Council moves bill on rent justice for abuse victims

VERNETTA Burger was victimized twice: once when her estranged husband kicked in her apartment door about 15 years ago and beat her to a pulp.

And then again when her landlord held her liable for rent, damages and cleaning blood-splattered walls after she expressed a need to escape her abuser.

"I felt if I would have stayed, I would have been killed," said Burger, adding that she fled but owed $2,400 in rent for the remainder of her lease.

City Council's Law and Government Committee gave preliminary approval yesterday to a bill introduced by Councilman Bill Greenlee that would prohibit landlords from terminating a lease based on a tenant's status as a domestic-violence victim and require that they terminate or adjust the lease upon the victim's request.

"We feel it's really unfair that a person that is already a victim becomes a victim again by the landlord taking action against that person," said Greenlee, adding that 22 states have a similar law in place.

Under the proposed bill, if a tenant wants to end a lease, a written request would need to be made within 90 days of reporting the incident of domestic violence or sexual assault, the issuance of a protection-from-abuse order or the approval of a consent agreement and at least 30 days before the requested termination date. Also, the tenant would need proof of abuse, including a court order, medical records or a police incident report.

The bill would not limit the landlord's or court's authority to evict a domestic-violence-victim tenant for any violation of a lease other than violence against the tenant. Anyone with a grievance could file a complaint with the Fair Housing Commission or allege violations in court.

The committee also approved a bill introduced by Councilman Bill Green that would require lobbyists to register with the city.

Several amendments were made to include lobbying efforts before the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corp., the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, the Redevelopment Authority, any other city-related agencies and the school district and its boards.

Also, if a city official or public employee attends a reception in connection with his or her public office or employment and receives any food, beverage or entertainment, the fair market value of it would not be considered a gift unless lobbying occurs.

Attorneys would not be considered lobbyists if they are involved in matters from beginning to end. They would also not be considered lobbyists if they made no effort on behalf of an interest group to influence general policy and made no direct communication with city officials not connected to the issue.