Sep 1, 2009 4 min read

CONNELLSVILLE – The city can now move forward with the implementation of the landlord/tenant registration and inspection ordinance following a court ruling that denies the public would be harmed if initiated, as posed by an organization hoping to stop the city action. Connellsville City solicitor Herbert “Mitch” Mitchell III said Monday that the argument raised by the Connellsville Property Owners’ Association (CPOA) during an earlier hearing that irreparable harm would occur if the landlords had to pay a total of $60 to comply with the regulations was “not credible.”

“(The CPOA) did not make a strong case,” said Mitchell. “All along I felt the city had the stronger argument.”

Connellsville Mayor Judy Reed said that the hard work undertaken by her and council paid off.

“We are very pleased with the judge’s ruling,” she said. “This is a good ordinance. The mayor and members of council worked for two years and (conducted) nearly eight meetings with certain landlords to produce the ordinance.”

Reed along with council members David McIntire and Terry Bodes supported the controversial ordinance when it was introduced in May and again in July when Councilman Brad Geyer sought to have it rescinded. Councilman Charles Matthews has not supported the regulation.

Late Friday, Fayette County Court of Common Pleas Judge Gerald R. Solomon ruled that the CPOA failed to meet its burden of proof in requesting that a preliminary injunction be issued.

The organization claimed that the injunction was needed to “prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages.”

The association filed a civil lawsuit in June after a majority of City Council approved the action that would require the registration of all tenants with the city and business licenses to be secured by the nearly 580 rental property owners.

Approximately half of the 4,000 residential units in the city are tenant occupied, according to city figures.

City officials claim that the ordinance is to help bring all properties into compliance with city regulations, including privately owned homes and rental units.

The ordinance authorizes six members of the police force to annually enter the rental properties and inspect for compliance with the International Property Maintenance Code.

Also, the ordinance provides for legal action against a property owner or tenant that does not comply with the regulations.

The association claims that the ordinance is in violation of police powers and tenants’ and owners’ rights to privacy, impairs the ability of owners to enter into a contract with tenants, exceeds allowable obligations and liabilities imposed by the Landlord-Tenant Act and powers delegated to the city by the Third Class City Code.

Also, the suit claimed that the ordinance allows for the collection of an illegal revenue-generating tax and permits illegal searches of the properties.

Association President Robert Carson said Monday that the organization was “disappointed” with the ruling.

“We are going to have to consult with our legal counsel and meet with our membership to determine where we go from here,” he said, adding that he had yet to obtain a copy of Solomon’s ruling.

The objections of the association to the ordinance said Carson, is that the regulations require owners to be responsible for the action of their tenants and their guests; council is solely responsible for landlord disputes with code enforcement officers and that police officers have been assigned as code enforcement officers.

Mitchell, meanwhile, said that the CPOA has filed for a permanent injunction to halt the implementation of the ordinance, but believes that lawsuit may meet a similar fate.

“I think that just took a severe blow based on the fact that the preliminary injunction was denied,” he said, adding that similar arguments will be made in the legal briefs being prepared for court review in the second matter.

No court date has been set in the permanent injunction matter.