West Chester news header
Get info on ... Local Government Local History WC Jim West Chester Railroad Links
Index to articles Research service Boro meetings Contact WCJIM

Landlords Threaten Borough

Although it went unreported at the time, one of the factors in Borough Council's decision to send the "Fair Rental Ordinance" back to committee on November 16, 2005 may have been the letter handed to each council member by Grant Nelson, the president of the "West Chester Apartment Housing Association." The letter warned council members that the Fair Rental Ordinance is "fraught with LEGAL pitfalls" and threatened that "The point system is an invitation to litigation."

The full text of Nelson's letter appears below with links to explanations of various phrases. All fonts and formatting have been preserved from the original. You can also view the Fair Rental Ordinance as it was presented at the regular Borough Council meeting of November 16.

 

West Chester Apartment Housing Association letterhead
Directors:
Jason Griggs
John O'Connell
Stan Zukin 		Officers:
Grant E. Nelson, III, President
David Marshall, VP Treasurer
Robert Kappe, Assistant Treasurer
James Hamilton, VP Secretary
Keir Abrahams, Membership Retention
Bill Wilson, Jr., Membership Acquisition
Rich Willis, VP Communications
November 16, 2005

Dear West Chester Borough Council Members,

The plain objective of the ordinance #20-2005 is to threaten a property owner with a partial taking of his or her property to force the property owner to evict tenants for activity or conduct by any tenant, occupant or guest on the property or immediately adjacent to the property.

The approach is fraught with LEGAL pitfalls. The time and forum under which they will be contested are not before Borough Council but, if at all, in the courts.

Let's turn to some points that might interest you more.

You are public servants to spend public funds wisely in lawful pursuits.

The proposed ordinance is offensive because it is UNFAIR, HOSTILE, AND ANTI-BUSINESS AND ANTI-LANDLORDS .

The point system is an invitation to LITIGATION.

There are some realities.

I'm sure most remember that the impetus for the organization of landlords was this kind of attack upon landlords in the borough. The organization has grown. Litigation has followed. How much have the taxpayers paid to litigate and lose as a result of the borough's policies? How much will the borough have to pay as a result of the court order?

Are the TAXPAYERS being served by politicians who enact ordinances that will create additional bureaucracy, administration of the procedures required by the ordinance, appeals to the Building and Housing Code Board of Appeals and appeals to the Court of Common Pleas and beyond?

There are PRESENTLY SUFFICIENT LAWS and ordinances to address the issues. In fact the present proposal does not really add any offense. The ordinance imposes disproportionate financial penalty not upon the person committing the offense but upon the property owner who has little or no right of control.       Over

Page 2 November 16, 2005

 

In addition, a practical matter, the proposed ordinance raises the stakes to a point where it is a financial certainty that interested persons will pool their resources in opposition. There are multiple avenues for opposition. You are public servants. You are elected officials. You are to serve the public. This ordinance does not serve the public. It is an abuse of power. It is irresponsible government.

Would it be fair, right or lawful to hold a parent responsible for a crime committed by his or her child? Arguments could be made both ways. The most you could say is, "it depends." Now let's change that to a situation where you're dealing with adults who are not related except that they have a contractual relationship of landlord and tenant or no relationship as between the guest of the tenant and landlord. Where is the duty and what is the right of a landlord to control these other adults? The landlord is not a policeman, not a prosecutor, not a judge and not a jury. The landlords are not in loco parentis.

THE ORDINANCE IS DOWNRIGHT WRONG. IT IS UNFAIR. If you were a landlord and you were threatened with potentially devastating financial penalty for conduct by persons over whom you had no right or duty to control, you would oppose the ordinance.

There must be a significant connection between the behavior and the consequences. This ordinance attempts to connect the behavior of tenants, occupants or guests on or near property and impose consequences on the owner of the property.

Maybe you should adopt an ordinance that forfeits a Hertz rental car where a renter parks at an expired meter. Is that fair, consistent with due process and property rights?

The threatened consequences are disproportionate to the offenses and the problems.

Fair play requires not taking any action until the new Council takes office.

Respectfully submitted,

West Chester Housing Apartment Association (sic) members signature (instead of West Chester Apartment Housing Association)

 

 

 

Go to the top of the page