At the January 19th City Council meeting, 3rd District Councilman Steve Price publicly doubted the sincerity of “9 out of 10” property developers, offhandedly commenting that they’re only in it for the money, as opposed to the lone uinidentified but saintly altruist, whom we persist in presuming to be The Gary.
At the time, we thought this statement peculiar even by CM Price’s abundant standards of recurring malopropism, itself one of those $10 words barely understood by Sellersburg grandmothers and other local creationists.
While not a property "developer" along the grandiose vista-altering lines of The Gary, CM Price indeed owns more than one rental property within the boundaries of his council district, and one would think that in spite of the councilman’s generally favorable landlording marks, he might seek to avoid dismissing the motives of profit-mongering "developers" when so many small-time slumlords feel precisely the same itch.
Yesterday we began a consideration of this topic in “For New Albany to inaugurate a rental property reform program with teeth would be Priceless -- and it must occur, with or without him.”
My friend and co-blogger Bluegill offered the following comment, which some readers may have missed:
Given that the rental property problem affects all socio-economic levels and our current non-system has obviously failed, any elected or appointed official that's not willing to support a strong rental property reform program should be voted out of office and/or fired. This is especially true of those officials who specifically represent districts with a disproportionate concentration of rentals such as Price.
The responsibility for improving the rental situation falls on every level of city government. The City Council can start the process by passing legislation that makes regular inspection mandatory and by funding the proper enforcement mechanisms. The Mayor can help by hiring a Building Commissioner that takes inspection and enforcement responsibilities seriously. At the very least, the person filling that role should recognize violations when he or she is coerced into viewing them, which isn’t the case now. Although he's due credit for doing so recently, Mr. Toran and the rest of the Board of Public Works shouldn't have to baby-sit.
While Steve LaDuke raises some valid issues concerning potential areas of compromise in the actual rental ordinance requirements, there's no excuse at any level for not moving forward on the issue. Rental inspection/licensing programs have consistently worked in similar situations. Based on those successes, it also seems feasible to make such programs either entirely self-supporting or close enough that the investment to pay-off ratio is so favorable as to make a debate about cost irrelevant.
If the Tribune is looking for a lead (and they damn well ought to be given their lackadaisical coverage lately), this is it. There are numerous stories and photo ops within walking distance. They could do a year-long series of features, starting with the headline Why Steve Price Doesn't Support Clean, Safe Housing, and continue on indefinitely without ever putting the keys in the ignition.
As someone mentioned to me recently, there's a difference between apathy and malice. How long, though, do elected officials have to flaunt that apathy before it becomes maliciousness in effect?
Of course, CM Price insists that he does support “clean, safe housing,” just so long as it remains a conjectural aim that won’t cost anything in the reality-based community.
And that’s precisely the point where apathy becomes malicious.
For a useful introduction to what we're up against, let’s turn now to the discussion forums of Mr. Landlord:
I received a letter today from city hall informing me that all of my rental properties will require 2 inspections a year at a whopping $100.00 per inspect. The letter stated that this is the same occupacy inspection that I was paying $40.00 for. Has anyone else delt with this? Is there any way to fight it? How does this affect the tenants rights.I have so many problems with this I dont even know where to start. If you have any comments or insight I would love to hear from you.
First comes tender concern for the poverty-stricken tenants:
Join a local landlords' association, if there is one, and together fight this. Contact media, explain that landlords will be forced to pass along to their impoverished tenants what the rich city just did. Explain that two inspections a year is ridiculous and an insult to the fine job you do of landlording and keeping your tenants happy. Also mention how much that comes to per hour. I suspect that each inspection runs 30 min tops, so the city is charging you $200 an hour.
Then, from the Lobster State:
Check with your landlord association on what is going on. In Maine, some idiot attempts to put manditory inspections into law every so often, but the LL association does a great job of fighting the bill until it dies. I dread the day that happens in Maine! Your LL assoc should have been on top of this and provide some insight on the situation.
Perhaps it’s time to find another sucker of a city or county …
The best advice I can give you is to put them all up for sale and buy in the next county. This can't be a state rule. It is just a local county rule. It must have already passed which means it will be very hard to over turn it.
… so Go West, young man:
In Kansas City the topic of inspections frequently comes up, but so far it has always gotten dropped. The owner update from this site which I got yesterday had some good ideas on fighting city hall and inspections.
The Gary’s rental property owner, The Larry, weighs in:
Wow-what baloney. We don't have those here but I'm pretty sure that the day they pass will be the day I put the rentals up for sale. Does anyone else get sick and tired of jumping all these hoops and then paying for the privilege?
Another respondent suggests going for the political jugular vein …
We went through the same thing about 2 years ago in Kirksville Mo., the city council voted in a rental inspection ordinance with a fee. The very next election for council, the ones who voted for it were soundly defeated, and the very FIRST item on the new councils agenda was to repeal the ordinance! You may be able to google it and get some good ideas to rid your area of this ordinance.
… while finally, the faint voice of reason ends the discussion:
I don't like the idea unless your town is notorious for stacking and slumlording such as Morristown, NJ is noted for (Morristown is a neighboring town to mine). The inspectors in Morristown are cracking down big-time on stacking/slumlording and make frequent surprise inspections. Unless your town is trying to make a quick dollar, they may be reacting to conditions as I outlined above. If that's the case, do everything in your power to ensure your neighboring landlords do not participate in stacking/slumlording because they ruin it for everyone.
It's enough to make a person wonder why anyone ever gets into such a business. One possible answer comes from "landlord and author Steven A. Boorstein's How to Buy Rental Property blog:
Homeownership is great BUT, the fact is that it's not for everyone. There is a certain (large) percentage of the population that should not own a home. They SHOULD be renters. Their job instability, shaky family situation, cavalier lifestyle, inability to care for a house, ineptness at their finances, etc. all warrant that renting is better than buying. Yet this is some of the lastest demographic that has recently been lured to buying their first (and maybe last) home by a mortgage market promising 0% downpayments and low "starter rate" loans. And unfortunately, it's this group that could be hurt the worse when inflation takes hold and housing prices fall...
Ah, yes; compassion, not profit, is the key to rental property success.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't think you'll ever see more buck passing and straw grasping as you'll get if you ask our administration and all our elected officials to support and establish a rental inspection program.
Steve Laduke was correct that some of the larger apt. complexes were concerned about the fee as it related to large multi-unit operations when the last administration promoted the program. And I always thought Overton's idea was half-baked--a good concept, but presented before all the kinks were worked out.
However, the bulk of the people at the meetings--and I attended a couple--were the major rental property owners in downtown New Albany and its outskirts, the ones who own houses that have been turned into rentals and larger buildings that have been converted. I listened to their comments as I sat among them, and my mom went to one of the property owners' private meetings. They had the funds to hire an attorney to fight any attempt at an inspection program, and were prepared to do so.
The question I asked as an audience member (the question I always ask but have never gotten a responsible answer for) was, "Why not enforce the building code for all dwellings, not just rentals? Some owner-occupied places are dumps, too." Kevin Boehnlein answered for Overton, and gave a new excuse for me to add to my list of Excuses I've Been Given For the Past Ten Years Regarding Why the New Albany Building Code Isn't Enforced: "We're not here to discuss the building code, we're here to talk about the rental inspection program."
Many of the landlords in attendance and in opposition appear on at least one elected official's campaign contribution report. I believe that is a question worth asking, although I am dubious of receiving an answer--why would an owner of multiple rental units in the City of New Albany make financial contributions to a political candidate?
Let's poll all City Council members and Mayor Garner to see if they will support and begin working on drafting an ordinance for rental inspections.
By the way, The Tribune used to publish a photo on its front page once a week called "Eyesore of the Week" and many of the local blighted rental dwellings were featured. "Eyesore of the Week" had a very short life.
Thanks for your comments, knoblogger, and please be aware that while NA Confidential welcomes reader comments, we do not sanction anonymity in the comments section.
Pen names are perfectly acceptable, but the primary blog administrator must know your identity. It will be kept in confidence.
We insist upon this solely to lessen the frequency of malicious and cowardly anonymity, both of which plague certain other blogs hereabouts.
Here we have rules, and intend to enforce them; anonymity will result in deletion.
Please e-mail the New Albanian at the address given in the profile section. Thanks for reading, and please consider becoming a part of the reality-based community here.
Keep in mind that this requires the cooperation and support of more than just the City Council. They appropriate funds and write the ordinances, but the City Attorney and Building Commissioner are appointed by the Mayor.
It's basically a matter of priorities. If the Council feels decent, safe rental housing is a priority, they will show the voting public that they do. If the Mayor feels enforcement and inspection are priorities, he will thus direct his appointees and will show the public he is taking these matters seriously.
A question many are asking: Would a rental property inspection and regulation program still be necessary even if the Building Commissioner were to become aggressive and pro-active in enforcing code?
While not attempting to dispute the slothful approach of the incumbent, I tend to think that the rental property problem is too big for one understaffed department.
Anyone with thoughts?
I don't think that the rental inspection program could be undertaken with the staff on hand now. It has gotten too big and out of control from all the years of no building code enforcement.
The enforcement is the teeth. It's a problem for every agency that is supposed to be overseeing the various codes we have in New Albany.
Like the Historic Preservation Code and variances that have been granted by planning and zoning. If people flaunt or break them, there's no one now who will enforce. All the board or agency can do is send a letter.
Brandon may have some perspective that I don't, but I think the breakdown is much more substantial than that.
If anyone has more recent numbers, feel free to share. Until then, it's helpful to note that, as of the 2000 census, New Albany had 6,442 rental units. There's simply no way for a small department, even fully staffed, to inspect that many units on a timely basis while also tending to owner-occupied, commercial, and new construction duties.
The same is true concerning post-inspection enforcement. We have a part-time City Attorney who, in addition to all of his other responsibilities, is supposed to follow up on and potentially prosecute all the cases put forth by three full-time Building Commission employees, a full-time Code Enforcement Officer, and the Historic Preservation Committee in approximately twenty to twenty-five hours a week. Essentially, we've set ourselves up for failure and it shows.
With that said, however, it's also becoming evident that, in spite of the problems, the buzz surrounding New Albany is increasing. More and more people are realizing the potential inherent in our historic infrastructure and urban life and are considering commercial and residential investments here. Unfortunately, the amount of effort necessary to just get information relevant to investing, rehabbing, and building in New Albany is currently on the bad end of the law of diminishing returns. We're frustrating the hell out of people before they even get started.
It's a pretty severe understatement to suggest that the methodology for facilitating investment in the city needs improvement but, under the current system, the responsibility for revamping that process falls to the very same people mentioned above who are already overwhelmed with the volume of work left by previous generations of bureaucrats (or, in some cases, themselves if they've been around long enough).
The Council is welcome to hold the respective parties accountable for handling enforcement but they have to give them the tools do the job. I can't think of any other issue that impacts more people in a more substantial way. As Annie mentioned, though, correcting it is going to take cooperation at all levels. We're talking about across the board cultural change downtown. It just remains to be seen if current leadership has the gumption to get started or if a change in elected officials is going to be necessary to accomplish that.
Post a Comment