Rental unit registration postponed for five months
Share with others:
On the eve of a court hearing and with a key deadline just two weeks away, the city of Pittsburgh and three landlord groups have agreed to postpone a controversial rental registration process for five months while they try to work out their differences.
That means landlords scrambling to pay $12 per rental unit and leap sometimes-formidable bureaucratic hurdles by an April 1 deadline can instead circle Sept. 1 on their calendars, and wait to see what the city and interest groups negotiate.
"We're well on our way to an agreement," said Lawrence Fisher, attorney for the Apartment Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh. "We expect that in the end, everyone will win in this process."
Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James signed a two-page consent order reached by city Solicitor George Specter, the Apartment Association, the Landlord Services Bureau and the American Congress on Real Estate of Pittsburgh. It postpones indefinitely a two-day hearing that was set to start today.
"That now gives us the breathing room to really address the issues," said John Kostelac, of the Landlord Services Bureau.
Council passed rental registration in late 2007 to help building inspectors enforce housing rules against hard-to-find landlords. It says that anyone who wants to rent out a property must pay the $12-per-unit fee, show a valid occupancy certificate and provide contact information for themselves and their tenants.
Some landlords who tried to register found that in order to get occupancy certificates, they needed to go through sometimes-costly zoning processes.
Mr. Fisher said his clients want the city to change the ordinance so that owners of small rental properties don't need to jump through those hoops, and so no landlords have to turn over the names and phone numbers of their tenants. He said the landlords also want to be able to appeal building inspectors' decisions, and ensure that the registration fee matches the city's cost of implementation, so it's not a tax.
Any changes negotiated would have to win City Council approval.
First Published March 19, 2009 12:43 am
