are not in themselves unreasonable.” Id. (quoting Mars Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Township of Adams, 559 Pa. 309, 313-14, 740 A.2d 193, 195 (1999)). Here, express and field preemption do not apply. The Landlord Tenant Act does not state on its face that local legislation is forbidden. And there is no indication that municipalities must not supplement the area. In Warren v. City of Philadelphia, 382 Pa. 380, 385-86, 115 A.2d 218, 221 (1955), our Supreme Court held that local municipalities may enact, pursuant to their police powers, laws affecting the land lord/tenant relationship, as long as those local laws do not directly conflict with the Landlord Tenant Act. See also Commonwealth v. Tobin, 828 A.2d 415, 422 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 576 Pa. 726, 841 A.2d 533 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the only potentially viable preemption
holding that act does not provide pervasive regulatory framework for residential rental property holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework applies equally to ada and rehabilitation act cases holding that the mixedmotive framework does not apply to retaliation cases under title vii recognizing that the regulatory scheme created by the ina is so pervasive as to be consistent with the exclusive federal power over immigration holding a pervasive regulatory scheme shows that the legislature intended the administrative remedy to be exclusive