evolved into the moratorium for evictions which you guys push forth. So I want my cred card on being a housing advocate in the record. So I say today that I'm looking for that all voices be heard and respected, that options are created so that public policy is sustainable. Because some of the comments that I got back from some of the property owners are, if you keep putting trash removal fees on me and you keep putting this burden, that burden and when you do a moratorium, sir, the moratorium from the mortgage company doesn't happen, that I still have to pay that, and I will just buy properties and flip them as opposed to have affordable housing rental options for the people that we all want to look out for. I just wanted that on the record as we proceed. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. (Applause.)
Thank you, Councilmember Jones. Ms. Jones, will you now read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 8 250044, amending Chapter 9-800 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Landlord and Tenant" to establish requirements related to security deposits for residential rentals and establishing remedies for violations, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 250045, amending Chapter 9-800 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Landlord and Tenant" to establish requirements related to fees charged by landlords to individuals applying for residential tenancy, all under certain terms and conditions.
The Clerk will please call the first panel of witnesses to testify on the resolution.
Good morning, Director Mondlak. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning Chairperson Gauthier and members of the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and The Homeless. My name is John Mondlak, and I'm the First Deputy in the Department of Planning and Development here to provide testimony on Bill No. 250044. This legislation would establish new requirements for security deposits on residential rental properties. Under the legislation, housing providers who require a security deposit from the prospective tenant would be required to offer the prospective tenant the option to pay the security deposit either as a lump sum or in installments of at least four equal payments separated by at least a month apart or exactly one month apart. We appreciate the positive intent of the legislation, which aims to ease the financial burden for Philadelphians applying for and securing their future residents. As will be further addressed in the hearing on the H.O.M.E. Initiative here in Council in the week of April 21st, the Mayor is proposing new plans and expanded programs to help support tenants and make rental housing more affordable. In addition, just last week our Division of Housing and Community Development in partnership with the Philadelphia Housing and Development Corporation announced FreshStartPHL, a pilot program that provides financial assistance with move-in costs. Any household at or below 80% AMI is eligible to apply with priority given to households at or below 50% AMI. Until the program's limited funding is expended, participants will receive the equivalent of three months' rent and a stipend of up to $1,000 for relocation related costs. While we clearly support the spirit of the legislation, we're nonetheless aware that the bill's potential to generate unintended consequences. For example, a landlord who receives a security deposit piecemeal over the course of four months is assuming more risk than a landlord who receives the full security deposit upfront. That could create a practical disincentive to rent to households that are or seem to be likely to request or need an installment plan. Given that 65% of rental properties in Philadelphia that are affordable to households between 25% and 80% AMI are owned by small landlords, we have concerns that this disincentive could have an adverse effect on an already inadequate supply of affordable housing, rental housing. We welcome the opportunity to work with Council to ensure that this legislation's laudable goals are achieved. And thank you for the opportunity to testify on Bill 250044.
I have testimony for the next bill. I don't know if you want to take questions or how do you want to proceed.
He's going to give testimony on the second bill first.
It's brief. Good Morning, Council Chairperson Gauthier, members of the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and The Homeless. My name is John Mondlak, First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Department of Planning and Development here to provide testimony on Bill 250045. This legislation would prohibit charging fees in connection with rental application, with the exception of up to $20 for a background check and/or credit check. We appreciate the intent of the legislation, which aims to ease financial burdens of Philadelphians applying for rental housing. We're concerned, however, with the potential effect of restricting application fees to what may very well be less than reasonable cost of processing that application. Our city currently relies on small landlords to provide affordable housing rental units. Such landlords own 65% of the rental units that are affordable to households between 25% and 80% AMI. Given the supply of affordable rentals is already too low, we must act with caution when considering legal measures that on their own or in combination with other laws disproportionately affect small landlords. But we fully support the intent of the legislation to ensure that tenants are not paying more than necessary to secure housing. We look forward to working with Councilmember Landau and all of City Council to ensure that the legislation's goals are achieved by supporting tenants and prospective tenants seeking affordable rental housing. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Bill. 250045.
Thank you so much for your testimony. I actually have one question, and then I'll pass it on to Councilmember Jones. So I'm glad to hear in your testimony that the City through its H.O.M.E. Initiative and FreshStartPHL is going to do more to help low-income renters with their moving expenses. I know we're in a formative phase, but I wanted to know if you could speak to when you think the program would begin and how many renters are we planning to help through this initiative?
The initiative that started last week will help as many tenants as we can until the funding runs out. So that's already active and people are receiving benefits right now. As for the H.O.M.E. program, I don't think I have any solid answers on that but will in the next couple weeks.
The amount of funding I believe is $17 million to $18 million.
Okay. And on average how much do we expect to provide each tenant with?
I don't have actual figures. I can get those back to you, but the benefit is up to three months of rent plus $1,000 for incidental moving costs. So I would venture a guess that it's about $5,000 would be my estimate. But I think I'd feel more comfortable if you allowed me to get that answer back to you.
Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you so much. Councilmember Jones.
He answered it kind of. Really I echo your remarks. We're glad that we're taking steps to help this population, but you kind of -- I know we're the elected official politicians up here. Were you for or against the legislation? Help me with that part.
I would say that it, you know, it's hard to answer. Because we're for the idea of keeping costs low to prospective tenants. For instance, if a tenant is applying for a rental unit, they should not under any circumstances be paying any sort of markup on the actual cost for them to be evaluated. If they do, that just shifts the burden to the landlord, which in some cases a large landlord that's not going to be a problem. For small landlords it might be. And so, I would say that there should not be a cottage industry. There shouldn't be a revenue line item for landlords who are charging more than they should. It should be the actual out-of- pocket cost to do the check. So very supportive, but concerned about what will that do if -- what will happen if landlords are paying out of costs and what will happen to the small landlords. Will they just say, okay, well, I have to eat $30 or $20 with every new application, the rents got to go up to cover that. And then have we helped anybody. I don't know if that's going to happen, but that is the concern. Same with the security deposit, but slightly different. On a security deposit, I absolutely appreciate that it's a lot of money to move into an apartment. Quite frankly, I don't even know how people necessarily come up with $5500, that's what they have to come up with. But at the same time, if it's clear that you're showing an apartment to five tenants, six tenants and two of them don't need to extend their security deposit, landlords are often going to pick the tenant that has the money just because it's protecting them. And does that -- again, I don't know if this is going to happen but that's the concern. Will that shut out a tenant who really needs a unit and really needs the flexibility of these units, of the payment plan and not get it because a landlord is going to pick somebody else that has the money. And if that doesn't happen, great. Then I think it's a great idea. But if that happens, that's a detriment. Or if everybody is required to pay or spread out the payments and you can't pick and choose between tenants, then are landlords going to say, okay, well, this is more risk for me because I know that even tenants that pay upfront, I have to go after a certain percentage of them to evict them or to try to collect the rent in court or do something like that. And if I'm doing that and now I'm taking on more risk, that risk has to come out of some place. And if it goes into the rent, then that's an adverse effect. So again, I don't have a great answer because I don't know what's going to happen. I can only tell you what the concern is.
Once a lawyer always a lawyer. It's kind of perfect. Follow-up question to the H.O.M.E. money. So you're saying there'll be approximately $17 million to $18 million available in rental assistance that you believe will help with three months' rent and potentially $1,000 for move-in costs, that's what we're talking about here, move-in costs. What percentage of that is going to go to the mom-and-pop landlords, the lower-end landlords who we all want to protect here in Philadelphia?
I don't know if I could answer that because it goes to the tenant. And so, it's not the small mom-and-pop landlord that's applying, in which case we maybe would be able to evaluate and determine which one they are and identify. I would have to check to see if we're tracking that sort of information as we give the tenant a benefit. If we know that information about the landlord, then I'll be sure that we continue to track it and get that back to you. But I don't know the answer to that right now. The program just launched last week.
Will the Clerk please call the next panel or witness to testify. Thank you so much.
Oh, sorry. We're not done yet. Minority Whip Councilmember O'Rourke.
And thank you, Madam Chair and Member Landau, for your work on this and holding this hearing. Just a quick follow-up. If the bill was amended so that landlords can't discriminate against those who need the move-in payment plan, would that actually wipe away your concerns?
I think the concern there is in some ways it's better because now the landlord doesn't benefit from choosing, and landlords do have that ability. As they're showing apartments, they often will show it to a lot of people at once, and then they're going to run credit checks and make a decision and call back the tenant they want to reach because of credit score, because of something else, because of who knows, a pet. It could be a lot of different things. So if everybody is paying and spreading it out, then that issue goes away. The issue that I would be concerned with then is a landlord who knows that a certain percentage of their apartments go uncollectible after a certain period, know that there's risk, now have less to protect them from that risk. Decide, okay, well, if I'm going to take that risk, I need to make up that money some place, and then rents go up. So that would be my concern then.
Thank you so much for that. I want to just make sure everybody remembers that it is illegal to discriminate against people based on their credit, their credit report. And I would suggest that discriminating against people based on who needs these installment payments would be unlawful discrimination, at least implicitly in the law, if not explicitly.
I have sort of a follow-up. Could the same argument be made for the move-in assistance that the city is offering is? Are the landlords going to know that the tenant got move-in assistance from the city? And arguably, if the landlord knows, that creates the same dynamic of picking and choosing tenants. What do you think about?
Two things. Number one, I don't know factually if the landlord knows. And that goes back to the earlier question about who are these landlords, are they large or small. So I would say that I need to sort of dig in and find out what the answer to that is. The second part is in that situation the landlord will be getting what they're entitled to. And so, I think that offsets the risk. I don't think that they're so concerned about any particular tenant. I think it's law of averages. And if somebody comes in and you have the protection, well, it goes into the bucket with all your other risks. I don't think so because they are getting what they're looking for in a lump sum upfront, because right now this law isn't in effect. And so, the landlord is likely asking for two months' rent as first, last and security and probably getting it. And so, I think probably not. COUNCILWOMAN GAUTHIER Thank you. We look forward to hearing more about the program. Thanks so much for your testimony today.
Will the Clerk please call the next panel of witnesses to testify.
Good morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. Vincent Montoya Armanios. Am I coming through okay?
Okay. Good morning. I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak with you about the urgent need for legislation to limit move-in costs for seniors in Philadelphia. And I'm here to express my support for Bills 250044 and 250045. My name is Vincent Montoya Armanios, and I'm a staff attorney in the Tenant Rights Project at Senior Law Center. At Senior Law Center, we seek justice for older adults by using the power of the law, educating the community and advocating on local, state and national levels. We are the only nonprofit organization in Pennsylvania whose mission is dedicated solely to providing legal services to older people and one of very few in the nation. We provide free legal assistance to thousands of older people each year, including victims of elder abuse and financial exploitation, older homeowners and tenants facing housing crises and homelessness, grandparents raising grandchildren and other individuals facing undue neglect in guardianship. Our Tenant Rights Project provides representation and advocacy to tenants facing various landlord-tenant issues, including eviction, ejectments for the Housing Commission complaints as well as providing advice to tenants regarding the Renter's Access Act. While many older adults want to live out their days and their homes, the reality is that they are often forced to move due to rising rent, dangerous housing conditions or to escape abusive situations. And just as the freedom to stay should be a human right, so should the freedom to move to be closer to family or seek new experiences. However, for most of our older clients the high costs of moving prevent them from making that choice for themselves. Even the most frugal older adult often has no savings because the system is designed to give them just enough money to get by. In fact, if seniors who receive SSI manage to save up more than $2,000, they risk losing their benefits altogether. This makes it impossible for many seniors to pay first and last rent with a security deposit that are often required to move into a new apartment. Even tenants with housing vouchers who receive assistance with their monthly rent are often unable to move to the high upfront costs that are not covered by their subsidy. And unfortunately, the Philadelphia Housing Authority does not provide any assistance for move-in costs such as security deposits or last month's rent. Disabled older adults are often in the worst position. If family can't help them move, they're left stranded in unsafe or unsuitable housing. If they don't have resources to pay for movers, they often have no 20 chance of ever moving. The tenants who are lucky enough to receive their security deposit back from their current landlord are still caught in an impossible situation. They can't get their security deposit back until they move. They can't move until they get their security deposit back. To illustrate the reality many seniors face, I want to share the story of one of our clients, Deborah Scott. Ms. Scott is a 74-year-old disabled, older adult who uses a walker. She receives voucher assistance from the Philadelphia Housing Authority that limits her rent to an amount she can afford. Her old landlord was attempting to evict her over a water bill, which she disputed, in $800 in late fees, even though she didn't owe any rent. Ms. Scott believed she wasn't liable for the money that her landlord was claiming, but she was concerned that if she lost she could lose her voucher, which is the situation many of our clients face. That would condemn her to housing instability for the rest of her life. Ms. Scott found a new apartment that the Housing Authority approved, but she didn't have the money to pay for the move- in costs. The new landlord was asking for $1,229 to move in, over five times her monthly rent amount with her voucher assistance. Even after Ms. Scott received $500 from a nonprofit agency, she was still $729 short to move in.
Her current landlord at the time agreed to give her $729 of her security deposit back early, but he insisted on sending it directly to the new landlord because many landlords don't want to give our clients money directly at the end of a case. Ms. Scott agreed to move out by December 31 and her landlord promised to mail the new landlord to $729 check by Thanksgiving. Even though the check was mailed on time, the new landlord never received it, lost in the mail. As the move-out deadline approached, we begged her current landlord to provide the check to Ms. Scott to avoid any further mailing issues, and the landlord eventually agreed. Two days before Christmas I picked up Ms. Scott to drive her to the bank to cash the check. We realized the check was written in the new landlord's name, not in her name. The bank called the landlord, and half an hour later they agreed to give Ms. Scott the money. Ms. Scott now needed to get the cash deposited into her bank account so that she could pay the security deposit through the payment portal. She went to Family Dollar, got the money deposited onto her Chime card and sent the money through the portal. The transaction fees alone cost her $40 and she could no longer afford to pay for the security deposit. Her new landlord refused to let her move in for several days because of the missing $40, but they finally allowed her to move in one day before the deadline. In the rush to leave, she left behind irreplaceable family photos and lost her cat, which she's still not been able to find. In many ways Ms. Scott's situation was better than many others. She had a voucher. She got move-in rental assistance. Her old landlord returned part of her security deposit before she had to move and she had family to help her. But despite these factors, Ms. Scott endured a series of painful and avoidable setbacks in an already difficult situation. Her story is just one of many, but it highlights how excessive move-in costs can be the difference between a smooth transition and disaster. Within the bureaucratic quagmire that private and subsidized tenants have to navigate, capping moving costs is one of the simplest ways to ease burdens on tenants, especially senior tenants, without penalizing landlords. We strongly support the enactment of this legislation to limit move-in costs for renters. Bills 250044 and 250045 will enhance the ability of seniors to find stable, affordable and decent housing in Philadelphia. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Please proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairperson Gauthier, Vice-Chairperson Landau, Councilman Curtis Jones and Councilman O'Rourke. My name is William Rick Collins. I'm here as a volunteer with AARP Philadelphia, which represents nearly 300,000 members in Philadelphia alone, with 1.8 million in the state. AARP has a strong interest in ensuring that housing meets the needs of all Pennsylvanians as they age. This means that housing is safe, affordable for all income levels, appropriate and situated within an age-friendly community. Housing should be fully accessible for persons of all abilities and should provide an appropriate amount of space for a given household to be comfortable. Older Pennsylvanians also need access to a housing system that promotes equity in policies and practices. It does not discriminate based on race, ethnicity, income or family composition. That includes a choice of housing types. I deeply appreciate the ability to speak to the Committee as it considers the two bills, 250044 and 250045, or the Move-In Affordability Plan. To our policy and advocacy efforts here in Philadelphia, we are committed to fighting for Philadelphians 50 years of age and older, to have stability and a sense of security on a place that they call home. At AARP, we know that the vast majority of older Americans and older Philadelphians want to live independently in their own communities for as long as they possibly can. Through our policy and advocacy efforts here in Philadelphia, we are committed to fighting for Philadelphia's 50 years of age. And we also know that Philadelphians is one of the largest rental populations of the country. 48% of Philadelphians are actually living in rental households. I myself am a renter. I've been a renter for 10 years and I live in Council District 4. In my own family, I know it's a kind of an intergenerational thing. The youngest family member at wants 20 to get his own apartment. The 21 family member returning from four 22 deployments down range, which means four deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, wants to be able to transition into civilian life and have affordable housing for his family. And my 91-year-old relative, who has to find a first floor solution, because she can no 6 longer navigate the second deck -- or excuse me, the second floor of her of her home, she has to be concerned about this. Now, if you look at the housing costs, the application fees, the first and last month's rent and the security deposit, well, here's the thing, in the United States Social Security pays for the average retiree $1,975 per month. That's less than $24,000 a year. And I look at that chart which is 1865 per month for rent. But when we look at the fact that maybe 50% of our Social Security recipients, 1975 is the majority of their retirement income. So there's a disconnect there. So when compared to the types of incomes that exist, the help that the legislation would provide in taking care of application fees, which if they cost from $25 to $150 per application fee, and if you apply for three or four apartments, well, that's serious money. That's serious money. And so, I think that this legislation will help to fairly give a chance for people to afford housing in these very troubling and tumultuous time. Older Americans want to stay in their homes and community as their age. However, they are facing tremendous challenges as housing prices and rents soar beyond their reach. Philadelphia used to be seen as a place where housing was affordable. Well, that story has changed. We look forward to working with you on policies that will provide all Philadelphians with housing choices that will allow them to remain in their homes or to find a safe and affordable home in their community. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you so much. Thank you for being here and for your testimony. We greatly appreciate the work and advocacy of AARP as well as the Senior Law Center. So I have a question for Vincent. Thank you so much for sharing the experiences of your clients. I was wondering if you had an opinion on the argument that we just heard or the notion that allowing renters to pay their security deposit in installments will hurt their ability to rent from certain landlords?
And I think that there's no 4 possibility as it stands now for most of our clients to pay for the move-in costs. So it's not like they're able to pay, you know, even on the table as one of the possible candidates for these landlords. They would have no chance as it stands because they have no 12 savings. And so, I'm not concerned about that as the director is, if that makes sense to you.
Thank you so much for that. Are there other questions and comments for the panel? Councilmember Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For the Senior Law Center, you also provide services for senior property owners as well. And just real quick, that 125 issues that we are facing do you represent seniors who are being unfairly targeted by these individuals coming to take possession and improvements of properties that might be in disrepair based on their limited financial abilities? Do you represent them?
So I work in our Tenants Rights Division, so I don't personally represent homeowners. But most of our homeowner work is in tangled title. And so, it's usually through wills and things like that also.
So the answer is balance that you provide for homeowners as well as renters, correct?
Yes. Certainly, we represent homeowners, including homeowners that are in situations where there's a tenant abusive situation as well to try to help prevent that sort of exploitation of our clients. So certainly, we represent tenants and homeowners.
The second program -- and I just want this on the record so that we show that balance as a city and city full of productive, meaningful nonprofits. When people try to do deed theft, do you represent the owners there? Because that is a problem in the city of Philadelphia. I've known people who have gone to different hospitals looking at people in ICU and looking up their names and then forging leases to people that they rent to. Are you protecting seniors in that way?
It's certainly a serious issue and we provide legal advice for all seniors that are dealing with those types of issues. And in some cases, are able to provide extended representation for deed theft and things like that.
Thank you both so much for your testimony. Appreciate you. And we certainly want to help our senior renters as much as possible here in Philadelphia. When people come to you like they come to us saying I found a place but I can't come up with the money to move in, where do you send them? How do you help them get the funds they need for the security deposit and the move-in costs?
Okay. One of the things that happens is that sometimes they can get help from family members. But among the 15% of Philadelphians who are seniors, there are many people who have no 16 family. And so, they are stuck unless they can find a social network that can support them. And that's part of the real issue that goes on.
And for us, it really is a constantly moving target. You may be aware of the website phillytenant.org which does update with available rental assistance. And if you look at it, it's constantly changing. Organizations are running out of money all the time. So in the past, we've sent clients to the Office of Homeless Services which may or may not have funding. We send clients to Apple Tree Family Intake Center. And because of limited resources, often times you're only going to get help if you go in person because of how backed up the phone lines are. For a senior who can't walk, that's a very difficult thing to ask of them. And so, it's a hard decision to make, am I going to risk my health by trying to make the trip down to Center City to see if there's even funding available. And some other places that we send folks to face-to-face in Germantown has been able to provide assistance in the past. This new program that's just been made available, I've been referring clients there. I haven't heard about any receiving the funding yet. And part of the problem is you need to have been accepted for the apartment first to get access to funding. And so, it's very difficult for you to get accepted to the apartment if you have nothing in savings to show you can even move in and then to get their assistance for move-in cost afterwards.
If I can just add, there were a number of times where people in addition to their Social Security may have a pension that gets them above many of the income levels that organizations like PCA and others, so they are not rich and they are no longer middle class, but it's difficult for them to get help because they don't qualify for the income-based services that exist or I should say -- well, income- restricted services that exist.
I appreciate that so much. My time representing tenants and being at the Fair Housing Commission, I heard countless stories of people who would borrow everywhere they could, whether it's family members or otherwise to try to come up with the money for these move-in costs. And at quite a detriment, they were skipping paying other bills, their family members were skipping paying other bills, they were missing school fees and other things and they were doing all of that to come up with that big pot of money to move in. And one of the purposes of this bill is to just allow them to do it in a slightly longer time so they wouldn't have to be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And this may be just a very general kind of question. But, Vincent, could you shed some light here. Member Landau's bill 15 puts it that no landlord may "unlawfully retain any security deposit however styled in a lease." Could you give us an overview, just a general overview, of how landlords try to unjustly detain these deposits and any data that you may have on how often that actually occurs?
I don't have any figures available, but that language that's in the bill is quite similar to what the law is, as was discussed for holding more than a year security deposit into the second year of the tenancy. And so, there is precedent for using that particular language. And I will say as it stands right now, that law is constantly violated more than it's followed in my experience. And as Councilmember Landau was saying, under the Landlord Tenant Act if my landlord is holding two months' of security deposit into my second year, that's technically illegal. But there's no penalty. And so, even if we go to court and make the case to the judge, yes, maybe our client owes one month of rent, but the landlord owes our client a month of rent because they've been holding two months' of security deposits for years. Not to mention for many of our clients, they paid their security deposit 30 years ago and they have gotten no interest off of the security deposit. I have never seen a tenant get the interest from the security deposit back as the law requires. And so, to answer the question it is very common that these regulations that are already in place are violated. But because there's no teeth, they can violate it with impunity. And for our clients who pay their security deposit so many years back, seniors are particularly vulnerable to that type of predation.
Thank you, Vincent. And thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence.
There is a little known provision of the Fair Housing Ordinance that states that a landlord cannot unlawfully retain a version of the security deposit. I forget exactly how it's phrased. It had been underutilized until I became the Director of the Fair Housing Commission. And what this bill is doing is kind of highlighting that fact, because it's true. It is the law. It is exactly how things are supposed to work, that after the first year the landlord's got to return anything beyond the first one month's rent. Thank you.
Can I just add one more thing to that. And I think even if we're advising clients that that's what the law is, many of our clients do not feel empowered to say what their rights are. I mean, even myself, my landlord was holding my second month of security deposit. But the question is if I stand up for myself, are they going to renew my lease or are they going to retaliate against me. And given the situation where many of our clients don't have the money to move, if they stand up for themselves and enforce their rights, they can't afford to move into a new apartment because of the move-in costs and things like that. And so, what this bill does is it gives tenants some security to actually enforce the rights that already exist if their landlord is legally retaliating against them. (Applause.)
Thank you so much. Thanks to the both of you for your testimony. Will the Clerk please call the next panel to testify.
Raquan King and Kareem Sweets. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good morning and thank you for being here. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
First and foremost, thank you for allowing me to be here today. This is my first time testifying and not my last. Now, my name is Kareem Sweets, first and foremost. And I am from Hunting Park for the 43rd Ward, 25th Division. I am committee man for my ward, also a volunteer community energy specialist for my community. And each and every single day I'm assisting with my residents inside my community when it comes to utility assistance, rental assistance, homeownership, but more so the concerns is rental assistance. The last couple of months since I've been in my volunteer role as an energy specialist, maybe more than nine months now, almost a year, I can't even send any of my clients that asked me for rental assistance anywhere. It used to be the Dixon House in South Philadelphia. But guess what? A community holds more than hundreds of people that need help, not just one spot in the whole entire Philadelphia that's handling millions of people with limited funds. So I'm actually here today to support both bills. Let me get the bills up. I'm sorry. Both bills, and these bills are basically -- 250044 and 250045. Now, when it comes to the evaluation of my clients that do apply for rental assistance or either some type of apartment, they're still in crisis because the hardship do not just come and go. Sometimes the hardship might just stay until you get things right. So one of the main concerns of my clients in my community in the 43rd Ward, and I'm still going through this until this day until we get these -- until City Planning that came had that program everywhere that I was not aware about, but application fees, I'm totally against that. I'm sorry to say it. I'm so happy that the bills is telling that, hey, we need to lower these bills, lower these extra accessories that is affecting Philadelphia residents, especially (inaudible) 43rd Ward. You have people that come see me each and every day like I said asking for even money for the application fee because they don't even have money to actually for the first month, second month or security deposit. So now, you got an application fee. Where does that money go for application fee? It go into these tenants'(sic) pockets. And I don't -- and I'm against that. What's it going into your pockets for. Some folks, some of my clients just now getting out of incarceration. They can't get homeownership because of background checks or credit checks. They don't have enough credit because they've been incarcerated or they don't have any credit at all because they're not educated on credit, building credit. There's no second chance credibility for some of my clients that is seeking rental assistance or either seeking any type of roof over their head. Some folks, some of my clients -- now, I'm pretty sure the whole entire Philadelphia has a rental assistance crisis, because once again some folks can't manage homeownership on their own, so you have a second option of people renting. But that's not too successful. As we heard today and as we know, Philadelphia might be the only one that has the high volume of rental assistance, and it's uncontrolled, it's uncontrollable. Once again, once I send these folks out to the Dixon House there's no 4 success. You want to know why? Because there's no more funds by the time they come from Hunting Park to West Philadelphia or either South Philadelphia. Oh, no, we done, try again another day, another time. What other programs that it is, Mr. Sweets. These are the questions that I get each and every single day. And I can't even give my clients the correct location to go to see if they even qualify. I'm not too sure what's the requirements to get some rental assistance, but it's not too successful either because some folks being denied because they're not even passing the requirements. Some folks is in real crisis --
Excuse me. Can I just ask that maybe take the next 30 seconds or so and summarize your testimony. We really appreciate you being here.
Yes, yes. Thank you. For me, I know -- for me personally, I'm in a tangled title predicament. Now, I have the rent from my cousin which she's the beneficiary. Most folks go through that on a normal basis, but there's no help with people that's on a tangled title. You can't even get help with your bills because your name is not either on a deed or you just can't get help because once again, you're not the homeowner. So just imagine when folks on a tangled title and they rent from their family or their close peers that own a home, they can't get any assistance either. And I've been having a high volume of folks in Hunting Park, East Tioga that have that predicament. I know later in the year may have some good programs when it comes to tangled title, but these two bills can definitely help out when it comes to the application fee, to control that or to take it away, I mean, I'm against that. But the other, yeah, I'm just here to represent these two bills so that means that my clients can be successfully happy.
Thank you for your testimony and for your advocacy. Please proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Committee Chair Gauthier, Vice- Chair Landau, Councilmember Jones and all others here in attendance and watching remotely. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak before this honorable body. My name is Raquan King. I am the Director of Advocacy for Turn, the Tenant Union Representative Network. For those that might not recognize our name, we staff the Philly Tenant Hotline. As an organization, TURN has over 50 years of history faithfully serving tenants in Philadelphia and has so often stood at the front lines, advocating for tenants from all walks of life across Philadelphia. Today we have once again been called upon to continue the fight for safe and affordable housing for every single person here in Philadelphia because TURN believes housing is a human right. Housing is a human right. Let me repeat myself one more time. Housing is a human right. (Applause.)
I say this not as a statement but as a demand. Every human regardless of who they are or where they come from should have access to safe housing without condition. Picture this: Sam, a parent with a small child, discovered that the home they just moved into has a lead paint issue. Annabelle, an elder who has lived in her apartment for over a decade, has just been told by the landlord that the rent is going up by several hundreds of dollars at the end of the year. And Jerome, a first time renter, asked his landlord to fix the heat because winter is quickly approaching. The landlord understands the urgency of this issue, but unfortunately doesn't have the funds to make the repairs. Sam may be able to sue the landlord because of this lead issue, but while they are fighting that legal battle, their child is breathing in lead dust every day. For the safety of Sam and their child, they need to move out of the property as soon as possible. Even if the landlord is willing to let them out of the lease, by law the security deposit that they paid could be tied up for at least 30 days. But if this parent just spent all of their savings to pay the required three times the rent to move in, where are they supposed to get the funds to do that a second time. For Annabelle, the landlord gave adequate notice and therefore isn't breaking any laws in increasing her rent, but she is on a fixed income. Right now that income covers her rent and all other expenses. This will no 23 longer be possible when the rent goes up, so she has to plan to move. Unfortunately, Annabelle lives check to check. It's virtually impossible for her to save up enough money in order by the end of the lease in order to pay three times the rent to move somewhere else. And then there's Jerome. Just like Sam, Jerome could bring a lawsuit against the landlord, could also potentially withhold the rent because of the heat issue, but winter is fast-approaching and neither of these options is going to bring functional heat into his home. And again, the landlord wants to get the heat working. They just can't afford it. Jerome makes good money. He's not rent-burdened, but he was only able to move into this property after borrowing money from friends to pay that security deposit, and he's still paying those friends back. Even though Jerome isn't rent-burdened, he definitely won't be able to come up with the money in order to move before winter comes. Now, these three examples that I gave might be hypotheticals, but I'm willing to bet that everyone in this room 11 either experienced a similar scenario or know someone close to them that has. When we talk about the impact that the Move-In Affordability Plan will have, these are the Philadelphians that I think about. As a tenant advocate and a lawyer, I know that there are legal solutions to many problems the tenants face. One such solution is to terminate the lease and move out. They have the right to terminate the lease potentially. For some, this may be the best course of action. For so many others, this may be the only course of action. But with the rising cost of rent and the decreasing amount of adequate affordable housing, the gap between this legal solution and this practical need might as well be the Grand Canyon. The Move-In Affordability Plan will make housing more accessible to thousands of Philadelphians across our beautiful city. That is a fact. So I ask this Committee to pass both Bills 250044 and 250045 and bring it before the full City Council to turn these bills into law. Right now today housing is not a human right in Philadelphia, but in my lifetime it will be and today we can take another step in that direction. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you so much for your testimony and for drawing out how these issues affect people in their real lives. Vice-Chair Landau.
Thank you. I really appreciate that. I know what it's like handling all the calls from the hotline at TURN, so I know you guys are busy. I want to ask you the same question I asked the previous panel. What do you do when people call and need assistance for move- in costs in any way? Where do you send them? What do you do?
So I want to repeat what Vincent had mentioned. Generally, it's phillytenant.org. They have an ongoing list that is updated as it can be as quickly as possible. For those in potentially emergency situations, possibly OHS. But as everyone has already said, right, that the money when it shows up, it quickly goes away. Often times, I tell folks, these are the resources. And sometimes you have to call and a lot of times it's like hitting the lottery. Maybe you called on the right Tuesday at 10:07 a.m. and the funds just came in at 10:00 a.m., so you get the money. But then if you call on Wednesday, it's no longer there. So it is very tricky and we try the best that we can. I am excited that the FreshStart will provide more funding, but certainly not enough.
So for me, for my clients I have not yet to even witness a successful person that is getting rental assistance, because by the time -- once again like I stated in my testimony, by time they go to West Philly it's too late. You know, they might close or either they don't have no 9 funds. And I've been hearing the same two things for the last eight months. And I don't know if it's a location thing or if -- I'm not there with them, but I have not yet to witness a success story when it comes to rental assistance from Hunting Park, specifically residents.
Can I ask just one follow-up. What happens to the tenants when they can't receive adequate resources to move to the next place?
For a lot of tenants depending on the situation, they might be forced to just stick out the housing that they're in, they can barely afford it as is or they're dealing with the heat issue or the hole in the ceiling or the leaks or the lead, whatever may be the case. For individuals who can barely afford it or are running operating at a deficit, really they're stuck in the situation until the landlord is forced to play their hands, which is taking the tenant to court. And so, these issues are never really resolved. It just forces folks to do what they can to get by, right. And sometimes that's taking out loans that they otherwise should have done, borrowing from friends and family. I think to your point, Councilmember Landau, it's stealing from Paul to pay Peter, is what people are forced to do.
So what I've been witnessing from the clients, so you do have family members that love to support each other which is great. But some folks is not that great unfortunately. So for some of my clients you have people that ask for support already for the utility bills, so now they got to turn around and ask support for the rental as well. I've been getting like -- I just have not been getting success when it comes to rental assistance for me when it comes to my audience. Because once again, if it's one burden, it's going to cause another burden because you got to ask for money. No matter if it's a friend, a great-grandmother, a neighbor, you still got to ask for money. You got to have that confidence to ask for it. Not everyone has that. Some folks like myself, not everyone can do this, but I like to struggle to figure out what my strength is at, but not everyone has that mindset. So we have to force ourselves to try to ask for help and something that's not viable all the time.
And if I can just add one more thing. I think when we talk about safe, accessible for affordable housing, often times those three components when tenants are finding somewhere to move or live, they're separate. You can find somewhere that's safe but it's not accessible or affordable. You can find somewhere that's accessible but it's not safe and affordable or you can find something that's affordable a lot of times and it's not safe.
Thank you, Vice-Chair Landau. I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the presence of our Council President, Council President Kenyatta Johnson. Thank you so much for joining us, Council President. I also just wanted to put a sharper point on this issue of folks in the city being cost- burdened. I don't represent Hunting Park, but a lot of my constituents share the same issue. Pre-pandemic the cumulative amount of the difference between what people make and what they have to pay for rent, that gap is $16 million a month in the 3rd District. It's almost $1 billion a year in the city of Philadelphia. So this is real, right. And it helps when we can put in million, 45 million into rental assistance. But as you noted, that money is almost gone instantaneously. During the pandemic, we put out $300 million- plus in rental assistance to help people and to help landlords get whole. And so, this is certainly a grave concern in the City. Councilmember Jones.
Thank 12 you, Madam Chair. And thank you, 13 President Johnson, for joining this 14 hearing. 15 A couple of things jump 16 out at me, is that we have a budget 17 issue that we need to address. If the rental assistance is gone by the time you go from one end of town to the other, obviously it is insufficient to meet the demand that is there. And particularly for our vulnerable population of people who are returning from incarceration that have those other burdens and challenges on them, so a separate category pool might be considered. The other portion is for seniors who are on fixed income, and maybe a portion of exemption for rental fees and deposits need to come into play for that population on a fixed income because all seniors aren't without means. And then I want to thank the Tenants Union. I wouldn't have known about Brith Sholom, but for you. I would not have known about Penn Wynne, but for you and you raising those issues like you're doing now. I thought the housing crisis was a South Philly problem. I thought it was just a North Philly problem. Found out it was a 4th District problem. And I appreciate your advocacy on these issues that kind of bring these things to the forefront so we can work on them together. As the original author of Just Cause, we went back and forth with the HAPCO and associations to the point, your sister -- I'm sorry, Judge Williams, told me, like I was conceding things and trying to compromise, which I always do, that's My nature, to try to find common space, she said, you're not going to concede another thing, this is it. And this one bullied me. Yeah, I'm going to tell it. We were getting ready for the final vote, Mr. President. We were going walking from my office to this hallway. And there was a provision of people that some of the people didn't want included in the protection aspect. She grabbed me, shut the door, I was afraid, Council President Johnson. And I had to go vote my conscience because of that. So I appreciate this kind of dialogue. But what I'm looking for today is the word that I started with, balance, because we have to be sustainable. We have to be able to provide these kinds of dollars. And if it's there for a minute and the spigot is turned off, what's the point of getting people's hopes up. So we have to find ways to keep the owners of these onesies, twosies, threesies in business so they can continue to produce Prada. These things do not work in opposition to each other. They should work in conjunction with each other. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I noticed in your balance comments you came up with a new legislative idea, no application fees for seniors. Didn't you just propose that bill? (Applause.)
I thought I heard him say that. Vice-Chair Landau.
I second that. I heard it also. I just wanted to come back and ask you, especially from TURN who is hearing from so many tenants so often, I too want to do everything I can to support the small mom-and- pop landlords. I couldn't be happier that there's going to be a whole host of new funding to help people support their move-in costs. This is great. We've already outlined through your testimony and what we've heard from some tenants downstairs too is that this really is a significant amount of money to come up with at one time. If we're talking $5500 when your previous landlord doesn't even legally have to give you your security deposit back yet, it is virtually impossible for people to come up with that money without doing some magic. And at the same time, we don't want them staying in an unsafe condition of any sort. How often do you see landlords following the law and returning security deposits within 30 days? And how often do you see landlords following the law and returning -- if they're holding two months' security, returning one month of that after the first year as required by law as well?
So what I will say to that is often times when folks call the hotline, they're calling with an issue. And so, we're rarely, if ever, getting somebody calling acknowledging that the landlord followed the law, that they actually returned the security deposit, whether it's after they moved out or after the first year because they've renewed the lease. So usually when people are calling with issues about security deposits, they have already moved out. Landlord is either not responding to them, only sent back a portion. We're getting the landlords who aren't following the law, so I can't say -- I couldn't give a number percentage- wise how many are following the law and how many aren't. All I can say is when people call us it's because they're not.
Could you take one second then for everybody is watching to tell people how do you get your security deposit back from a landlord under Pennsylvania law?
Absolutely. So the first thing that you want to do is give them a forwarding address once you're planning to move out. By law, the landlord has up to 30 days to return the security deposit. If they are going to make any deductions, they have to provide that in writing, what those deductions are, give essentially an itemized receipt of what they're deducting against it. And then if the landlord fails to return the security deposit within 30 days, because it has to be sent out within 30 days, so they cannot send it on day 31, then the tenant has the right to take the landlord to court to recover that security deposit. But you want to make sure that you provide the forwarding address in writing so that the landlord knows exactly where to send the money.
Just want to remind you one small piece, if the landlord doesn't respond at all and the tenant sues in small claims court, they can ask for two times the security deposit, and the landlord is not allowed to use any alleged damages as a defense.
Yep. And Penn Law School now has a Civil Clinic where they're actually assisting people in helping them to get their security deposits back. And I believe their next public session is on April 22nd, but you can find that out at Penn Law School. Thank you.
I'm going to say this out loud. The City Planning with that program PHL, I want to see -- wherever you're at, I want to see can you at least get in touch with the Community Energy Centers to update us on that education so that way that we can feel more happier about there is programs that is available, because I was not aware of that and that it branched off last week. I mean, as a Community Energy Center that do accessible affordable housing, I think we should know that.
You make a great point. We'll be sure to communicate with Director Mondlak to just ensure that the City is doing outreach to the energy centers and all other appropriate partners. I think the issue is that it's just a very new initiative, but it's a valuable initiative and we got to get the word out. So thank you so much for that.
Good morning. Thank you so much for joining us today.
Yep. Thank you. Good morning, Chairperson Gauthier, Vice-Chair Landau and members of City Council's Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and The Homeless. My name is Garrett O'Dwyer and I am the Associate Policy Director for the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporation or PACDC. Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on Bill No. 250044, that would require landlords to offer tenants the option to pay their security deposit in four monthly installments. We support the aim of the bill's sponsor, Vice-Chair, Landau, to expand housing affordability in Philadelphia. PACDC is a leading voice of nonprofit community development organizations in Philly. Our 60 CDC members and over 100 additional associate members are responsible for addressing key affordable housing, social service and economic development needs across the city. As Philadelphia turned a corner at the beginning of this century we began to see steep increases in rental rates following the Great Recession. In communities experiencing gentrification, this posed a particular problem. But rates went up across the city more generally. 5 times the rate of wages. This has exacerbated underlying societal inequities and turned our dearth of affordable housing into a true crisis. Steeply higher rents make it more challenging for individuals and families to be able to afford ongoing monthly housing costs, but also make it much harder for them to access housing in the first place. Many for-profit landlords require applicants to produce three months of rent to be able to begin tenancy, first month's rent, last month's rent and a security deposit. According to the most recent Out of Reach Report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the average fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Philadelphia is now 1737 per month, a little bit lower than the number there. But that means a family renting that unit would need to produce over $5,200 for the landlord and that doesn't even include move-in costs. It's also worth pointing out that many leases give the landlord as little as 30 days to decline to renew another lease, an extension of lease. Meaning, that a family could be expected to come up with some money in a very, very short amount of time. In the poorest big city in the United States this is a significant burden. 9 weeks at 40 hours per week with no deductions for taxes, Social Security or Medicare from their paychecks, and every cent of that going into a fund just to be able to pay for this to be able to afford the average upfront tenancy costs. Bill No. 250044 works to equitably alleviate this burden by distributing it over the first four months of occupancy. Landlords will still receive their security deposit and tenants who choose to opt for an installment plan will still be required to pay. These changes though would make the renting process dramatically more manageable, particularly for lower- income residents. We do have some concerns about how these provisions could impact federal, state and locally subsidized housing units, and we applaud the Councilmember for committing to working with nonprofit affordable housing developers to address these issues. Affordable housing developments like those operated by our CDC members differ from private market units in that they only require first month's rent and one month's security deposit to move in. And so, do not pose the same burden to potential tenants. They are also governed by HUD, PHFA and/or PHA regulations as well as agreements with tax credit investors that control the treatment of security deposits as well as non-rent costs that can be charged to tenants. We are happy to work collaboratively to address these concerns and commend City Council on your continued leadership on housing affordability issues. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this morning. )
Thank you so much. We appreciate your testimony and we appreciate the work of PACDC. Any questions or comments from the Committee?
We will now move on to the public comment list. We're going to have a time limit for public comment. That time limit is going to be two minutes. You're going to hear an alarm when we get to that two-minute mark. And I'm going to ask you to take the next 12 seconds, 30 seconds to summarize 13 your testimony please. 14 Will the Clerk please 15 call the first commenter. 16
Colleen 17 Floyd Carroll, Seth Anderson 18 Oberman, Annette Collier. 19 (Witnesses approached 20 Witness table.)
Good morning, Councilmembers, staff and community members. My name is Colleen Floyd Carroll. I am a very small-scale local, supportive and low-income housing provider in East Germantown and a resident of Northwest Philly for the last 7 years. 8 I'm here to speak in 9 support of the Councilmember 10 Landau's Move-In Affordability Plan 11 in principle, with some suggestions 12 for minor amendments. In a city 13 where large swaths of local housing 14 stock is rapidly being consolidated 15 and sold to institutional investors 16 and private equity investors whose 17 only concern is in maximizing 18 profit, local mom-and-pop housing 19 providers are neighbors who are 20 invested in our local communities and provide a bulwark against neighborhood gentrification, community displacement and are committed to the preservation of historic housing stock consistent with the character of our great city. We ask that in your considerations here and future housing affordability reform that you consider scaling any restrictions to the size of the entities that you're regulating and ensure that those of us that provide ethical approaches to these sorts of matters don't have undue burdens in order to regulate bad faith actors. I support the restriction of excessive and exploitative credit application fees. I consider it part of the cost of doing business. I don't charge them at all. But I ask that they be held to the cost of running a credit check, which is generally about $50, and perhaps staff time involved for other people. I do it myself so I'm not worrying about that. Running multiple credit checks for the same tenants for different units is unconscionable and should be eliminated. Tenants providing their own credit history while I support that in principle, is easy for there to be falsification. I've dealt with that issue in the past. And so, I'd ask that we think collaboratively around how we might move around those kinds of things. I certainly want to minimize people's costs to get in. I only take first month's rent and a security deposit, and I try to tell my tenants how to get their security deposit back. Clean your house, don't smoke in here, follow the rules. We're going to all do great together. So my tenants have been there for a long time. I don't jack up the rate annually. I wait until there's a turnover before rates are raised with any kind of significant adjustments. So as a final piece, I would encourage that you consider an ad hoc advisory committee of folks who do things like supportive housing as I do. I work with local nonprofits like Mission First Housing and 1260 Housing Corporation. I take people who have Section 8. I have disabled people. I have people with -- immigrant families or refugee families. There are a lot of us out here. I don't call myself a landlord. I call myself a housing provider. We're not the landed gentry. My tenants aren't the peasants. We're housing providers. We're providing a service to the city. 30% to 50% of the housing historically in the city has been provided by the small mom-and-pops, and I hope that you'll think about how we fit into this and don't regulate us in the same way that you do an institutional investor that's got 20,000 units in the city. So --
I think that's it. I think I got my -- we're just interested in preserving neighborhood cohesion and thinking about how we can collaborate with you all. And I have an idea around even I think --
Yes. If there's a way for us to come up with a fund for people to perhaps bridge that gap with that one month tenant -- gap for tenant funds and landlords' receipt of -- sorry, I'm losing my train of thought -- deposit, that might be a possible solution that we'll be able to work with. So thank you.
Thank you so much for coming here today and thanks for your efforts to provide people with affordable housing.
Yes. Good morning, Chairwoman Gauthier and also Vice-Chair Landau and the members of the Committee. My name is Annette Collier. I'm the 2025 President for the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today to Bill No. 250044 and 250045. GPAR represents over 3400 licensed real estate agents and industry service providers throughout Philadelphia. Many of our members are rental housing providers, property managers who oversee day-to-day operations of rental properties or represent buyers and sellers and rental property real estate transactions. Since the Move-In Affordability Plan bills were introduced, Councilwoman Landau has met with stakeholders to discuss merits and incent of the legislation and hear concerns. We appreciate the outreach and opportunity for open dialogue with the bills' sponsor. Stakeholders representing rental housing providers submitted commonsense legislative changes that would protect rental housing providers and reduce costs for renters. Unfortunately, these important changes are not reflected in the bills being considered today and GPAR remains opposed to both bills at this time. The bills intended to promote affordability for renters and their move-in process will add excessive financial and administrative burden for Philadelphia rental housing providers, especially small- and mid-size operators, without offering meaningful support in return. As written, the bills discourage rental market participation and availability of affordable housing units. Bill No. 22 250044 security deposit, provide landlords with immediate financial protection against potential damage to the property unpaid rent or cleaning cause at the end of tenancy. This bill would require landlords to defer upfront security deposit funds and take on incredible financial risk without guarantee from renters or resource options when installment plans are late, missed or refused entirely while landlords struggle to cover their own obligations or face default. GPAR encourages Councilmembers to prioritize a more balanced approach to remedy burdensome cost of rental housing transitions, for example, enhance public outreach and enforcement efforts on existing security deposit refund, requirements on the Pennsylvania Landlord Tenant Act. 250044 in its present form would cripple many housing providers who rely on accessible security deposit funds to ensure units are safe and well-tamed. 250045, rental housing application fees help cover the cost of the tenant screening process, including compliance with Philadelphia's Renters Access Act, pulling credit reports, background checks and administrative time, communication or interviewing applicants. These costs can vary for many reasons and often exceed the $20 per application cap prescribed by this bill --
Excuse me. If you could summarize your testimony, that would be great.
In summary, GPAR remains committed to working with the bills' sponsor and co-sponsors on mandatory language and creative solutions that will expand and preserve quality affordable rental housing options for all throughout the city of Philadelphia. For many individuals, landlords are vital small business owners building generational wealth for themselves and their families as homeowners, generating sustainable income while providing affordable, safe housing for others. A memo was circulated to all members of the Committee that is expansive beyond my remarks today, and I respectfully request the Chair submit it into the record. Thank you for your consideration on GPAR's position and of course, welcome any questions. (Applause.)
Thank you so much. Thank you for your comment and for engaging with the process. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
I don't have any comment. I'm here to support. My name is Carlos Masos. I'm a Board of Director for GPAR.
Thank you so much. Will the Clerk please call the next public commenter.
Seth Anderson, Devin Tuohey. Pardon my pronunciation, Steven Chintaman. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
My name is Seth Anderson Oberman. Good morning. It's an honor to be here with you this morning. Thank you for proposing this legislation and having us here to talk about it. My name is Seth Anderson Oberman. I'm the Executive Director of Reclaim Philadelphia. Before I talk about policy, I want to speak from personal experience. When I was a kid, after my parents split up my mother and I moved a lot. By the time I turned 10, we had moved 27 times. We weren't living in apartments. We were living on friends' couches, in garages, with grandparents, wherever we could piece together to get by. That kind of housing insecurity isn't just about where you sleep at night. It impacts everything. It meant a new school every few months. It meant being the new kid over and over again. And as for my mother, it meant never ending stress and anxiety, carrying the weight of trying to keep her child safe without the money or stability to make that possible. And that was in the 1970s. Back then, move-in costs were hard to afford. Today, they're devastating. In Philadelphia right now, renters are being asked to pay first month's rent, last month's rent, a security deposit and sometimes hundreds of dollars in non-refundable application fees just to get the keys to an apartment. That can easily add up to $3000, $4000, even $5,000 upfront as we've heard. For many poor and working people, that's not just a burden. It's a barrier to building a stable life. Your generational wealth should not come at my expense. Your generational wealth should not make us poorer. This is the move-in, it keeps people homeless. It forces families into overcrowded housing. It pushes people deeper into debt. This is why the Move-In Affordability Plan introduced by Councilmember Rue Landau is not just timely, it's urgent. This legislation would do a few simple but powerful things. It would cap application fees at a reasonable amount. It would prevent landlords from charging those fees again and again in the same year. It would let tenants bring their own background checks. And it would make security deposits more manageable, including the option to pay in installments. These may sound like technical fixes, but for the people affected they are life-changing. At Reclaim Philadelphia, we fight for a city where housing is a human right, not a reward for the wealthy. This bill won't fix the deep, structural crisis we're in, but it's a real step in the right direction. It protects renters. It eases the burden on tens of thousands of families and single parents across this city. It gives people a fighting chance to access stable housing without being bled dry just to walk through the door.
I'm almost done. Let's be clear, this is the least that we can do and it sends the right message that our city will stand with renters, not just landlords, that we're ready to write laws for people who live paycheck to paycheck, not just those who profit off of our housing crisis. We urge City Council to pass this bill without delay. Let's make it clear that no one in Philadelphia should be priced out of a home because of junk fees, sky high deposits or a system stacked against the poor. Thank you.
Thank you so much for your comment and for sharing your personal story today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
Seth and Seth. Good morning, Council Chair, Co-chair. Good morning, everyone. I'm here today under no other capacity than being a small landlord. I'm in Councilman Jones' District, fraternity brothers of Brother O'Rourke, but I'm here today because as a small landlord my back is officially against the wall. For the record, the monthly rent rate does not have any factor for the application fee or fee process. That is not in that process for calculating. How we got there is all of the expenses, taxes, insurance, general costs, upkeep, maintenance, management fees, et cetera. There is nothing else to give. I've given all that I could. And so, there's only one way. It's either the rent is where it is and it goes up as the fees go up. And if we move any other fees to that side of the table, then the rent will go up. The one thing I will say is I don't own properties in spectacular areas. I own properties in some of the most challenged areas. And every time I take an application, I look the other way for issues on the credit report. I look the other way for issues on the criminal background. I look the other way with issues from employment. I look the other way for issues with income. The one thing that I have is some amount of funds that I'm able to collect and deposit and retain to give myself some confidence for all the things that I've looked away on. I need to at least be able to get as much money upfront as possible and continue to look the other way and continue to serve some of the hardest-to-place and hardest-to-maintain housing in our city. (Applause.)
Thank you so much for sharing your story with us. How many rental units do you own?
Before we proceed, I see that people are just kind of like migrating up. But I want to make sure that we are doing this in an orderly fashion. So we'll take comment from the gentleman at the table. But moving forward, please do not come up unless the Clerk calls your name. And if you are not giving comment, please sit behind the bars. Thank you. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment. The rest of you, thank you so much. Please take your seats.
Thank you. My name is Devin Tuohey, and I serve as Treasurer of the Building Industry Association of Philadelphia. Bill No. 250044 gives a tenant the option to pay their security deposit over four months. The security deposit is a meaningful upfront financial commitment that provides landlords with the confidence that the tenant will fill its contractual obligation to pay rent. While we understand the intent behind the bill, reducing this upfront commitment will result in a stricter screening process by landlords of potential tenants, whereby less qualified renters will have reduced options to secure housing. Most apartment buildings in Philadelphia are encumbered by mortgages which require landlords to pay monthly debt service. Rental revenue is the main source for the payment of the monthly debt service. If a landlord is unable to collect rent from its tenants, the owner will be unable to pay the monthly debt service and will risk losing the building. Upfront security deposits are crucial, as they not only provide landlords confidence that potential renters have the means to fulfill their obligation to pay rent, but they are also landlords only real leverage to ensure tenants are paying their rent on time. If the concern is that landlords legally hold deposits for more than 30 days making it more difficult for Philadelphians to put their deposit on their next lease, we recommend Council explore increasing the fines for such unlawful acts by landlords. Bill 14 No. 250045 caps the amount a landlord can charge a prospective tenant for an application background check at $20. Application fees are not a source of profit for landlords and $20 is significantly less than the actual cost of a background check. Background checks are important as they can uncover fraudulent application materials, including fake IDs and falsified proofs of income. This legislation would inflict a financial penalty on landlords for not only following the law, but for potentially uncovering fraud. The BIA could support capping application fees at the cost of the background check. The majority of apartment units in Philadelphia are not owned by large institutional companies with deep pockets. They are owned by individuals or families who own a few units within a neighborhood and who rely on the income from these units to make a living. Capping application fees and reducing the upfront financial commitment of potential tenants will not only impose a financial penalty on the landlord for following the law, but will likely result in the unintended consequences of increasing the screening standards for working-class Philadelphians to rent a home. The BIA supports Councilmember Landau's goal of making housing more attainable, but we believe the best way to do so is through increasing the housing supply, not by imposing legislation that will make it more difficult for landlords to rent units. The BIA has offered to continue discussing potential amendments with the sponsor and is hopeful that a commonsense compromise can be reached that honors the intent of both bills while not creating additional regulations. We are open to discussions and confident we can achieve reasonable solutions together. One more thing, we think a panel such as this is very important, and the best legislation comes when there's opinions from both sides. So we were surprised to see that the official testimony was only of those who support the legislation. We would recommend going forward that we see testimony from both sides. It can come from a reasonable compromise. Thank you. (Applause.)
I appreciate your comment. I did want to respond to the notion that the affordable housing crisis is only a supply issue. During the Mayor's speech, we heard a lot about luxury units in Center City that are sitting vacant, so it's not just a supply issue. We also need to have landlords that are willing to work with us because the supply and demand answer to vacant units is lowering your rents, but thank you so much for commenting.
Will the Clerk please call the next public commenter.
Lev Krovinski, Paul Cohen, Melissa Simola. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
I'm Lev Krovinski. I'm on the Board of the Apartment Association and I'm here to offer some suggestions on these bills and register concerns that I have as to the effects that these bills may have on housing affordability. So to begin with, I want to say I do support of course the underlying idea here and the cause, the theme behind these bills, and I don't want to be taken as someone who is against all housing legislation. I support both of your efforts, for instance, on accessory dwelling units which I think is a fantastic supply-driven economic policy that would decrease costs for renters as well as the recent legislation you've proposed around expediting the process for affordable units going through the permitting process and the process with L&I. As far as the bills today, I have a clear concern with the deposit legislation, which is that I think the second order effect will be to reduce the availability for the most vulnerable population in Philadelphia, which is to say those who are on the border of having credit that passes background checks, screening checks or having income to rent a unit. What I mean by that is the comment that Seth made in his testimony earlier that he, for instance, overlooks certain things on credit reports and would be nervous about doing so if this legislation was passed. I think that is a tremendous, tremendous effect that you'll see across the majority of housing providers in the city, which is to say that most housing providers who today charge, for instance, half a month's rent or one month's rent or $1,000 deposits if told they have to take on additional credit risk around an installment payment plan for deposit, will choose to increase their deposits closer to the statutory maximum. So the statutory maximum, of course, is two months. For instance, we charge -- our median deposit today is $500. We will be under pressure to increase that $500 if we had to take on incremental credit risk if applicants are not paying that deposit in monthly installments. So I think the net effect is that for the folks who have good credit and have the income to move in, this bill will help them out a little bit, not that they need the help but they'll pay a lot smaller deposit. And for the folks who have a 550 credit score or just barely make the income qualifications, I think many housing providers will increase the criteria on screening and deposit amounts, which will effectively remove for thousands of Philadelphians the option of affordable housing. I also want to add just on the deposit legislation we talked about other programs today. I think there was a great story earlier by --
Yeah. There was a great concept from an advocate of the bill about a housing voucher recipient who did not have funds for deposit. I'd like to suggest that City Council would get tremendous buy-in from the industry and effect on housing affordability if they funded PHA to pay for security deposits, because currently PHA vouchers do not give any kind of deposit assistance except in small number of emergency situations, and those voucher holders effectively can't rent at almost any apartment in the city because they do not have the money for deposits. So I'd like to collaborate with the Councilmembers in the future on this bill and hopefully find some commonsense compromises.
Thank you so much for your comment today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
Good morning. My name is Melissa Simola. I'm inhouse counsel with University City Housing Company and also a member of the Pennsylvania Apartment Association. I am here, as stated, the PAA opposes these two bills in their current forms. We do remain committed to working with Council to come up with amendments that would be more desirable for both housing providers, landlords and the industry as a whole. I would like to point out that I think at least most members of the Pennsylvania Apartment Association are not requesting that first month's and last month's plus security at the time of move-in. I can speak from our company. The vast majority of our residents are not required to pay that last month's rent, but we really do rely on it for applicants who may have little or no credit, short employment history, facing financial difficulties. And what we do is, you know, gives us the confidence, the ability to collect that additional month, gives us the confidence to rent to some of those individuals. So to reiterate, we don't want to have to strengthen our, you know, make our rental criteria more difficult to meet in order to rent to those individuals. And I do have concern that that may, you know, that may end up transpiring. Regarding the rental application fee cap, I don't think it's obvious to everyone who's not in the industry what do those fees actually go to. And those fees go to very extensive searches. And a lot of that has transpired since COVID, since 2020, where the number of fraudulent applications that we do receive has increased dramatically. We I would say multiple a week of flat-out fraudulent IDs, you know, doctored-up financial documents, W2s, bank statements, and the searches that we are completing at this point are quite extensive, definitely exceed $20 in and of themselves. And I just want to point out there's still an administrative expense that we incur, because in order to comply with the Renters Access Act we are not able to just take that report and make a decision regarding whether or not to rent to an applicant. We still need to conduct that individualized assessment. And in order to do that, we're incurring administrative fees on top of the $20. So the PAA remains committed to discussing what might be a reasonable fee and how can we tie that so that we don't want any sort of abuse. We recognize the amount of money it does take to move into an apartment, but want to make sure that we're still protecting the individuals that these bills were designed to protect in the first place. Thank you.
Thank you so much for your comment today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
Yeah. Good afternoon, Chairwoman and Vice- Chairwoman. My name is Paul Cohen. I'm general counsel for HAPCO. As Councilmember Jones said, HAPCO represents the onesies, twosies and threesies in the apartment industry. I'm also a member of Pennsylvania Apartment Association as well as a member of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors and also the senior partner in a law firm of Cohen Marraccini, which represents landlords throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I know I only have two minutes. As the other gentleman had said, we would appreciate in the future if we'd be put on a panel like it used to be done in the past --
Thank you. That is up to the bill's sponsor, as with every bill. But please proceed with your comment.
Yeah, it was directed to the bill's sponsor. The other thing I would like to say, with regard to this procedure I want to note on the record that I object to the fact that in my opinion the way a quorum should be done is there should be enough members of the actual committee --
Excuse me. Please comment on the legislation. These are comments about rules of Council. We would appreciate you to comment on the legislation at hand.
I understand that. I just wanted to be on the record that I object to the whole procedure and how this is taking place so that it's clear that I don't believe that this was properly handled --
That is incorrect. We established a quorum according to the rules of Council. Please proceed with your comments.
Yeah, I understand the technical distinction. I want the record to also reflect that the quorum was established through a Councilmember who as soon as the quorum was established has left. I also want the record to reflect that we're here now and -
The two minutes is up. Thank you so much. (Background interruption.)
The two minutes is up. Thank you so much. Will the Clerk please call the next person to comment. (Background interruption.)
The time is up. I am the Chair of this Committee. The two minutes was used to comment on what he wanted to comment on. Please call the next public commenter.
Steven Chintaman, Dr. Mark Roche, Camille Pearsall. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Thank you. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comments.
All right. My name is Mark Roche. I'm a mom-and-pop landlord. My rent is half of what's on the sheet, my average rent. I'm the person that I was told here that you want to support. I'm here to support the intention of this bill, but I believe if it's put into law --
Can you speak into the mic. We're having difficulty hearing you.
I believe if it's put into law -- I just (inaudible) my notes. I believe it's put into law it's got to harm 95%, if not, 99% of the tenants. I want to make sure that all the people who were at the press conference this morning know that 99% of the people who spoke this morning will be harmed by that. 100% of the landlords would be harmed by that. The small ones the most, the large ones the least. I have prepared for all details. It takes me five to seven minutes to present those, but I ended here because I'm overwhelmed of what I've just seen here. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
Steven Chintaman with the Pennsylvania Apartment Association. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Gauthier, Sponsor Councilmember Landau and the members of the Housing Committee. Again, my name is Steven Chintaman and I am the Vice- President of Government Affairs for the Pennsylvania Apartment Association. PAA represents over 305,000 units and 316 property management companies across the Commonwealth. Locally here in Philadelphia we represent over 38,000 units and 49 property management companies. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on Bills 250044 and 250045. I know that the Committee has a copy of my testimony, so I'll just bounce around here. The PAA opposes the legislation as we believe that the package of bills as drafted and introduced have far-reaching implications on the multi-family rental housing industry, while also hurting the residents we seek to protect. Regarding Bill 250044, the expansion of security deposit laws may inadvertently harm the very populations that it's designed to protect. Security deposits help housing providers manage the risk of renting to individuals who might cause damage or fail to pay rent, fail to make payments, if regulations make it more difficult for housing providers to collect adequate security deposits that may be less inclined to rent a higher risk applicants, such as those with adverse credit histories or those facing financial difficulties. This could lead to fewer rental opportunities for certain demographics and to residents they perceive as lower risk. As currently written, the legislation may unintentionally foster exclusionary and discriminatory practices as housing providers may raise their standards due to the impact of monthly installment requirements. Furthermore, many small housing providers operate on a narrow profit margins and are unable to absorb unexpected rent repair costs or unpaid rent. Security deposits offer them a crucial safety net, allowing them to continue renting without facing any significant losses. If property owners feel the security deposit regulations will impact their ability to operate profitably or increase their financial risks, some may choose to exit the market entirely. This could reduce the supply of rental units, particularly in areas with stricter regulations, increasing housing shortages and making it more difficult for residents to find affordable rental options. We urge -- the PAA urges this Committee to hold Bill 250044 and thoroughly review the proposed amendments we offered to the sponsor's office. These amendments propose an exemption for housing providers from the requirement to accept payments in foreign equal installments under two conditions, if the deposit is more than one month's rent or --
I ask that you just take the next 30 seconds or so to summarize.
Yes. Ultimately, we just ask that this Committee hold these bills and just consider our amendments as sent to the sponsor's office. We thank you for your time or thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you so much for your comment today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
Good morning. My name is Camille Pearsall. I'm a small landlord, an investor and a lifelong Philadelphian. I'm here today on behalf of many small landlords who are deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed bills will have not just on us, but the future of safe, affordable housing in the city. Small landlords already operate with tight margins and high risk. These bills will only make it harder for us to survive, let alone provide the kind of high quality affordable homes our neighborhoods need. And make no 5 mistake if we're forced out, what will replace us will be large out-of-state investors who often treat our city's poorest communities like profit centers, not places where people live and raise families. I personally own several homes on the street where I was raised in North Philly. I share this not to boast, but to say I saw a need and I made an intentional decision to reinvest in the same community that raised me. I don't just provide homes. I provide quality homes, homes that are clean, safe and full of pride, the kind of homes that my childhood friends didn't have, which kept them hanging out in the streets and places where they should not have been. But that kind of home doesn't come cheap. It takes real investment and protection. Security deposits are one of the few safeguards we have. Sometimes that's the only payment we'll ever receive from a tenant, but we continue to take those risks and rent to those people in these poorest communities. If those safeguards are taken away or allowed to be paid over a time -- if those safeguards are taken away and allowed to be paid over a term, we will also be forced to cap application fees below the cost of a basic background check, which ranges about $45. We aren't being asked to be fair. We're asked to go under and out of business. The small landlords are not the problem. We are part of the solution. We don't put these types of limits on the tools we need to protect what we've built, not just for us, but for the families who count on us. (Applause.)
Thank you so much for sharing your comment today. Thanks to all of you. Will the Clerk please call the next public commenter.
Alexia Clark, Daniel Harvey, Stanley Daniel, Bill Vargas. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon. My name is Stanley Daniel. I am a licensed realtor, a property manager. I have over 100 tenants. And I also wrote a book on real estate investing. I know your objective is to have lower rents. As a real estate investor and a property manager, I want lower rents also because if I can take a property and rent it for $1,500 a month instead of $1,800 a month and have the same profit, I would have that many more people that I could rent to. I have a question. You don't have to answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway. I wonder how many members of City Council have rental properties. Because I don't like the bill that's proposed here, but I'm not going to sit here and give you all the little dollar and cents things that my previous colleagues gave you. I'm going to tell you why I don't like the bill, because it raises my cost of doing business and that raises the rents. And you should not like the bill for the same reason. Anything that affects the landlords raises rents and is counterproductive to what you're trying to do. Let me give you a good example. Let's talk about how difficult it is right now to do business with L&I, how difficult it is to evict somebody. Right now as a landlord, after two months I would start the eviction process. It takes six months. So after losing eight months' rent, when I get the unit ready to rent what am I going to do? I added an extra $5200 to recoup the money I lost. Everything that City Council has done in the last 500,000 years has been counterproductive to what you're trying to achieve. You want to lower the rents. You lower my cost of doing business. (Applause.)
As I mentioned earlier, I'm a licensed realtor. I have two very large property holders in Philadelphia that I'm selling their log of properties. Why? Because it's unfavorable to do business in the city of Philadelphia. They'll take their money to Delaware County, Chester County, Bucks, Montgomery, wherever. The objectives -- I don't understand your business. I can't run the city. You don't understand my business. Anything that you do that affects my cost of doing business is not going to lower rents. It's going to raise rents. And you're talking about affordable housing. I have sent every member of City Council numerous emails offering free housing to the homeless. Thank you. You think I've gotten replies --
Thank you so much. I did reply to you, but please take the next 7 seconds or so and summarize. 8
Yeah, okay. 9 The talk here is affordable 10 housing, fine, but you don't know 11 how to do it and you have to listen 12 to us. Anything you do that raises 13 my cost is going to raise the 14 rents. Thank you. 15
16 Thank you so much for your comments 17 today. 18 Good afternoon. Please 19 state your name for the record and 20 proceed with your comment.
Good afternoon. My name is Alexia Clark and I'm the Executive Director at Covenant House Pennsylvania. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. At Covenant House Pennsylvania, we work every day with young people, to 24, 5 navigating complex housing 6 challenges, specifically 7 homelessness and exiting human 8 trafficking. 9 Many are resilient and 10 striving for stability, working, 11 attending school and building their 12 futures. Yet they often face 13 significant barriers when seeking 14 housing. High application fees and 15 substantial upfront security 16 deposits can make securing an 17 apartment feel unattainable. 18 According to the City's 2023 Point-in-Time count, over 17% of individuals experiencing homelessness are minors under 18 and more than 8% are young adults age 18 to 24. In Philadelphia, many young people experiencing homelessness are doing their part. The young people we work with are earning an average of $13.43 per hour. Even with steady employment, that's not enough. The median rent in the city, as stated here, is 1865, far beyond what a young adult can afford on that wage. Most would need to work over 55 hours a week just to cover rent, not including food, transportation or other essentials. For some of our youth, especially those who don't qualify for housing through coordinated entry, these barriers are even more devastating. These are young people who are still experiencing homelessness but may not score high enough to be prioritized for limited housing resources. They might not have diagnosed mental health conditions or visible vulnerabilities, but they still need a safe place to live. Without support, they're left to navigate a housing market that is stacked against them. That's why the Move-In Affordability Plan is so critical. By capping application fees and allowing security deposits to be paid in installments, this plan removes substantial barriers and offers a real pathway to housing, especially for young people who are often overlooked by existing systems. It is a practical, necessary step that meets people where they are, and helps make housing truly accessible. This bill supports young people, working families and everyone trying to get their footing. It recognizes that affordability is not just about rent. It's about access. At Covenant House, we believe that no young person should be without a home. Supporting policies like this plan moves us closer to that reality and helps ensure that every young person in Philadelphia has a fair chance at building a safe and stable future. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thanks so much for your comments today. Will the Clerk please call the next public commenter. Thank you so much. Will the Clerk please call the next public commenter.
Yeah, I'm Bill Vargas. Thank you, Chairwoman and Vice-Chairwoman for this opportunity. Bill Vargas, better known as Billy V when I was on TV here in Philly as a sports anchor. Most of the money that I made I have invested in properties, including rental properties in Philadelphia to get a little passive income in my retirement years. I'm going to tell you about one situation that will tell you why this bill is nonsense, and that is the situation I'm dealing with on (inaudible) Street in West Philly, where the tenant has been in the property for 13 months, made two payments. And I've beaten her repeatedly in court and she's still there. Run up about $25,000 bills out of my pocket in terms of rent, unpaid utilities, et cetera. The only thing I have is at least the small consolation of $3,700 because she paid off last month's rent and a deposit before moving in. I rented this property to her in March of last year. She wanted both ends of a duplex, $2,000 a month. As soon as she moved in, she was demanding all kind of repairs which I gladly made for her and meanwhile not paying rent, making excuses saying that her brother had died and she paid for his funeral and given her all kind of breaks. And finally, after showing her who I was and giving her those breaks and she kept showing me who she was and making excuses for not paying, I filed for eviction, gave her a 10-day notice. She sent me a disappearing text, threatening my life. I went to the Eviction Diversion Program. They said, your license is expired. Tried to renew my license. City said I owe taxes. I tried to show them all these documents to say that I didn't owe taxes, but nobody would return my calls. I gave it to my accountant. Nobody returned his calls. It's the City of Philadelphia. This is how it operates. So I finally realized I'm fighting to not pay $650 and this woman's living rent free in my apartment for $2,000 a month. So I mind as well just capitulate whether I'm right or wrong, so I paid it. Now, we go through eviction diversion. That's another month of unpaid rent. No money came out of it. Another $2,000 out of my pocket. I go to the eviction program in Municipal Court and I file. They said, well, where's your certificate of rental suitability. I said, I have a license. Yeah, but you also need this thing. Why do I need both? Doesn't matter. You didn't print out a certificate of rental suitability. That means the four months that she's been living in there without paying rent I can't collect. That's $8,000 out of my pocket for not printing a piece of paper. Now, I have to wait another month for my eviction hearing. We go to the eviction hearing. The judge rules in my favor. He says, Mr. Vargas, I'm sorry, but I can only give you the 2000 for the month that passed since you filed until now. I can't give you that other 8000 because the idiots in City Hall keep passing laws --
Okay. That was his quote. All right. But then she made one payment two months late, so it stopped the eviction. I had to start the process all over again. Gave her another three months of living in my apartment rent-free. And then finally on January 31 after all these delays that she was able to get, we went to court. She got caught by the judge lying and falsifying documents. She ruled in my favor. She said, 10,500 for the plaintiff and immediate possession. That was on January 31st. Your immediate possession, she's still in that house while we wait for the sheriff. And these people know what it's about.
This is how it is and your bill is only going to make it worse. And I won't even be able to collect a little bit of money upfront. (Applause.)
Will the Clerk please call the next public commenter.
Thank you everybody who came today. I appreciate very much all of your comments. I wanted to say a couple of things just in response to the last couple of people who testified. One, the objective of these bills was not to lower rents. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible).
Okay. We're operating with the list that we currently have, but people can sign up if they're not signed up. Okay. If you have not been called, can you migrate over here and just make sure that we have your name on the list. You'll get to comment. Vice-Chair Landau.
To continue where I was, which was to say the objective of these bills is not to lower rents. The objectives of these bills was to just ease the move-in costs to make it affordable and manageable for people. I also wanted to take an opportunity to thank the small landlords who are keeping rents at a low cost. We know that you are essential here in Philadelphia. We appreciate you very much. And also, wanted to comment to the Apartment Association who stated for the record that they're only requesting small security deposits at this point. We appreciate that. That's what this is about. Unfortunately, so many of the other landlords in the city are not following suit. So the goal of the bills is to make it affordable for people to move in so you won't have vacancies, so that we can keep people housed. And it is not in any way to say that tenants wouldn't pay. It would be how they were paying and when they were paying. And final thing to say is, yes, in the City of Philadelphia we have some rules. In order to rent a property, landlord needs a license. Landlord needs a certificate of rental suitability. That's what you need to get before people move in. And if you don't have it, unfortunately there's consequences. Thank you.
Thank you, Vice-Chair Landau. Will the Clerk please call the next public commenter.
Carrie Nelson, Greg Wertman, Yuriy Skripnichenko, pardon my pronunciation, and Jacob Weiner. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
Good afternoon. My name is Yuriy Skripnichenko. I'm a small business owner. I'm the first- generation immigrant and representative of LGB community and I represent a lot of small mom-andpop landlords because I manage properties for them in the city of Philadelphia. I don't want to repeat everything that my colleagues already said, but I spoke to my clients about these bills before. And first to mention that I do not know where this number is coming from, 1865. Our rents across all of our landlords that we manage, for again the small mom-and-pop landlords is around $1,400 and that's in Philadelphia --
I'm sorry. Can you speak into the mic more so that we can capture your testimony.
Sure. So our average rent across all of our Philadelphia land was around $1,400 which is much lower than this. And when I spoke to my clients about your bills that you're proposing for the application fee and for the move-in costs, which sound great, everybody likes that, everybody wants to provide fair housing to our people. Everybody wants to have smaller rents. However, those bills will affect all of our landlords. Half of them told me if that's going to happen, we either will have to collect additional security deposits, which we do not now, that will allow us to at least collect a little bit more money upfront, which will hurt the tenants because they will have to come up with extra months of rent. And the other half of them told me that, hey, if this is going to happen, we will have to sell our houses. And if they're selling houses, somebody out of state will buy them. Somebody will flip them, somebody will get rid of that $1,400 affordable rent that we have right now and you're not going to get what you're looking for with that.
Thank you so much for your comment today. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
Hi. I'm Carrie Nelson. And thank you all for letting us testify since we weren't on your list. We do appreciate that. I'm actually going to change what I was going to tell you. I will tell you just a little bit about myself though. So I started out like some of the tenants we've heard here. In fact, my husband and I lived in a tent for a while before we could finally afford a house. And it took many years until we managed to graduate from a little apartment to the next little place, the next little place, finally bought a home. But as soon as we did and I had an income that could actually support us, I realized that we were never going to beat what we called the time money continuum. All the bills came in always faster than the paychecks, and that was not going to work. So I had to figure out a way to get us a more stable and balanced income stream. And I bought my first rental property. And after that, I started as soon as I could save up another, I bought my first two-story and graduate hospital for $18,000 because, you know, these were holes, there was nothing in there, and rehabbed that and done this all along and rented to people all along the way. And what I found is that I was making relationship after relationship after relationship with all these people and we still keep in touch, many of us via Facebook and other means. Sometimes I visit them when I'm out of town. They're spread across the country. Now, I think of them like my alumni, but this is because we have a relationship. And what happens when you all lay down certain rules, especially rules that repeatedly send a message that all landlords are evil and must be fought at all times and watch out for them because they'll sneak up behind you and get you, it destroys that relationship. And what we're doing as housing providers is for most of us, many people only have one house, two houses. I have 13. I did a building -- I moved into a very dangerous neighborhood. I bought a building that was falling down and I rebuilt it. I actually one night had to fend off people who were trying to get to me with a pump shotgun. I mean, it was rough. But this was the only way that I saw to go forward and to also make all the people who've lived with me through the years make their lives better. I work with every tenant through every situation and have only ever had to file for eviction once and the person finally left. But that was after he owed me many thousands of dollars because I kept trying to pick him up and help him go forward. So what I'm saying is --
Yes, ma'am. Rather than legislating all the time that in a way that makes tenants think that landlords are evil and think that landlords have to be curbed, it would be really helpful if we could create an environment where we have relationships, not just punitive ones on landlords and not just always giving tenants a free ride, but one where they have to work together. And if any of you want to talk about how to do that, I mean there are many of us in this world that have had a lot of experience of that. So thank you very much for your time.
Thank you for your comment today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
My name is Greg Wertman. I am the President of HAPCO Philadelphia. I sat here and listened to a lot of stories and I have a lot myself. When I took over it was during COVID. I answered the phones. I answered every phone call. I could tell you stories all day and all night. But we're not talking about landlord versus the tenant or the tenant versus the landlord. I'm so tired of it. Without landlords, where would tenants live? Without tenants, where would landlords be? The sooner we all recognize in this room that we need to work together rather than work as adversaries, the better off it's going to be in this city. And unfortunately, we represent the smaller landlords. Our organization has been devastated since COVID. Over 67% of the landlords and tenants didn't get rental assistance. We have lost over 1000 members since COVID. Yes, we represent mostly the small landlords. And unfortunately, those are the people that unfortunately get hurt the most when this type of legislation that's been introduced. It's just not going to work. And a question I have is, and you don't have to answer it, so they pay the first installment, what happens then if they don't pay any more? What happens? And unfortunately, most small landlords work on very small margins, as you know. So we need better legislation than this. There's better legislation. And we also advocate -- HAPCO advocates for more affordable housing. HAPCO advocates that all landlords in this city comply with everything. What about the landlords that don't have licenses? What happens to them? They don't comply with any of these things.
I'd ask that you just summarize in the next seconds. 8
So in 9 summary, we need to increase the 10 $20 and we need to completely 11 forget about installments for 12 security deposits. Thank you. 13 (Applause.) 14
15 Thank you so much for your comment 16 today. 17 Will the Clerk please 18 call the next public commenter. 19
Jacob Weiner 20 and Mike Lynch. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
Good morning. My name is Jacob Weiner and I'm a member of the onesies twosies, threesies group. I own six rental properties in the city of Philadelphia. Thank you for hearing me today, Councilmembers. I'm here today to express my unequivocal opposition to the proposed tenant security deposit affordability plan known as MAP, Move-In Affordability Plan, a policy that is not only shortsighted but fundamentally dangerous to the rights and livelihoods of rental property owners. This plan does not create balance, does not create fairness. What it does is strip landlords of one of the few remaining tools that they have to protect themselves against financial harm known as the security deposit. Security Deposits are not optional luxuries for landlords. They are essential protections. Landlords assume all the risk when they hand over the keys to their property. We are the ones left to deal with the destroyed units, unpaid rent and costly repairs. We are the ones left to deal -- excuse me. To suggest that this vital protection should be controlled by a government agency rather than the property owner is a complete overreach of power. It removes our autonomy, undermines private property rights and exposes landlords to financial losses with little to no recourse. Let's be clear, this policy will not make housing more affordable. What it will do is drive responsible landlords out of the rental market altogether. It will force those who stay to raise rents, tighten screening criteria or avoid renting to riskier tenants all together, the exact opposite of what affordable housing advocates claim to want. Landlords are not banks, we are not insurance companies and we are certainly not here to subsidize bad policy decisions at our own expense. The proposal fails to recognize that affordability cannot come at the cost of the landlord protections nor should it. If this plan moves forward, if it does, it will send a loud and clear message to property owners, your rights, your investments and your ability to protect your property no longer matter, and many of us will respond accordingly -
Sure. By leaving the rental market or increasing costs across the board, this is a bad policy, plain and simple. And I urge you to reject it. Thank you.
Thank you for your comment today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.
My name is Michael Lynch. I'm a landlord in your District, and I just came to -- I (inaudible) the same thing everybody else has said. I think it's a bad policy. You're suggesting that -- and one of the people defending the tenant's rights said he asked for his family to help, he asked for his friends to help, he asked for the government to help. There's nobody left to ask but the landlord. And I'd like to suggest that really what we need to be doing is figuring out a way to help the tenant. And I think that one of the ways to do that is to bring jobs to the city. And that's up to you to figure out how to do it. But I think that punishing people because they don't have enough money is not to punish everybody because they don't have enough money, but to figure out ways for them to earn more money. And that's really all I have to say.
Thank you so much for your comment today. Thanks to the both of you. Is there anyone else that wishes to testify on this bill 24 today? (No response.)
Seeing no one else here to testify on this bill, this concludes the business of the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Development and The Homeless today. Thank you all very much for your -- all bills are going to be held today. And we thank everyone for your attendance and your participation.
Thank you. I just wanted to jump in that you know, as the sponsor of the bills I want to thank everybody for their participation in the process. We are going to consider all of your testimony. And as we have previously before now worked with you, continue to work with you as we move these very important bills forward. Thank you again to the small landlords for being a part of the fabric of Philadelphia. And I end with everybody to say just a reminder again that housing discrimination in any form is illegal.
This concludes the business of the Committee. Thank you so much for coming you. (Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and The Homeless concluded at 1:05 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL