Students, tenants press council for tenant-protection ordinance; city attorney urges caution over preemption

Speakers from Riverside High School’s Affordable Housing Club, tenant-advocacy organizations and a Durham resident told the City Council on Sept. 18 to adopt a revision to the housing code that would permit tenants to seek rent abatement when their units are found to be “imminently dangerous” to health or safety.

Proponents described cases of mold, lack of heat, sewage backups and pest infestations. Tenant advocates, legal aid attorneys and student speakers said the change would help rebalance the power between landlords and low-income tenants by enabling more immediate remedies and stronger defenses in eviction and civil claims. A tenant who lives at JFK Towers described years of habitability problems.

Council member Cook framed the proposed change as an established tool used by other North Carolina municipalities, including Charlotte and Pittsboro. Several speakers said the Charlotte ordinance had been used successfully by litigants to support claims for abatement and recover damages.

City attorneys, however, cautioned the council about the legal limits of municipal authority over landlord–tenant relations. Deputy City Attorney Sofia Hernandez and other attorneys said North Carolina’s landlord–tenant statutory framework raises preemption issues. The attorneys noted that the Charlotte ordinance has not been enforced by the city itself and that a recent, unpublished Court of Appeals ruling vacated a lower court decision connected to a Charlotte case — creating uncertainty about how a court might treat a local rent-prohibition provision. The city attorney’s office advised the council that a narrower approach — for example, identifying specific imminently dangerous conditions and using that determination to support enforcement actions and tenant litigation under state remedies — may be less vulnerable to legal challenge.

Council members acknowledged the urgency voiced by tenants and advocates but also asked staff to refine the proposal, to clarify enforcement and remedies, and to explore interim actions such as education, expedited code enforcement and how existing state statutes and remedies (for example, unfair and deceptive trade-practices claims) could be used more effectively. Several council members said they wanted the issue returned for further deliberation and a formal council vote in coming weeks. Council did not adopt the ordinance on Sept. 18.