The City of Dallas is continuing to develop an eviction ordinance that could have disastrous repercussions, according to its critics.
A recent update indicates the City may alter the ordinance after considering feedback from concerned stakeholders.
The City Council Housing and Homelessness Solutions Committee was slated to discuss the progress of the ordinance with staff on Monday, but the item was postponed to a future council meeting after other agenda items took more time to review than planned.
Regardless, an update on the status of the ordinance in the form of a memorandum from Assistant City Manager Liz Cedillo-Pereira was published in the agenda for Monday’s meeting. Included in the memo is a draft of the ordinance itself.
The memo says that City staff have discussed the “Notice of Proposed Eviction” (NPE) ordinance with “community stakeholders,” including the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center, Child Poverty Action Lab, and the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas (AAGD).
In a recent interview with The Dallas Express, AAGD Director of Government Affairs Jason Simon said the ordinance would place a heavy and unfair financial burden on landlords and could cause many property owners who provide low-cost housing to leave the City entirely.
“What this ordinance would do is delay the [eviction] process and really provide no financial relief,” Simon explained.
The ordinance would extend the time it takes for a tenant to be evicted, depending on the circumstances.
Meanwhile, tenants do not pay rent during the time it takes for the eviction process to run its course — something that Simon said could have severe unintended consequences.
“Our property owner members still have mortgages to pay, and property taxes to pay, and insurance, and payroll for their employees, [and] upkeeping maintenance on the property,” said Simon. “All that’s delayed when the rent is not paid.”
The initial version of the ordinance added an additional seven days at the beginning of the eviction process and would compound depending on various factors.
However, Cedillo-Pereira’s memo indicates this provision could be removed. It says that City staff now officially recommend, “based on community feedback,” that the City “omit the incentive period … and set a standard 20 days.”
Staff received “a near consensus” that this provision in the ordinance should be removed, according to the memo.
“The language of the initial draft … included a time period to cure rental arrears … 20 additional days for tenants responding to a Notice [to Vacate] within 5 days of receipt and only 10 additional days for those responding 6 or 7 days after receipt,” the provision reads.
“Tenant advocates noted that removing the incentive period would be beneficial to tenants to simplify the process and make it easier to understand,” the document explains. “Landlord advocates too, sought simplification, noting that the use of a standard and consistent number of days would enable them to integrate protections into their operations.”
Landlords also reportedly noted that the incentive period creates an additional burden by requiring them to provide documentation proving the specific day a tenant responds to a notice to vacate.
Even with this potential omission, Jason Simon of the AAGD told The Dallas Express the ordinance remains incomplete “because it does not provide financial relief to landlords or tenants … and adds confusion” to the established legal process of evictions.
“There remains an additional complexity to the patchwork of regulations that vary from city to city — a situation where a property on one street could have different regulations than a property the next street over,” he explained. “The issue is not adding more time to the process but making renters more aware of their options and responsibilities.”
Simon added that the AAGD “strongly supports the city’s efforts at the adoption of an enhanced Notice of Renters’ Rights to better inform renters about their rights and responsibilities at the beginning of the process to resolve a lease in default.”
Cedillo-Pereira wrote that, overall, City staff received both negative and positive feedback on the ordinance.
The memo reads, “Some held the viewpoint that it was unnecessary or harmful to landlords, while others believed the [ordinance] and protections are insufficient to address the problem and do not go far enough.”
The full City Council will be briefed on this item on June 7, according to staff. An estimated date for when the City Council will vote on whether to adopt the ordinance has not been provided.