Skip to content

A unanimous panel of the Commonwealth Court sided with the Apartment Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh (AAMP) ruling on Friday, March 17th that the City of Pittsburgh’s 2015 rental registration ordinance – its third such attempt since 2007 – exceeded the City’s authority under its Home Rule Charter (See: Commonwealth Court Opinion). Once again, it was AAMP who stood strong in the face of long odds and complicated, twisted, and expensive litigation to protect our members from grossly improper municipal overreach.

In early 2016, AAMP, along with two other groups, filed suit against the City’s 2015 rental registration ordinance. In 2017, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Joseph James bifurcated hearings on the complaint into two parts – one, arguments about the law and two, a trial on whether the fees set forth in the ordinance constituted an illegal tax. In addition to inspection fees, the ordinance mandated an annual registration fee of $65, $55 or $45 per unit, depending on the number of units in the building.

With respect to the legal arguments – all of the claims at issue in this appeal to the Commonwealth Court – Judge James ruled in favor of the City in 2017 stating that that the ordinance was a “valid exercise” of the City’s police power. However, until the trial on the constitutionality of the fees was resolved, no appeal was permitted.

Even still, we successfully delayed the City from enforcing the ordinance for five years until the trial on the fees could be conducted in February 2021. In our pretrial statement, we contended that the fee structure was improper because “it aims to generate City revenue through regulating the business of rental housing.” We also considered the fee “excessive” and “improperly calculated.” In July 2021, after a four-day trial, Judge James agreed with us and ruled that the City’s proposed fee-structure was, indeed, an impermissible tax. (See, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Below, 7-20-2021)

However, it was our strong belief that Judge James’ ruling as to the validity of the City’s police power was inherently wrong. Allowing the ordinance to stand would be severely detrimental to AAMP members’ interests. So, we appealed that ruling to the Commonwealth Court in 2021. Oral arguments were heard in February 2023, resulting in this March 17th ruling.

Over the years, it has been our contention that while our members’ interests go well beyond City of Pittsburgh limits, Pittsburgh is a bellwether. Our successful efforts to tamp down impermissible overreach in Pittsburgh inhibits other municipalities from enacting similar anti-multifamily ordinances of their own. As needed, our memberships’ generous contributions to the AAMP Legal Action Fund have enabled us, as David, to combat, and so far, defeat Goliath. And, in preventing these unjust ordinances from going into effect, just in fees alone, we have saved our members an estimated $15 million.

We appreciate the support of our members who have recently contributed generously to our Legal Action Fund in getting us to this point, and we urge all those who haven’t contributed to please do so now. Please consider supporting the AAMP Legal Action Fund as an essential annual business expense. No individual multifamily owner or manager can adequately monitor and evaluate legislative activity, negotiate when possible, and have the financial resources on-hand to carry a big stick and litigate when needed on its own. You need AAMP to have your back!

Commonwealth Court Opinion (3-17-2023)

Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Court of Common Pleas (7-20-2021)