NA Confidential's topic this week is the urgent need for rental property reform in the city of New Albany.
Wednesday: Seeing as rental property reform is a community-building proposition, who could possibly be opposed?
Tuesday: The slumlord as caregiver.
Monday: For New Albany to inaugurate a rental property reform program with teeth would be Priceless -- and it must occur, with or without him.
In Wednesday's comments section, my associate Jeff "Bluegill" Gillenwater offered the following, which I'm lifting to the marquee because it's too substantive to be forgotten. Some of you have already commented; feel free to continue the discussion as a new thread.
----
How about this as a kick in the pants, demonstration project of sorts:
The Building Commissioner’s budget includes a currently unused budget line for an additional inspector. Instead of hiring another full-time with benefits inspector, why not use that line to contract the services of an independent, licensed inspector to proactively seek out residential buildings in poor condition and conduct the necessary inspections on them? The contract could specify a required number of inspections per week along with a set rate for those inspections. We could even spring for a digital camera for that person to document violations so as to avoid legal confusion later. I'm sure the neighborhood associations could help with the early identification of poorly maintained properties. They're already doing it.
Any remaining money in the budget line (and you could calculate the required number of inspections to make sure there was money left over) could be used, in conjunction with the money that at least some council members have agreed to spend on paralegal services, to contract independent counsel to handle the legal portion of enforcement for the independent inspector, the Code Enforcement Officer, and the HPC. The independent inspector could also include zoning violations in his or her reports.
The independent inspector and legal counsel could report directly on a weekly or bi-weekly basis to the Board of Public Works. The BPW could then report on a monthly basis to Council so that all checks and balances were maintained.
I think this sort of crack team approach could work on several levels:
1. No or very little additional spending would be required. Even if we can only afford a couple of inspections a week, that's two more than we have now. Assuming the inspection process took six months and the legal follow up another six, that's 48 properties accounted for--a big step forward.
2. By contracting the services and having them answer directly to the BPW and Council, both the administrative and legislative branches of government can be satisfied that work is proceeding but somewhat outside the sphere of politics as usual that always seems to kill the process.
3. Since the program is aimed at residential property in general, slumlords can't fight it as somehow unfair nor claim their renters must assume the costs. If they happen to be the property owners who most often get snared by not meeting code, it's their own fault. By pursuing a somewhat random sample, we would have a better idea and could reasonably show how upkeep problems are distributed amongst owner-occupied and rental housing and if the same peoples' names keep popping up. It'd also be interesting to look at the data collected by Officer Badger to check for the same patterns.
4. An independent crack team would provide a benchmark of both performance and need. If such a system highly outperforms the incumbent one and the people who run it, a comparison could provide much needed and irrefutable diagnostic lessons. By the same token, if it's clear that the team consistently finds rampant violations and has hardly impacted the overall problem, then we have documented proof of the problem that would make it even more difficult to justify the current culture of non-enforcement.
5. As enforcement begins to increase, clean up would occur or fines would be paid and properties seized and sold off. It would give us an opportunity to compare revenue collected via Floyd County courts versus how much we could’ve collected via our own city court. Doing that comparison for existing fine structures probably makes sense as well. Can a city court pay for itself or not? The only elected representative to publicly address that issue that I’m aware of is Dan Coffey who, at a Council meeting, mentioned that he would not support a city court. As usual, his only explanation consisted of saying it didn’t work before. Wouldn’t it make more sense to actually look at the numbers?
6. Contractual employees are just that-- contractual. No messy legal situations if the system needs to be changed at the end of the initial agreement.
The Mayor would obviously have to support this scheme or a similar one in order to get the ball rolling. I think it important for the Council to participate via voting at least a small amount of funding towards it as well. Voters need to know which council members support the effort and which don't so that they, too, can be held accountable.
This was just a quick idea off the top of my head. Feel free to critique or add to it. The main point is that we have an obvious problem and no elected officials are offering solutions. Perhaps we need to help/challenge them a bit more.
I remember being told by somebody several months ago that there was an unstaffed yet funded inspector position. And let's not forget that we did have one more inspector a year or so ago who was fired.
ReplyDeleteIs the unused funding for that terminated position, or is it an additional position above and beyond the inspector who was fired? If the latter, then there'd be an allocation for 2 inspectors.
My idea was based on using the funding available due to the termination. If there's additional money available, that would be a bonus but I don't have any knowledge of that.
ReplyDeleteBrandon asked about the amount. I'm not sure. Considering the line item covered a full-time inspector salary with benefits, I would think at least $30-35K would be budgeted.
If anyone has more definite numbers, please contribute.
A reader and friend with better budget knowledge than I reports that the city has money budgeted for 3 inspectors with a yearly salary of $34,338.46. Currently, the city employs one full-time inspector and uses a contractor on an as-needed basis.
ReplyDeleteSo that means we are 2 inspectors short of what is already budgeted. That kinda shoots down the "we don't have enough money" argument, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteOn another note, but in the same vein of rental rehab, I have been corresponding with a woman who is trying to purchase one of the historic homes on East Main that has been converted into a triplex, and has been slowly degrading over the years. She's intending to turn it into a single family dwelling. She is a New Albany native returning here to raise her child after 20 years away.
All the banks she has been talking with can't get past the triplex mentality, even though it is going to be a single family dwelling for her, and that is making the interest rate shoot up unaffordably.
What can all of us do and suggest that will help her? We need ideas and cooperative local lenders willing to assist in situations like this. I suspect that this same scenario will occur again and again, discouraging people from buying and renovating former apartment buildings.
Let me see if I have this straight. Bluegill is suggesting that available resources be used for the purpose they were created for in the first place. What a novel idea! Too bad our elected officials can't envision it! Good job Bluegill.
ReplyDelete