Besides the smoking ban, there is another hot button issue on the minds of many New Albany residents, both property owners and renters. I am referring to rental inspections.
I have been in favor of rental inspections for a few years. But I am not in favor of people being constantly visited by code enforcement officers or the building commission without cause.
We all know which homes are in disrepair and dangerous for human habitation. These are the homes which need to be monitored. As has been mentioned on other blogs, some people do not have enough money for the first month's rent plus a deposit and/or cannot pay very much for their rent. These people are forced to live in sub-standard housing.
I realize a lot of people who own rental property feel that they are being targeted but I don't think this will be the case. The offenders can be fined and this will pay for the code enforcement.
Readers, how do you feel about rental inspections?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Shirley,
Contrary to what some in the real estate industry (namely Pat Harrison) are bandying about, the intention here is not to create a "Gestapo State".
It is rather to protect those who can't protect themselves and to keep our property values from sliding further into our still endangered sewer system.
As I've pointed out many times in many venues the majority of folks who rent homes to others are honest people who strive to maintain their investments.
There are however some who brag openly about how successful they have been over the years at ignoring the rules and getting away with it.
They even go so far as to proclaim that they have every intention of continuing to do so without fear of accountability.
It should be noted further that few if any of this group live within the boundries of the neighborhoods they so glibly pad their bank accounts from.
As to those persons you refer to that have trouble making ends meet, there are a significant number of them that could just as easily be homeowners as opposed to rentors if they but knew where to start.
I know that to be a fact as I was renting the home I now live in. With a little research I discovered that I could buy the poperty for nearly $200 per month less than what renting it was costing me. That included taxes & homeowners insurance by the way!
Does this mean the goal is to rid New Albany of all rental properties?
Absolutely not. It does mean however that those in the business of renting homes need to be held accountable for their actions & business practices.
Regardless of their laments about the hardships they suffer as investors and how renting living quarters is not a business, you can bet your last pair of socks that they're filing for every conceiveable tax exemption that can possibly be had local, state & federal!
Further their whining about tenants abandoning the premises under the cloak of darkness and leaving them holding the bag on unpaid water & sewer bills doesn't hold water either.
In all of the various times I've rented in this city, the utility bills were added into the rent payment and the landlords were at the door with their hands out on rent day as well!
So the question becomes, have we as a city had enough of this type of behavior?
Or will we as they predict just go lay down and let them carry on as they always have?
One more footnote. I'm one of those who tried & failed not once but twice to be my own boss.
On both occasions as the bankers were collecting their due, none of them had any hesitancy in telling me "If you can't afford to be in business, you have no business doing so!"
I rest my case.
Highway,
Actually, when I wrote the article, Pat Harrison was not the landlord who was on my mind.
When I was a volunteer at Interfaith many people came to the food pantry for help. At least 30% of them listed a certain family as their landlords. I heard that this particular family is now having financial problems of their own but I don't know for sure.
PS: in regard to renters becoming homeowners, I am still gathering information from various sources.
But that is another topic which I will write about when I have my facts in order.
Shirley
Rental inspection is outright DISCRIMINATION. We are all in favor of cleaning up New Albany and getting rid of unsafe, trashy houses.
Why are they targeting rental property and ignoring the unsafe, trashy buildings that are OWNER OCCUPIED ?
Why does the Building Commissioner and the Code Enforcement Officer
continue to ignore some of these
messes that have been on the unsafe
housing list for years ?
LET'S BE FAIR... CLEAN UP ALL OF THE UNSAFE TRASHY BUILDINGS IN NEW ALBANY.
THE TRIBUNE USED TO RUN PICTURES OF THESE UNSAFE BUILDINGS. THEY CALLED THE PICTURES, "EYESORE OF THE WEEK".
WE NEED TO ASK THE TRIBUNE TO START RUNNING THESE PICTURES AGAIN.
THEY HAD A LINE UNDER THE PICTURE THAT SAID, " CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS
EYESORE OF THE WEEK"?
Anononymous 5:01, Absolutely right. Our "respected" leaders need to understand this is simply another lawsuit pot being fired up, for and who and why and duh!
Yes, people outright brag about the liberties taken by certain families within the county line.
As for the other question, it's called "SELECTIVE" enforcement. New Albany is infamous for this strategy and a lot of citizens feel they have spun their wheels for 30 years and can't get ANYTHING accomplished as everyone seems to know or be related to everyone else.
Small town thinking, ideas, and Little Chicago style politicos. I've always said some of them should be tarred and feathered and rode out of town...
The community has come together for the common good on special occassions (and not necessarily when something bad happens). What will it take for ALL OF US to change this mindset of what seems to be a few when in actuality it is bigger than all of us?
But, the Building Commissioner's office has been a disgrace, in our eyes, for a long time. Can it be we don't pay someone enough that may actually be qualified? Why the Audit stating the "selective" fee arrangements thus breaking the laws and the City's own pocketbooks?
SOS.
Good blog Shirley. Thank you for letting me spout off, lol.
I am so sorry. In my haste to write the article I COMPLETELY left out the owner occupied homes.
Yes the code enforcement officer needs to site these homes too. I wish the Tribune would start the eyesore of the week pictures again.
EVERYONE should take pride in their home and every child deserves to live in a clean and safe enviroment. I was not trying to pick on the landlords.
Does anyone know if this topic will be on the agenda at Thursday's Council meeting?
Shirley,
No it is not on the next meeting agenda!
COMMENT ABOVE IS CORRECT. WE NEED A
BUILDING COMMISSIONER WHO IS REALLY
INTERESTED IN CLEANING UP THE CITY.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER NEEDS TO BE A STRONGER, MORE EFFECTIVE PERSON TO CITE THOSE UNSAFE HOUSES AND TURN THEM OVER TO A "STRONG" BUILDING COMMISSIONER.
Good idea for Tribune to publish a picture of "eyesore of the week".
Label it "CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS BUILDING?"
IF THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER AND CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CAN NOT FIND THESE UNSAFE TRASHY HOUSES, WE NEED
TO HELP THEM. OK ?
highwayman,
You don't understand that the cost of these licenses and inspections will be passed on to the tenents. It appears that the underlying purpose is to drive out low income tenants. I just don't agree that it's purpose is to drive out low income tenants. That makes it a social issue.
But on the other hand, I agree with Freedom Of Speech, it's another angle to collect more fees.
I believe cities that institute some sort of rental inspection program will see more equity gain than cities that let certain rental houses drag down property value. As houses sell for more, the city will receive more property taxes.
9:07 anonymous
But, you do make an excellent point.If they collect the fees properly.
I often agree with Freedom Of Speech on many of their issues too.
Isn't blight another term for low income?
I know you all think this is just a measure to clean up blight--but the result is going to be to price a community out of reach to lower segments of the market.
Ask yourself one question, with a rental inspection, and a surplus of tenants looking for rentals, are you going to pass on this new cost to your tenants?
Class warfare, even if coated in political correctness, is wrong.
On the other hand, class warfare is what the Democratic party is all about these days.
So maybe this new ordinance are just a preview of the class warfare that will occur nation-wide if a Democrat is elected.
TO MAYOR ENGLAND,
"OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB THEY WEAVE, WHEN THEY SET OUT TO DECEIVE.
NO RENTAL INSPECTION.
How important is the "move-in inspection?"
I'm sure legitimate landlords are in favor of habitability inspections, not trying to stop them. After all, if they get slumlord next to one of their properties, they suffer, too.
If I may leave my 2 cents worth. I have had many occasions of being in some of the "blighted," "run-down," fire traps that are rented to the "less affluent" and they are paying between $500 & $700 in rent. Take a look at some of the area "investment" properties for sale and where the "income" is located. Most will say, the lower level rents for $700, the upper for $500 and so on. I pay less than that on a 15 yr mortgage. These self-same properties have missing window panes, ivy coming out of the vinyl siding & in one personal case, the floor was rotten and had a 25 degree list into the stove. The tenant was on disability & her landlord would provide transporation for her to cash her check & then have her pay gas money to them for the "privelege" of living with water in the basement, roaches in the fridge & more that I cannot even begin to type - it would take pages.
I took pictures, called the health department, fire marshall, etc as well as the buidling commissioner, the code enforcement officer and went to the Dept of Family Svcs to get her signed up for benefits & talked to the public housing office. I helped her get her birth certificate to prove citizenship, etc. By the time I had all the ducks in a row, the property burned.
She couldn't use the furnace and was using space heaters & they overloaded the antiquated ceramic tube & knob wiring & that was that. The front of the house had her belongings and was undamaged, but since she was without a car & didn't have people at the ready to help move her, the remaining house was torn down, but her landlord, around her stuff & she lost everything. She should have NEVER been allowed to be in a house like that & the landlord should never have been able to RENT it. She paid $500 for that trap. And the worst of it is that she was told it was "better" than where she was moving from that was owned by the same person.
These reforms, fees, whathaveyou, have the opportunity to protect the most vulnerable. I have no problem living with any type of person you can throw at me with the exception of prostitutes and drug peddlers. All I ask is that you keep your personal aruguments behind closed doors & not in the street, your yard mowed & the outside of your home in decent repair. If you need help, ask, I can paint, mow, etc. That's what neighbors are supposed to do. Just be decent people no matter what your circumstances. I was raised broke, too, & know how it can be.
You shouldn't have to settle for roaches, cracked or missing panes of glass, listing floors, leaking furnace flues, poor wiring, broken pipes, non-separated gas/electric meters, rigged water from the toilet refil line to the bathroom sink etc. Even the poorest and most at risk deserve better.
That's why we need this. If the investment property owners can help police themselves, go for it. Obviously, that has not been the case & we "The City" needs to step up and take care of it for the good of all.
To be honest, this sounds like local government red tape and unwarranted expenses for those who own rental property and maintain it.
Maybe our Building Inspector and code enforcement officer is not doing their jobs.
Perhaps a better plan would be to only check in on property when a complaint is filed against it-be it rental or owner occupied property.
I don't believe there is a need to monitor or regulate every rental property.
As rental property owners, my husband and I do support a rental inspection program.
As well as increased ordinance inspection. Also the code enforcement officer does a wonderful job, but once she makes the citation and hands it over to the city attorney it is literally out of her hands.
Class warfare? Driving out lower income residents? Where does this come from?
Because a person lives below federal poverty guidelines, is it a requirement that they rent a home where the plumbing doesnt work, the roof leaks, floor are rotting out, and mold is eating away the drywall?
Does poverty force a person to keep 4 broken down cars in the front yard, or piles of discarded tires breeding mosquito?
This has nothing to do with class warfare, this has to do with the overwhelmingly large number of houses in this city that are far below the standards set forth in not only New Albany City Ordinances, but State and Federal Housing codes as well. And unfortunately, the vast majority of them are in fact rental homes.
Drive around town, pick out a bad house, write down the address and call downtown to get the property owners name and address. I promise you more often than not, the registered owner will NOT come back to that house.
And there IS a difference between a Landlord, and a SLUMLORD, our problem is slumlords.
Owner occupied homes must be inspected before they are purchased in the vast majority of the times, and if a person keeps a rental property up to code and clean, the first inspection should be done at no charge, further re-inspections is where the costs should come in.
So, did the feelings stirred up by the smoking ordinance help or hurt the prospects for a hosing cleanup?
Thanks, Shirley, for opening this thread.
I'll forego comment for the time being on the merits of rental inspection, but anyone who read your entire comment thread will be well educated.
For what it's worth, Saturday, August 23, is the first of the city council committee meetings on this issue. In the basement of the library at 10 a.m.
Read 'em all, folks. And thanks, Shirley, for introducing the topic.
Post a Comment