In this editorial video, Kevin Moyer critiques Councilmember Nicholas O'Rourke’s proposed Philadelphia Safe and Healthy Homes Act. He argues that the bill creates a retroactive mechanism allowing tenants—or opportunistic lawyers—to sue landlords for the full amount of rent paid, plus legal fees, whenever a technical compliance item (such as posting a health‑code rating or providing a certificate of rental suitability) is missing. Moyer warns that this will disproportionately harm small “mom‑and‑pop” landlords who lack legal expertise, and will also expose large multifamily owners to blanket rent‑abatement claims for any code violation affecting an entire building. The resulting increase in risk, he says, will force landlords to demand higher returns, leading to higher rents, reduced new investment, and a shrinking housing inventory—ultimately burdening Philadelphia renters while providing political credit to City Council members. He emphasizes that the current Philadelphia system does not allow such retroactive refunds, making the bill a drastic departure with potentially catastrophic economic consequences.
Chapters
Hey guys, Kevin Moyer here with the Rowe Report. Let's talk the Philadelphia Safe and Healthy Homes Act from Councilmember Nicholas O'Rourke. As you can tell from reading the article, I have a bone to pick with this bill. I don't think it's going to benefit Philadelphians, and I think the only people who do benefit are City Council with a nice-sounding news article from it. Imagine going to a restaurant every day, eating at that restaurant every day, having dinner there. $30 every single night. You eat at that restaurant every single day for a month, $1,500. You eat every single day for a year at this restaurant. You enjoy your meal, you pay your bill, you get great service, the restaurant is clean, it's code compliant, and you've eaten there every single day for a year. At the end of that year, a lawyer comes up to you and says, hey, that restaurant that you were eating at, they didn't post their health code rating on the door when you were in there. So I'll take your case, we'll take them to small claims, and I'll get you your money back for every single meal that you had at that restaurant. That is what this bill does for Philadelphia property owners and investors. It does just that. I didn't say that the meal was bad. I didn't say the restaurant was unclean. I didn't say there was any problem with the service. Yet this bill offers a mechanism for that restaurant patron or the tenant to sue the landlord retroactively for all rent paid just because they didn't have a proper form posted or handed the proper way. That's what this bill does. Not only that, that lawyer that walked up to them at the end, yeah, legal fees as well are paid by this bill. So the same thing can happen for your tenant. Your tenant lives in your property for a year, 2 years, there's no limit, pays rent every single month. Only afterwards it turns out your property was code compliant, but you didn't provide the certificate of rental suitability signed to the tenant at the initiation of the lease. Since you didn't do that, you were out of compliance for the entire period. That tenant is legally entitled to every dollar back that they paid, plus the legal fees of their lawyer to bring that lawsuit against you. That is where we're headed, folks. It does not currently work like that in Philadelphia, but this bill specifically outlines this new mechanism, and it will be catastrophic for property owners that are unsophisticated, um, mom-and-pop landlords that have maybe a property or two that are funding retirement, that don't know the law inside and out. And it will be abused by a minority of bad actors, but they'll do it and they'll wield it successfully. And what will happen when that occurs? Well, it increased risk. It increased risk to property owners. So what are the long-term effects of this? Who really cares? A couple of bad actors get away with some money from unsuspecting landlords that aren't fully compliant. Well, that risk is gonna have to be baked in all across the board. And this won't just be for small actors. This will be for large multifamily properties too. Large multifamily properties are subject to the same rent, subject to the same rent abatement and refund across the entire property. So if there's a code violation for a sprinkler or an alarm that's not fully up to code and it takes a little time to correct, that entire time tenants will be notified and rent will be abated and refunded for every single tenant. What's that gonna do to underwriting for large multifamily? What's it gonna do for mom-and-pop landlords? It increases risk dramatically to operate in Philadelphia. When you're increasing risk dramatically, that requires an increased return for investment dollars, right? This is Finance 101. Increased risk requires increased return. What is return? Rent. So you're going to see increased rent for those assets to compensate for this increased risk. Or if people don't want to play ball, they're just going to leave the market entirely. They won't— you will not see new investment dollars. You will not see new inventory. Inventory will go down, rents will go up. Who's left paying the bill? Your Philadelphia tenants. The only people that benefit in this situation are the city council members who get their name next to a nice headline at the end of the day. And Philly renters, you're stuck picking up the tab. That's how it works, unfortunately.
