From Staff Reports 

ASHEVILLE, N.C. — Asheville City Council on Sept. 8 unanimously approved a “No Rent for Slumlords” housing code amendment. 

The rule makes it illegal for landlords to collect rent on residential properties officially deemed unsafe or unfit for human occupancy, providing a pathway for tenant rent refunds.

Key details of the ordinance are as follows:

• Trigger: Applies after a formal city code inspection and issuance of an official violation order confirming unlivable conditions.

• Support: Championed heavily by the Asheville Area Tenants’ Union to protect vulnerable and low-income renters. 

• Covered conditions: Includes severe issues like lack of heat or air conditioning, broken elevators, raw sewage, and unsafe electrical setups.

• State law limitations: City officials and Mayor Esther Manheimer,who is a lawyer, noted potential conflicts with North Carolina state statutes, which generally restrict tenants from unilaterally withholding rent prior to a formal judicial determination.

Officials described the ordinance partly as a strong ethical statement against uninhabitable housing, even if legal hurdles mean direct local enforcement faces restrictions under state statutes

In the aftermath of the vote, the public response — reportedly — has been deeply supportive among renters and advocacy groups, albeit tempered by a major warning from city officials about potential state law conflicts.

In addition to strong advocacy for the housing code change from groups like the Asheville Area Tenants’ Union, tenant and organizer support came from the following:

•  Public testimonials: Local residents and public housing tenants spoke at the council meeting, detailing severe unlivable conditions such as broken elevators, lack of air conditioning, and mold issues following Hurricane Helene.

• Empowerment: Supporters praised the measure as a vital tool to give everyday tenants more power to hold bad landlords accountable.

Conversely, there was pushback and skepticism regarding the “No Rent for Slumlords” housing code amendment that passed by City Council.

While the ordinance passed unanimously, opposition and concern came from local property managers, landlords, and even city officials who questioned its practical enforceability.

The primary opposition and concerns included the following:

• Vagueness and fairness for “good” landlords: Property owners and managers voiced concerns that the policy is too vague and fails to differentiate between uncooperative slumlords and responsible housing providers. For instance, property owner Al Sartorelli noted, “I believe we can protect tenants from bad landlords without punishing good ones,” arguing that more refinement is needed to safeguard responsible landlords who are actively trying to make repairs. 

• Fear of tenant retaliation: Some property managers expressed worry that renters might intentionally damage properties or fabricate issues to exploit the policy and avoid paying rent. 

• Conflicts with North Carolina state law: To date, the strongest systemic opposition has been legal. Mayor Manheimer and other city officials have cautioned that the ordinance might be largely symbolic due to strict state laws. North Carolina statutes dictate that tenants cannot unilaterally withhold rent without a prior judicial court determination. Because municipal rules cannot override state law, officials warned tenants that they cannot simply stop paying rent on their own without risking eviction.