Welcome back to our readers. Today, we are going to shift focus away from the zoning ordinances, and onto the topic of rental inspections. As if there wasn't enough rules and regulations already on their way into town. The Housing and Economic Development Subcommittee met on Wednesday, March 30 at noon. This meeting was actually live streamed via the City Manager Facebook page. So, if they say they can't do this in the future, this video will serve as proof that they can. Let's dig in.
What communities are we connecting with to gather insight?
If you'd like to look into any of those, here are the links;
Corry - https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corry/latest/corry_pa/0-0-0-2818#JD_110.01
Greenville - https://ecode360.com/28612368
Titusville - https://www.cityoftitusvillepa.gov/ordinances
Washington - https://washingtonpa.us/rental-registration/
What does this mean?
What is the purpose of a rental license?
Let's look at some of the programs above and see what kind of things they look for, shall we? We're going to utilize Erie and Titusville, because Joe and Jaime seem to reference them the most, so we'll do the same.
What exactly is defective? By definition, imperfect or faulty. In older homes, it's likely that a lot of items could be considered "defective". That could be a gray area. Meaning, open to interpretation of the inspector.
Property not in compliance with zoning regulations. Wait a minute, would they go by the old regulations or new ones? Could properties be grandfathered in to the old zoning? If you're required to make a substantial amount of changes, would you then be subject to abiding by the (proposed) new zoning? Thoughts to ponder. We don't have that answer, but you have to wonder. We're not the only ones who have concerns.
Feeling like we're heading that way?
Now, let's look at Titusville's program really quick.
Junk? Catch that line that states "any item which is essentially useless or of little value". That, once again, is up to interpretation of the inspector, isn't it?
Now, this end note brings up a good point. The fees.
This guy brought up some good points at the meeting...
Now, the landlord would have to pay the re-inspection fee, even if the tenant(s) caused the issue that made the unit fail. Would the landlord(s) then just pass this cost on to the tenant(s)? It's quite possible. But wait, the first re-inspection is free...
Is the first "free" re-inspection per landlord, per building or per unit?
How about these fees that Sharon lists.
Is anyone excluded from this inspection program? You bet.
Examples from other programs are HUD certified units, Housing Authority Units, as well as, College Rooming houses. Oh, and conveniently for Joe and Jaime, owner-occupied units.
This comment also touches on the fees. We thought we would just include the whole thing.
Now, arguably if your personal unit wasn't inspected, maybe that would be fine. But, if we consider that you could be a "bad housekeeper" and attract rats and bugs, that could actually impact your renter next door. If you don't have smoke and CO detectors and have an issue in your unit, it will impact the renter(s) who also reside in that building. If this is health and safety for ALL renters, you shouldn't exempt these types of units simply because the owner lives in that building. Also, why does larger and irresponsible have to be in the same sentence? Couldn't smaller landlords be irresponsible too? Larger ones could be the most responsible. Fact is, we just don't know. Let's look past that sentence now and think of who in our city has owner occupied rental units. If you recalled that Joe Tompkins and Jaime Kinder do, congratulations, you're getting good at this.
Jaime's address was obtained from recent court documents. If you pull up her address on the GIS mapping, you'll notice her name isn't on the property. Through her own statement on Facebook, she is on article of agreement, which doesn't appear to be actually on record . Some might argue it's rent to own. But, regardless, that situation can create it's own set of questions. Of which, we're not going to get into at this point in time.
What's the final point we want to make, that will make you say, wait a minute?
"my point is that we can write our own ordinance that would include exemptions for cases like the one you describe." AKA, owner occupied dwellings.
Convenient, isn't it?
It's kind of like telling a restaurant inspector that the cleanliness of the kitchen doesn't matter, because the patrons aren't eating there. Only the cooks are in that area, so it shouldn't matter, right?
Comments