Providing for limitations on rent increases; and imposing duties on the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency.
HB914 would add a new article to Pennsylvania’s Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 establishing statewide limits on rent increases for most rental units, including mobile home park spaces, that are not specifically exempted. The bill creates an annual rent increase allowance calculated by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA) as the lesser of CPI-U plus 3% of base rent or 6% of base rent, and landlords generally could not raise rent above that allowance plus any unused “banked” amount, with an overall cap of 10% of base rent on a renewal or new lease. The bill also allows PHFA to set a separate allowable increase for units that have been vacant for more than 12 months and returned to the market.
The bill includes two main exceptions to the rent cap: a landlord may petition a magisterial district court for a higher increase if needed to achieve a “fair return,” and may also seek approval for a limited surcharge to recover the cost of qualifying capital improvements. Those improvement surcharges are tightly limited, must be tied to completed improvements that protect health, safety, security, habitability, or energy savings, and must be spread over a minimum period with percentage caps depending on whether the work affects all units or only some units. Landlords must also keep and provide supporting records for approved improvement surcharges.
HB914 would exempt a wide range of housing types and situations from the rent-increase limits, including newly constructed units for their first 23 years, certain health-care and temporary shelter facilities, religious facilities, dormitories, assisted living facilities, nursing homes, owner-occupied two-unit buildings, accessory dwelling units, units under low-income regulatory agreements, substantially renovated properties within the prior 23 years, and units owned by very small landlords with two or fewer units in Pennsylvania. The bill also directs PHFA to write regulations establishing the fair-return formula, petition procedures, court criteria, and limits on fee increases, and the bill’s rent-control provisions would not be enforceable until those regulations are in effect.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is policy-driven and pro-tenant, with the proposal framed as a consumer-protection measure to limit rent spikes while preserving landlord recovery for legitimate costs and a reasonable return. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no documented public debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The structure of the bill itself suggests an attempt to balance tenant affordability concerns with landlord financial and property-rights concerns.
The main points of contention likely center on whether statewide rent caps are appropriate, how the “fair return” standard would be applied, and whether the capital-improvement surcharge process is sufficiently protective of tenants while still allowing landlords to finance upgrades. Additional likely concerns include the breadth of exemptions, the role of PHFA and magisterial district courts in enforcement, and whether the 10% cap and CPI-based formula would adequately address housing costs or instead discourage investment in rental housing.
HB914 would significantly amend the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 by adding a new Article V-C that imposes statewide rent-increase limits on regulated rental units and mobile home park spaces. It would assign PHFA new duties to calculate and publish annual rent increase allowances, adopt regulations, and establish procedures and standards for fair-return petitions, capital-improvement surcharges, and related fee limits. The bill would also create new landlord obligations to document and disclose approved capital-improvement costs and would make the new rent-limit framework effective only after PHFA regulations are finalized.
The bill appears generally supportive of tenant affordability and rent stabilization, while still acknowledging landlord interests through exemptions, fair-return petitions, and capital-improvement surcharges. No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support, opposition, or amendments. Based on the text alone, the proposal is structured as a regulated compromise rather than an absolute rent freeze.
Likely contention points include whether the rent cap is too restrictive, whether the CPI-U plus 3% or 6% formula is sufficient to cover rising costs, and how easily landlords could obtain court-approved exceptions. Landlords and property owners may object to the administrative burden, the 10% ceiling, and the limits on surcharges, while tenant advocates may focus on whether exemptions—especially for small landlords, newly constructed units, and substantially renovated properties—create too many loopholes. PHFA’s role in rulemaking and enforcement, and magisterial district courts’ role in deciding fair-return and surcharge petitions, are also likely areas of debate.