Laserfiche WebLink
until end of February 2023. He articulated two changes to Ord. 02-2023 from the previous <br /> versions of this policy: 1) It removes the sunset provision, and 2) It articulates that payment can <br /> be provided on behalf of a tenant to a landlord from a third parry, including in the form of a <br /> redeemable voucher that requires no additional conditions upon the landlord. <br /> Mr. Vargo explained that an eviction process may take 30 to 120 days and that pay to stay allows <br /> a tenant undergoing this process to stay in their rental housing so long as they can produce <br /> payment before the eviction becomes final. <br /> Mr. Vargo pointed out that the cities of Akron, Toledo and Dayton have adopted similar pay to <br /> stay legislation. He speculated that if a national organization of landlords were to file suit, that <br /> they may be more likely to target larger cities. Nevertheless, he advised that there is nothing <br /> stopping a local landlord from filing suit against the city. He stated that at this time, he is not <br /> aware of any lawsuits pending in jurisdictions where pay to stay has been enacted. <br /> In response to a question, Director Vargo clarified that this legislation does not interfere with a <br /> landlord's right to evict for purposes other than non-payment of rent. <br /> In response to a question, Director Vargo outlined the arguments in defense of this ordinance as <br /> an exercise of the city's police powers. <br /> Councilmember Baker expressed his position that it is more likely that the General Assembly <br /> will pass legislation to explicitly prohibit pay to stay, than it is that the city will be successfully <br /> sued for establishing the policy. <br /> Director Vargo added that the General Assembly's main concern is to prohibit municipalities <br /> from establishing rent control ordinances, but that the language of the statutes is potentially <br /> broad enough to impact pay to stay. <br /> Director Vargo noted that there are other areas of the state statutes where the General Assembly <br /> signals that municipalities ought to not tread and that this is not as relevant as the city's rights. <br /> Regardless, he expressed the city's commitment to vigorously defending any potential challenge <br /> on this topic. <br /> Councilmember Rader pointed out that this policy has been in place in the City of Lakewood <br /> since 2021 and it has not prompted any legal challenges. He remarked that failing to make this <br /> policy permanent at this point would be taking rights away from renters. <br /> In response to a question, Director Vargo acknowledged that a landlord may attempt to write a <br /> lease in which both parties agree that pay to stay does not apply. He stated that whether or not <br /> that lease is legally binding is the heart of the matter. <br /> Director Vargo stated that he is unaware of how often pay to stay helped tenants over the past <br /> year and a half. He suggested that the need for the policy may have been lessened due to the <br /> availability of COVID rental relief. He questioned whether the number of eviction filings will <br /> increase over the months ahead as that rent relief expires. Given this changing landscape, he <br /> 2 <br />