Should city government step in with harsher enforcement of building codes for rental properties, or should landlords be better about self-enforcement?
That same topic has been discussed recently on some local blogs. It is possible that the genesis of this question is the report prepared by the City Council committee on code enforcement. Here is some language from the introductory narrative of the report:
Providing safe housing for themselves is a basic responsibility of every homeowner. A safe dwelling allows the family to live free from concern for unsafe mechanical systems, pest infestations, or other threats to health and well-being. In such places the costs for heat, water and sewage should be reasonable and predictable. Responsible homeowners routinely take the initiative to ensure that these basics are provided. Government’s role in the regulation of owner-occupied housing is somewhat limited: inform the community of accepted standards, and ensure that life-safety issues are in compliance with existing code provisions.
With respect to rental property, however, government must assume a more active role. The same basic requirement exists: the property must be safe in all respects. But the offering for sale, lease, or lease/rent-to-own of housing units is a business. As such, the conducting of that business places a greater burden and a greater responsibility on landlords because this business affects the entire community. The quality and standard of maintenance of rental properties can dictate the level of commitment neighboring owners and, in fact, other landlords may show to dwelling units. The committee found that some, mostly older, neighborhoods have as many as half of the houses under various rental agreements. ...
While a private individual may not choose or be able, due to circumstance, to keep his house in its best condition, those in the rental business must be held to a higher standard. The sometimes lucrative business of owning rental property cannot be allowed to negatively influence the property values of nearby neighbors through poor maintenance; this causes a downward trend to the city as a whole.
It should be beyond debate that the owning of residential property and the offering of that property to others in exchange for money is a business. It is, likewise, beyond debate that a restaurant owner is engaged in a business.
Few would question the value of having a restaurant come under inspection by the health department. They benefit the entire community by upholding a system which offers the expectation of healthy food for those choosing to dine out. It is not hard to see that these inspections also benefit the community in another way by promoting a healthy environment for commerce.
Louisville has a system in place in which letter grades are placed on the fronts of dining establishments. I recently went to try a new pizza joint. My hunger dissipated and my lunch plans changed as I approached the place and saw a large "B" on the front window. Call it grade inflation if you will, but I had never seen a grade lower than an "A" before.
Those in the restaurant business accept the heavy hand of government involvement in their affairs because people demanded it and because citizens' health concerns swayed, perhaps, timid regulators.
Why do those engaged in the rental property business see their situation as markedly different from the restaurateur's'? And yet, I have heard comments such as "I'm for code enforcement. I just think owner occupied houses should be held to the same standards as landlords." In other words, professional landlords see a double standard and they don't like it.
This perceived double standard is possibly an attitudinal twin to the umbrage expressed in some quarters against the mortgage bailout President Obama has proposed. The anti refrain goes something like this, "I was responsible. I paid my mortgage.Why should I bail out some ne'erdowell who didn't?"
On the surface that appears to be a defensible position. But, if we look a bit deeper, we may wonder why many of the people holding these onerous mortgages are not seen, accurately I believe, as the victims of a predatory financial system designed to benefit the lending class over the borrowing class. We may also wonder what happens to the national economy as a whole when great numbers of our fellow citizens are ground into poverty. We might even feel, beneath the surface anger, a bit of empathy.
Could it be that those who insist on equality of enforcement have a goal in mind that falls outside the bounds of widely-cast civic improvement? Could they seek not broad uplift of the housing stock of New Albany but rather, to overburden the enforcement mechanism to make it inefficient or not worth the trouble and cost?
The first paragraph quoted above refers to the fact that, "Government's role in the regulation of owner-occupied housing is somewhat limited". Should that truly be seen as a novel or unsupportable idea? For centuries we have known that "A man's house is his castle." That is not some homespun nostrum. It is a distillation of one of the major pillars of English Common Law written by William Pitt:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”
No one suggested that code enforcement be a rental only proposition. But for reasons of long-held custom, and because a disproportionate share of those houses judged to be inferior are owned not by the resident but by a landlord, it is only sound policy to place a heavier burden on those who own property for profit rather than for those who own it as a personal or family dwelling.
The citizens of New Albany spoke clearly that they want this city cleaned up in both literal and figurative terms. They will judge us elected officials harshly if we don't deliver.
Proper code enforcement need not be imposed in heavy and harsh ways. It can also serve as a means of reaching people who are not able to care for themselves any longer and who don't have family or friends to help them. These cases can be directed to various social service agencies and groups such as Repair Affair.
Done correctly, code enforcement will benefit all segments of the community and those who now oppose it will see it as worthwhile.
=====================================
REPORT ON CODE ENFORCEMENT
January 11, 2009
Providing safe housing for themselves is a basic responsibility of every homeowner. A safe dwelling allows the family to live free from concern for unsafe mechanical systems, pest infestations, or other threats to health and well-being. In such places the costs for heat, water and sewage should be reasonable and predictable. Responsible homeowners routinely take the initiative to ensure that these basics are provided. Government’s role in the regulation of owner-occupied housing is somewhat limited: inform the community of accepted standards, and ensure that life-safety issues are in compliance with existing code provisions.
With respect to rental property, however, government must assume a more active role. The same basic requirement exists: the property must be safe in all respects. But the offering for sale, lease, or lease/rent-to-own of housing units is a business. As such, the conducting of that business places a greater burden and a greater responsibility on landlords because this business affects the entire community. The quality and standard of maintenance of rental properties can dictate the level of commitment neighboring owners and, in fact, other landlords may show to dwelling units. The committee found that some, mostly older, neighborhoods have as many as half of the houses under various rental agreements.
Those engaged in the rental property business are by and large a conscientious and valuable part of our community. Any of the broad statements offered in this report are not intended to sully the reputation of those who offer needed rental housing units to those members of our community who cannot, or choose not, to own their dwelling.
In order to increase the profitability of the rental business some unscrupulous landlords will defer maintenance or refuse to keep up properties. Some of the avoided maintenance amounts to a nuisance, but some may be life threatening.
Poorly maintained rental property can act as a blighting influence on particular streets or neighborhoods. The landlords bear the responsibility to see that building codes are followed. But the city must, through its code enforcement efforts, see that this responsibility is, in fact, borne by the landlords. Failure to adhere to the Housing Code may place citizens in danger of injury, undue expense, or even death. That failure is most important, but of nearly equal importance is the effect non-adherence to the Housing Code has on the general quality of life enjoyed by the entire community.
While a private individual may not choose or be able, due to circumstance, to keep his house in its best condition, those in the rental business must be held to a higher standard. The sometimes lucrative business of owning rental property cannot be allowed to negatively influence the property values of nearby neighbors through poor maintenance; this causes a downward trend to the city as a whole.
New Albany has many fine streets and neighborhoods. They make up the fabric of our city. The older neighborhoods were passed down to us by previous generations as places where we could live, raise families, start businesses, and enjoy a good quality of life. The possibility of a community of shared futures was handed to us by our forebears. We should do no less.
The committee urges this and future city administrations to diligently and fairly enforce the existing housing codes.
THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON CODE ENFORCEMENT MET SEVERAL TIMES, ALL IN PUBLIC SESSION.
It was comprised of three members of the City Council, Steve Price- Third District, Pat McGlaughlin-Fourth District and John Gonder- at Large.
Many of the attendees were “professional” landlords, those who own significant numbers of units and make a substantial amount of their income from the pursuit of the rental business.
The committee heard from the professional landlords that a proposal for rental registration would place an unequal burden on their properties versus owner-occupied houses. This contention appears, on its face, to have little validity.
Initially the landlords were reluctant to accept rental registration, primarily due to registration fees. As the concept was discussed further, some of the landlords allowed that registration with no cost would not be seen in the same light and would, therefore, be viewed somewhat less negatively.
Mr. McLaughlin chose houses in visibly poor condition, at random, and contacted Brenda Egge’s office to see how difficult it is to obtain information about the property. The process was quick and efficient. It yielded an owner’s name associated with the property. It was not possible to determine from this information whether the information obtained was up-to-date. The information, while helpful, may not be sufficient to address code enforcement issues in a timely manner.
On the other side of the issue were concerned citizens who offered opinions that code enforcement is thwarted by professional landlords. They claimed that the result of this interference with code enforcement is a general debasement of the housing stock of the city and has a wider negative impact on the city as a whole. Based on anecdotal evidence, this contention is difficult to refute.
Agreement between the two sides centered on the idea that the current municipal code contains sufficient regulation to ensure both attractive neighborhoods, and safe dwelling units. Further agreement was found in the perception that while sufficient codes exist, the will to enforce those codes is lacking.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that existing housing codes be enforced diligently and fairly.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS if rental registration is pursued, it should be implemented at no charge to the landlord and later be assessed as to the need for fees.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS further, that a code enforcement appeals board be established to address individual code cases. While provision for an appeals board exists in the current code, discussion with officials indicated that this board has not met with regularity, if at all. The committee recommends that an appeals board consisting of three people be established to support the code enforcement process.
It is during this process when individuals who cannot afford to perform maintenance on their owner-occupied dwelling, could be directed to organizations which may aid them in addressing the infractions. Further, the appeals process would help assure the public that the codes are being enforced fairly and are not influenced by favoritism. And, of course, during the appeals process any mistakes could be corrected.
4 comments:
I appreciate the dialogue as usual, John, but find the following conclusion somewhat inaccurate:
Agreement between the two sides centered on the idea that the current municipal code contains sufficient regulation to ensure both attractive neighborhoods, and safe dwelling units. Further agreement was found in the perception that while sufficient codes exist, the will to enforce those codes is lacking.
I don't think many would argue that the will to enforce codes has been lacking. However, I think the Council could do much more legislatively to augment existing law, particularly by addressing vaguely worded passages in the housing code and locally codifying procedure for dealing with violations, clearing up obvious misconceptions and inconsistencies that have plagued the building commissioner's office for years.
Having now seen the report in full for the first time, I'm disappointed that no substantial recommendations were made. Without follow up on at least the two suggestions here and perhaps other recommended best practices from communities who've handled rentals more adroitly, the appeals board will face a difficult task in deciding many potential cases.
bluegill:
This post has been a headache for me. It was written once and disappeared inexplicably.
In the phantom version I had said something to the effect that "if deficiencies in the current code appear during enforcement they should be addressed quickly".
That lost language may or may not answer your misgivings, but the most important thing is to begin the process.
We are at a virtual standstill now, and any significant, though incomplete, action is a vast improvement. We need to recognize that the process is ongoing and constantly subject to revision.
The biggest hurdle to jump, in my opinion, will not be the actual placement of such provisions.
(If we are indeed lucky enough to get to that point)
No, the largest hurdle will be the army of lobbyists that will come to fight this tooth and nail.
They will (as they all ready did) that we in favor of this are only out to remove the "poor" from our city.
They will come well armed and well prepared, and in definately use the big gun, "any elected official in favor of this will not get our votes, or the votes of our family and friends".
Sadly I foresee many officials buying into this threat that will grow louder and louder as this progresses.
Fortunately, I do not see you, Mr. Gonder, as being willing to sacrifice the health, safety, and well being of the community at large for lobyists votes. (Thank God)
As is, Chris, the Council will not take any of that heat. They've laid it totally at the feet of the administration. That's one of the issues that bothers me.
Post a Comment