{"id":13678,"date":"2022-03-21T09:51:54","date_gmt":"2022-03-21T14:51:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=13678"},"modified":"2022-03-21T09:51:56","modified_gmt":"2022-03-21T14:51:56","slug":"pa-supreme-court-holds-pittsburgh-overreached-with-section-8-nondiscrimination-ordinance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2022\/03\/21\/pa-supreme-court-holds-pittsburgh-overreached-with-section-8-nondiscrimination-ordinance\/","title":{"rendered":"PA Supreme Court Holds Pittsburgh Overreached with Section 8 Nondiscrimination Ordinance"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Nathan Polacek, Staff Writer<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Picture provided courtesy of\u00a0E & D Holdings LLC<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Since 2015, Pittsburgh landlords, through the Apartment Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh, have been fighting an ordinance classifying \u201csource of income\u201d as a protected class. [1]<\/sup><\/a>,[2]<\/sup><\/a>,[3]<\/sup><\/a>,[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> <\/sup> Under Pittsburgh\u2019s housing discrimination ordinance, landlords are prohibited from rejecting potential Section 8 tenants.[5]<\/sup><\/a>  HUD\u2019s Housing Choice Voucher, commonly referred to as a Section 8 Voucher, is intended to partially subsidize rent for very low-income families so they can obtain safe and sanitary housing they couldn\u2019t afford otherwise.[6]<\/sup><\/a>  The ordinance was enacted because city officials saw that many landlords in the private rental market would simply not accept Section 8 tenants, and those who did often limited the voucher-holders to high-poverty areas with majority-minority populations.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to one analysis, communities in the city of Pittsburgh, where voucher holders are concentrated are in \u201cEast Liberty, Carrick, Sheraden\/Esplen, Knoxville and Crawford-Roberts and the Middle Hill.\u201d [8]<\/sup><\/a> Voucher holders throughout the Allegheny County suburbs are concentrated in \u201cWilkinsburg, McKeesport, McKees Rocks, Penn Hills, Duquesne, Clairton and Swissvale.\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a> The same analysis found that there were little to no voucher holders living in Allegheny County communities with the lowest poverty levels.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In appealing the trial court ruling for the Apartment Association, attorneys for the city argued, that housing discrimination on the basis of whether a potential tenant receives housing assistance is a major problem in the city.[11]<\/sup><\/a> They also argued that forbidding such discrimination is necessary to protect Pittsburgh citizens, and is well within the city\u2019s authority as \u201c\u2019a valid exercise of police power\u2019\u201d under Pennsylvania law.[12]<\/sup><\/a> The Apartment Association\u2019s main arguments are that the ordinance violates Pennsylvania law on home-rule charters by demanding businesses undertake specific duties, and that the ordinance puts burdensome regulations on landlords.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Section 8 program requires a large quantity of information and documentation from landlords such as personal identification background checks, and verification of paid property taxes from the taxing authorities.[14]<\/sup><\/a>,[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Additionally, the program requires landlords to enter into a contract with the respective housing authority, in this case the Allegheny County Housing Authority. [16]<\/sup><\/a> This further restricts a landlord\u2019s ability to increase rent as needed and is causing greater notice periods than required by statute.[17]<\/sup><\/a> In some cases, landlords may be required to use leases drafted by the housing authority or obtain approval of a lease prior to entering into a lease with the tenant.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, and held that preventing discrimination on the basis of source of income was not an authority granted by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.[19]<\/sup><\/a> Rather, the issue of the ordinance was similar to a prior decision where the Court held that the Pittsburgh Safe and Secure Buildings Act exceeded the city\u2019s authority under home-rule, but that the Paid Sick Days Act was compliant with home-rule.[20]<\/sup><\/a> Here, Pittsburgh\u2019s Business Exclusion of the home-rule charter invalidates the Section 8 Nondiscrimination Ordinance, because it forces landlords to engage in business activity that was previously voluntary.[21]<\/sup><\/a> This decision will likely have an impact on other Pennsylvania cities such as Philadelphia and State College, as it could bring the validity of their own \u201csource of income\u201d ordinances into question.[22]<\/sup><\/a>,[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.post-gazette.com\/local\/city\/2020\/02\/11\/Section-8-voucher-Pittsburgh-law-discrimination-housing-Commonwealth-Court\/stories\/202002110020<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> City of Pittsburgh, Pa., Ordinance 2015-2062 (Dec. 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> City of Pittsburgh, Pa., Pittsburgh Code \u00a7 651.04(jj) (2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.hud.gov\/topics\/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a>  https:\/\/www.hud.gov\/topics\/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.post-gazette.com\/local\/city\/2019\/02\/10\/Discrimination-law-regulation-court-case-Pittsburgh-income-Section-8-vouchers-landlords\/stories\/201902060107<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a>  https:\/\/newsinteractive.post-gazette.com\/section-eight\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.post-gazette.com\/local\/city\/2019\/02\/10\/Discrimination-law-regulation-court-case-Pittsburgh-income-Section-8-vouchers-landlords\/stories\/201902060107<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.achsng.com\/FAQlandlords.asp<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.post-gazette.com\/local\/city\/2019\/02\/10\/Discrimination-law-regulation-court-case-Pittsburgh-income-Section-8-vouchers-landlords\/stories\/201902060107<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a> Apt. Ass’n of Metro. Pittsburgh v. City of Pittsburgh<\/em>, 261 A.3d 1036, 1047 (Pa. 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/sup><\/a> Id. at 1038.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/sup><\/a> Id. at 1038-1041.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.post-gazette.com\/local\/city\/2019\/02\/10\/Discrimination-law-regulation-court-case-Pittsburgh-income-Section-8-vouchers-landlords\/stories\/201902060107<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/sup><\/a> City of Philadelphia, Pa., Philadelphia Code \u00a7 9-1108(1) (2022).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Nathan Polacek, Staff Writer Since 2015, Pittsburgh landlords, through the Apartment Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh, have been fighting an ordinance classifying \u201csource of income\u201d as a protected class. [1],[2],[3],[4]  Under Pittsburgh\u2019s housing discrimination ordinance, landlords are prohibited from rejecting potential Section 8 tenants.[5]  HUD\u2019s Housing Choice Voucher, commonly referred to as a [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":13679,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[3333,3437,3438,3264,3436],"class_list":["post-13678","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-juris-blog","tag-housing","tag-income","tag-landlord","tag-rent","tag-section-8"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13678","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13678"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13678\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13680,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13678\/revisions\/13680"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13679"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}