On Tuesday, Asheville City Council unanimously voted for a new ordinance that aims to strengthen protections for renters who are living in unsafe housing conditions.
Dubbed the “No Rent for Slumlords” ordinance by local organizers, the policy makes it unlawful for landlords to collect rent on a unit that has structural issues, fire hazards, no access to potable water or violations of other parts of the city’s minimum housing code.
Priya Ray, a public housing resident, described the ordinance as a way to ensure “every tenant in Asheville finally has the power to hold their landlord accountable to minimum housing code” during public comment at Tuesday’s meeting.
On the surface, the ordinance appears to be a lifeboat for renters who have struggled with mold and other troubling conditions in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.
And while it does provide renters a new avenue to pursue rent abatement, city officials say they might not be able to legally enforce the new measure due to an unresolved conflict with a state law that says a tenant “may not unilaterally withhold rent prior to a judicial determination.”
“It effectively is more of a symbolic statement, that we want to ensure that landlords are providing safe, habitable rental properties,” Asheville Mayor Esther Manheimer told BPR in a phone interview. “What the state law says is tenants can’t withhold their rent unless there’s a court order.”
The ordinance originated as a proposal from the Asheville Area Tenants Union. Four other cities in North Carolina — Durham, Charlotte, Pineville and Pittsboro — have passed similar measures.
The policy builds on an existing system that allows tenants to report unsafe conditions to the city’s Development Services department. After a tenant files a report, one of the city’s 13 code enforcement officers conducts an investigation, and may provide a landlord with a notice to either fix the problem or contest the findings.
Under the new ordinance, a tenant may not have to pay rent on a unit with unaddressed safety issues — but only with express permission from the city or court system.
Jen Hampton, one of the union organizers, said the Tenants Union collaborated with the city’s lead attorney, Brad Branham, to draft the policy.
Hampton acknowledged that state law limits a tenant's ability to withhold rent, but she pushed back on Manheimer’s take that the ordinance is largely symbolic.
“It shifts the power balance so that tenants now have more of an avenue to be compensated or get their unsafe living conditions fixed,” she said in an interview. “This is definitely not symbolic. It will have some teeth and it will hold some landlords accountable once we start actually putting it into practice.”
Branham, the city’s attorney, indicated otherwise. In a phone call with BPR, he explained that the city would only halt rent payments “in a manner that is in compliance with the state statute.”
“That ability not to pay rent during these situations would only kick in upon the issuance of an order from the city saying that,” he said. “But the city would not issue that order unless it was compliant with state law."
Still, Branham said he hopes the new ordinance "provides a message, if nothing else," that the city is aware of the concerns that have been raised by tenants.
"And we also want to deliver a very clear message to those landlords out there who are skirting the responsibilities to ensure that their tenants have a habitable location to live," he said.
Hesitation from council members
During the debate of the ordinance Tuesday, some Council members expressed hesitancy over moving forward with the ordinance, especially because the item was not reviewed at the Housing and Community Development Committee meeting prior to Tuesday night’s vote.
The issue was initially slated for a review meeting on Aug. 18, but that meeting was canceled “due to a lack of actionable business items,” according to Stephanie Gilliam, a special projects coordinator with the city.
“It would have been nice to have everyone dig through this in HCD, right?” Council member Maggie Ullman said. “Like, we have committees so a lot of detail can be combed through, questions can be asked back and forth and we have several weeks, lots of rounds of public comments.”
During public comment, Matt Allen, the director of government affairs at the Land of the Sky Association of Realtors, echoed this critique and urged council to pause before voting on the ordinance.
“For reasons that aren't quite clear, this entire process has been fast tracked, including the last minute cancellation of the committee meeting where this ordinance was set to be discussed before coming before Council. That would have been an excellent opportunity for rental owners and property managers to outline concerns, pose questions, and allow discussion before coming before council,” he said.
Allen added that a lack of resolution with state law could, in an ironic twist, negatively impact tenants.
“For example, one could easily envision a scenario where a tenant misunderstands or misinterprets the proposed change, withholds rent in circumstances where they cannot, and thereby violate state law.”
Despite voting in unanimous support of the ordinance, some council members, including Ullman and Sage Turner, also said they’d like to see more conversation about adding mold to the list of unsafe conditions in the city’s minimum housing code.
“There's a part of me that wants to take a little more time to research this mold conversation,” Ullman said. “This has been really personal for a lot of people and people have lived with it for a long time.”
City attorney Branham replied that the city is legally unable to include mold because “there is no recognized national standard either at the federal level or the state level for a safe and unsafe level of mold.”
“We all recognize that mold certainly is an issue, but until such time as there is actually an established legal standard for a safe and unsafe amount of mold, it becomes incredibly difficult for our code inspectors and building inspectors to actually review and manage that,” he added.
