State Specific Question About: TEXAS (TX)

City of Lancaster, TX has come up with new law demanding to inspect rental homes at $55.00 per year plus each time a tenant changes. It seems like invasion of privacy, that government came just come into someone's home anytime they want while making us pay for the joy of them snooping around without needing a warrant. I know it's a way for city to grab some cash from landlords, but this seems over the top. And if you don't go along with city on this they will cut off utilities.

Anyone else dealing with strong arm government like this have any ideas?

I think you'd better get a lawsuit started. The yearly inspection sounds unconstitutional to me - but it's going to cost millions to fight it.

I think you'd better get a lawsuit started. The yearly inspection sounds unconstitutional to me - but it's going to cost millions to fight it.

I consider myself lucky. My city currently only inspects housing in "special" areas. Mine are in such a lovely place. However it is only $50 and the inspection is good for 4 years.

The cost and length of time is fine with me. I actually had an inspection done right before a tenant moved in. The tenant ended up being a PITA who immediately called code and complained about habitability issues. The inspector knew my property was up to code, clean and habitable as he inspected it a week earlier.

So, that $50 gave me a great allie and great legal documentation proving the tenant was just being a jerk.

I thought Texas was the last state that this would happen.

Manhattan Kansas, home of Kansas State University, passed a similar ordinance about 7-8 years ago.

Send every one of your tenants a copy of this letter:

Dear Tenant,

I hope you are doing well and enjoying your home. The City of Lancaster has recently decided to add a yearly inspection to all rental properties. Land lords are required to pay for the cost of this inspection, and unfortunately we must now pass this cost onto you. You rent for this next year will be increasing by (fill in the $$$ amt) to help pay for the City's inspector. If you have any questions or comments about this new fee that has caused your rent to increase, here are the numbers of City Council member and the mayor's office. Be sure to let your elected leaders know how much you appreciate their efforts.

Bob Jones 555-555-5555

Mayor Jill Hernandez 555-123-4567

etc.

Also, the next council meeting is on May 21st at 7 PM in the old courthouse. Be sure to come on down and tell them what you think about this.

Sincerely,

Your Thoughtful Land Lord, Harold

I own investment properties in two different municipalities. One of them has had codes enforcement for at least 30 years - $75 a year, per unit plus $75 additional the year of inspection. the other is close to 10 years - I pay $145 a year per unit.

David- good in theory, that is it. My city went from inspections every 4+ years. They use to walk in, check the water was on and a smoke detector was working. Now, it is every 3 yrs like clock work and has 200 point check list. They will look at some of the most obscure building code violations but over look something you and I would see wrong.

It's all in the implementation. Here they have a two page checklist of interior and exterior, plus furnace inspection by licensed mechanical contractor.

A few point to clarify.

When a city provides an inspection, and a license to operate the rental, that does not give you a leg to stand on. Simply put the inspectors are not accredited and have no powers aside from code enforcement.

You will not be able to show that your home was in compliance simply because you had the license. In court the city will be the first to bow out of any responsibility for accidents or the condition of the home.

Suing the city is a waste. You will be organizing a group of landlords to pool their money so one happy lawyer will string you along for years. That lawyer knows that the taxpayers are funding a lesser skilled lawyer who really could care less if the case drags on or not. You in essence will be using your money to attack your money. I follow as many of these types of lawsuits as I can spot and I know of only one city that canceled their inspections due to a suit. That was years ago and I doubt they would do the same today.

That fee of $50 or $55, can easily be increased with every passing year. At the Conference of Mayors these subjects are batted around and widely accepted. Small towns are immune because the neighbors know the town managers. If you are in a town of any size, this is more the upcoming trend.

The inspections are a big burden to the landlord. The turnover costs are greatly increased mostly due to painting and repairs being done out of a logical sequence. An example of this is having the same inspector visit each year and bringing the home into compliance. Then a new inspector is introduced and that person's interpretation of the laws widely differ.

Of coarse, with each passing year there are new ordinances adopted. Smoke detectors in the hall outside of bedrooms, then smoke detectors being required in each bedroom, then ten year smoke detector batteries being required in all smoke detectors. That of coarse is an easy fix. But you will be caught off guard when your inspector says that the bushes against the house are now too tall and should be trimmed back for fireman, safety of female tenants, and I can't remember the other reason.

You will be scrambling to be in compliance at all costs or your rental will not be licensed. Try advertising an unlicensed rental.

The best practice is to anticipate as much as you can and group your inspections together. Not too many at one time. But this way the repair lists can be merged and the work can be done efficiently.

Anticipate the ever rising fees and add them into your budget.

A footnote. I have shacks in towns where there is no inspection mandated. Those shacks enjoy better quality upgrades. Ironically you would think the opposite would be true, but where I am allowed to work on my projects as I see fit I provide a nicer residence. Where there is a constant looming inspection, I am forced to do just the bare minimum first, then my improvements with what funds remain. A typical inspection runs around $700 between lead testing and city fees. I don't count in the painting costs because we constantly are painting.

Btw, Springfield started doing these city licensing things about 10 years ago. It's a joke: you pay a $10 fee plus $1 per unit. So a duplex is $12.

Bought my first duplex in 2007. Inspector dropped by. Nice lady. Checked that we had smoke detectors in kitchen and near every bedroom door. That was the last time anyone stopped by that particular property: 8 years ago. Every year, I send the City another $12 check to cover my "license". Honestly, the cost is so minimal I don't have time to fool with it. I'd pay them an extra $10 a year if they just would quit sending me the stupid paperwork that is the SAME THING every year. I've started writing "same as last year" on all of them. They are accepted and my license is renewed. (grins)

Oh, and here's the funny part: it only applies to multi-family properties with 2 - 19 units. SFH's and apartment complexes of 20+ units are exempt. Some of the worst slum lords in our town own 100+ SFH's.

Like I said, it's a joke, but not expensive enough for me to mess with.

Years ago, I considered buying a multifamily building in a near suburb of Chicago. Once I learned that they had inspection every 3 years, I dodged. It wasn't that I tried to save the small $100 inspection fee. It's just another unnecessary headache that I didn't need; repair list (like Section8) yuck.

Do what my marina does every year when the dock age contracts come up.

They send out an email to everyone talking about the new season and whats going on. Oh and by the way due to increased costs, insurance, and local taxes everyone's dock age rate is going up X% this year.

Just pass the cost on.

This is an issue in Hurst, TX as well. We just sold our rental there, in part because we were tired of dealing with the nonsense. Could never figure out a way to fight it, probably because there isn't one.

At least there they don't charge the LL, but what a waste of city money! I should have added an "inspection fee" or some such to the rent anyway just on principle and to cover my time wasted dealing with it.

Hurst requires your property to be "registered" annually and have an inspection in between tenants. They know when tenants change because of requests to change utilities - we considered paying all bills just to outwit them at that game, but that is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Sid, your letter should also inform the tenant that the tenant has no obligation to allow the city inspector in:

Please be aware of the fact that the City Inspector has no legal authority to compel you to cooperate in any way with these inspections. You do NOT have to allow the City Inspector inside your home without a search warrant issued by a judge or magistrate upon a showing of probably cause that a crime has been committed. You may allow these inspections if you wish, but you have a right to be free from these government inspections.

Please note, if the City Inspector sees anything illegal or questionable, he is required to make a full report to the police authorities.

Again I would say WHY are you and your tenants submitting to this clear violation of the Bill of Rights 4th Ammendment?

LiveTheDream, I would say because fighting it is too costly in terms of both time and money. My husband actually made some noise about suing the city. But that would have cost us a fortune and what would we have gained? Instead we just sold the house.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision on this issue is Camara vs. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).

The Supremes agreed that a warrant is usually required if the tenant refuses admission: “it seems likely that warrants should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry."

But the Supremes approved the concept of administrative warrants, issued on a far lesser showing than a criminal search warrant. "Probable cause upon the basis of which warrants are to be issued for area code enforcement inspections is not dependent on the inspector's belief that a particular dwelling violates the code, but on the reasonableness of the enforcement agency's appraisal of conditions in the area as a whole." This is such a blatant abuse by the Supreme Court!

Camel's nose.

(ancient Arab fable about the camel who says "It's cold out here. Can I just warm my nose inside your tent?" Then his head, and soon you are living with the camel.)

Owner occupants LOVE the idea of rental inspections.

Renters LOVE the idea believing they will get better housing.

But experienced LLs know what happens when govt inspects - just look at Sec8!

-BRAD

Thanks for so many great comments. It all sounds pretty grim. Lancaster,TX city says that will not allow water utilities to be turned on until landlord goes along with their scheme.

Nick Sidoti had a great rebuttle years ago: Discrimination under Fair Housing Law. If you demand to inspect one, you must inspect them all. No one singled out.

Start with the mayor's house and we'll all tag along.