There's a bill being kicked around in my town's city counsel (at least I think it's still being kicked and hasn't passed yet to my knowledge) that would require LLs of SFH rentals to register with the City in a database. That way when there's a municipal ordinance violation, they know whom to contact to send the violation notice to.

First, I keep up on our properties, and if there's even a hint we might be getting a violation notice, we send our handyman over to mow, remove trash/mattresses/upholstered couch, etc before we get a citation. I can't recall the last time we got a citation regarding a tenant. I support keeping properties in good condition, or in "good enough" condition in my humble Class C hoods because that way I can attract decent, blue collar renters.

But what's interesting is there's a lot of folks getting hot and bothered because in reality there are a handful of 'notorious characters' (aka local sl*m l*rds) that everyone knows...but in spite of all the city's powers and knowledge of who these folks are, they aren't able to get them to fix / take care of the violations. So folks are asking, "Why bother registering everyone? You know who these goobers are! Go get 'em!"

The idea is this: you register your properties. If city finds a violation, they check the registration data base and send you notice, and if you fail to comply on time you get fined and the city fixes it. Nothing else different from what happens today. The kicker is if you FAIL to register...then there's a $200 fine in addition to whatever else if the deficiency isn't corrected.

All this comes back to the topic of minimum standards. There are some people that have money whom I won't rent too, period. But some people will...the sl*m l*rds. They provide a last chance at housing before the street becomes home.

My town has seen an upswing in homeless population becoming visible during the day as area homeless camps are closed down. Panhandlers everywhere, when it used to just be 1 or 2 intersections. Now they're everywhere.

I'm in favor of having reasonable standards, but sometimes I wonder if they do more harm than good? If I were poor and had bad references, I'd probably take a $300/month shack with some holes in the walls and ceiling and a lose wire or two over living under a bridge. By the same token, a sl*m l*rd who is forced to put $10s of thousands into fixing up places will not rent to folks who will tear it up, creating the exact same homeless problem as if you just shut them down by condemning the houses.

Maybe cities should just have areas they deem "poor man's land"...and in that area...code goes out the window. We admit there are scuzzy land lords and people with scuzzy references and that they need each other. My guess is in practicality, this happens more often than we'd like to admit.

I completely agree. This thing is gonna be a mess. It's the first step of a slippery slope. Florissant MO has insane rental owner requirements. This is simply step one... I hope there's some oomph behind the fight.

As Steve said, property owners can be found by the tax records. If there is a violation, owner occupied or rental, it still can go against the owner. Why register unless you plan to get more money, or maybe if not right now, setting it up for the future. I am always concerned when government gets involved to help people.

SID,

This is simply a money grab by the govt.

Justifies jobs. Makes the populous feel secure.

Discrimination! Demand they register and inspect EVERY home, not singling out renters. Let's all start with the Mayor's house then walk thru every Council members' homes.

Ohio's federal court ruled these unconstitutional. Ask them if they are ready for a fight in federal court.

Your city already has minimum standards in the form of building codes and health codes.

I don't get why landlords have to register. Why doesn't the city just send the violation notice to the owner of record? My city mails violation notices to the same person/address that gets the tax bill.

My city has a blight ordnance with far more teeth, the fine is $100 a day. Its treated like a tax lien, so it never goes away. In very bad cases they foreclose on the property and auction it off.

Get the list of those in violation and start sending them "we buy houses" letters.

Live in the county, not a city. After our sunroom was completed, and signed off by the building inspector, I got a visit from the assessor's office. She was very interested in how many outbuildings we have on our little farm, square footage of the added room, etc, etc. But she pointedly ignored the myriad of health, safety and zoning offenses on my neighbor's property which were clearly visible over the fence.

They only enforce the laws on those who will pay the fines.

You rarely can fine a homeowner with success. Landlords on the other hand are a business and the fines stick.

Two houses standing next to each other can have the same violation. The homeowner will be fined and go to court and have the fines dismissed. Whereas the landlord will not.

Code enforcement is just the part of the revenue. Remember they don't need to make money on the department, the code enforcement offices will be funded by the city and state. The Office simply needs to show a reason to exist. (Just like sending three fire trucks to a fender bender).

Because it can be argued that a rental home uses more city resources through special trash pick up etc, the City will take the right to charge registration fees. Even to double tax for trash pick up.

This isn't a slippery slope, we know the fees will increase over time. This is more of an open door to apply different standards.

I'm involved with different cities and where I do best is in the towns where there is no inspection. 100% of my improvements are directed by myself and not by a compliance officer. What that means is our time is spent painting and remodeling rather than adhering to the annual changes in rules and laws.

I also have a bit of street experience. Show me your finest home and I can find violations.

The poor tenants in all of this, they pay the price. I used to rent shacks for $2,400...today, less than ten years later they are paying over $3,000 due to housing inspections. Some landlords have left only to be replaced with double families living with lots of cars on the grass. (Sure you can leave a 30 notice on a house with cars on the grass, but on re-inspection day the cars have been moved).

One city I have property in had registration. It came in the form of a $15 fee to apply to have a rental. This was yearly. Then, you got the privilege of paying $120 every 2 years to have it inspected. Got another one in this city, so went down to the city hall to pay for my privileges and schedule my inspection and was informed they don't do this anymore. I think the other court cases going on where landlords were winning scared them off. This is a small outlying town and they don't exactly have a ton of income, so couldn't pay for lawsuits if they arose. I was happy to hear this.

Another town I have property in talked about doing this. They were going to just do the inspections and charge a fee for it. Of course, they were already short staffed, so they imagined it would take 3 more positions to get it done and the fees would be based on those 3 positions salaries initially. There was a ton of backlash from landlords, not surprisingly. But what they didn't expect was there was a ton of backlash from tenants as well. The landlords in the town (all of the big boys and a lot of the mom and pops) all said they would raise rent to pay for this. They also educated tenants on reporting procedures if they had issues with their house if their landlord wouldn't fix something. In other words, there are already laws on the books to protect you. The citizens as a whole wanted the city to do what was already in place (which they weren't) instead of adding more laws and hiring more people. The bigger problem they had here was owner occupied houses were getting very run down, but they wanted to go after LL's to get everything fixed.

Thanks, All, for the comments.

Yes, I realize that the county "should" have all the info via the Assessor's office. That's where I go to look up owners. My thought is their goal with this is to put the burden of keeping that database updated on the owner of rentals vs. the tax Assessor having to request updates. They have only specificed that the rental be registered, and so far I do not think they've specified annual address update requirements for the owner. But it would be easy to see that on the horizon.

There is no cost to register. No license. Just data only...for now. But as some have said, the "slippery slope" of Govt digging in has been breached.

The think that irritates me most about it, aside from the general overreach, is that they already KNOW who the worst 4 offenders in town are and yet rather than punish them via existing powers and ordinances they try to "do something" that involves more work from everyone else. It's not going to affect me--much--given the current proposal, but in the future it could be a step toward something worse.

Landlords in toronto are going thru a similiar process..

Currently it is a new system affecting owners of multi unit buildings with 10 units or more.

The landlord must pay an annual regjstration fee and also have annual apt inspections.

Obviously this is a revenue generator. Apparently a tenants group will also be receiving some of this revenue for promoting tenants interests.

The guise was annual inspections are required because some rental properties are not being properly maintained. No doubt some properties do need mainteance, but there are already a multitude of govt departments already in existence to ensure the necessary work is done, including the cities municipal bylaw officers and existing building audits.

But this new "registration" applies to all buildings, regardless of their condition.

It is easy for a politician to blame landlords for housing issues. Locally, we have a registration law that has been in effect for a few years now. It hasn't changed much. The name on the registration is the same as the name on the tax bill and the person responsible can't or won't make the repairs. The city has the same options to fine them and some of them just pay the fine, others let it go to tax sale. But, the fine is part of the minimum bid at tax sale, so it doesn't sell, then the county has to figure out what they are going to do with it.

In my hood the city issues occupancy permits and STIFF fines if you rent wo one. First thing the inspector does is determine when the last permit was issued then asks the tennie how long they have been in the house. In an attempt to see if the place was rented wo a permit.

From a liability stand point, what happens when the locals admit in court that they hold these places to a different standard than in other areas.......as as a result a death occurred.