Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Landlord Tenant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
York City Council approves tenant conduct ordinance after debate on enforcement and protections
Summary
Council gave final passage to Bill 13 on May 21, amending the city’s landlord‑tenant code to address disruptive conduct; the measure passed after debate and a 4‑1 roll call vote, and public commenters urged protections for victims and vulnerable tenants.
On May 21 the York City Council gave final passage to Bill 13, an amendment to the city’s landlord‑tenant provisions addressing disruptive conduct and reporting. The council voted on the ordinance after debate; the clerk recorded the roll call as Buck: no; John (as recorded by the clerk): yes; Dennis: yes; Buckingham: yes; Washington: yes, producing a 4‑1 vote in favor.
Council members and staff described a multimonth review of the code. One council member said the change was “long overdue” and noted that almost 70% of York’s residents rent, arguing the measure would “begin to move the needle” on standards in the private rental market. Councilmember Betsy Buckingham and staff in the Department of Economic Community Development (DECD) and code enforcement were specifically thanked on the record for their work on the measure.
Public comment at the meeting raised concerns about potential unintended consequences and civil‑rights impacts. Manuel Gomez, a resident who addressed the council during the Bill 13 discussion, said the draft language risked harming vulnerable tenants and could be read to penalize victims who call 911. “How do you really define what’s really disruptive? And what if I’m a victim, and I have to call 911, and it’s loud?” Gomez asked, and urged the council to consult domestic‑violence advocates and renters’ groups before enforcing the language. Gomez also cautioned that similar language had prompted litigation previously when used in nuisance‑abatement contexts.
On the record, the solicitor and staff acknowledged these concerns and said additional amendments could be brought forward; one council member said she planned to pursue further amendments in the near future to add enforcement “teeth” or clarify protections. The ordinance as passed does not, on the meeting record, include additional penalties or the alternative protections referenced by some speakers; councilmembers said they expected to continue refining the provisions.
The council’s recorded vote produced final passage; no immediate penalties, fines or implementation dates were announced during the meeting. Staff and the solicitor were noted as participants in drafting and reviewing the ordinance, and council members said additional outreach to advocacy groups and additional amendments are possible.
