The Missing Ludington Landlord Boogeyman

[XLFD]

Back in the beginning of late May, when the City of Ludington sent out their proposed rental inspection ordinance to select landlords and invited them to a June 4 Buildings and Licensing Committee meeting, they got overwhelmed by the 100+ attendees who showed up and aired their concerns.

Nevertheless, there was one tenant among the 20+ speakers who shared a negative experience that allegedly happened in Ludington's notorious Fourth Ward.  After public comment, Councilor Krauch made his own observations about bad landlords, presumably also in the Fourth Ward since he brought similar stories up during his interview for city councilor one year ago relating his work with Habitat for Humanity in that district. 

Most of us know Habitat for Humanity as an agency that builds houses for needy folks, but they also do rehab and repair work on existing houses.  It wouldn't be too surprising then, that any such house he rehabbed or repaired would be seriously in arrears of being considered safely habitable, whether it had been a rental or owner occupied dwelling to begin with, leading him to believe such was the rule rather than the exception in his bailiwick. 

At the August 13 special meeting, Winczewski explained that she entered into a home of an 88 years old women and the house was 'despicable'. There were holes in the floor, two windows which were boarded up and the door did not fit.  Krauch's mentioned even more unelaborated-on Habitat for Humanity experiences, and even ex-LFD Councilor Nick Tykoski declared several rental places he has entered as a firefighter for the city have been very bad. 

These vague anecdotes blunted the impact of the 20 citizen speakers, landlords, tenants, apartment managers, and others, who all brought up valid points and specific reasons why the RIP would be bad for everyone in the city.  At least three city councilors and one Planning Commission member tell us there is a big problem in town, but nobody, not even a disgruntled tenant, came to the open meeting to advocate for the RIP, or mention any specific problem existing in the city to warrant its passage.

Very early on August 17, I used my good friend, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to discover the extent of the problem and what our enlightened B&L Committee were privy to.  In my E-mail, I asked for:

 "Any and all specific written complaints from Ludington tenants about specific Ludington landlords reviewed by the city's Buildings & Licensing Committee prior and during the time it has been crafting the Rental Inspection Program."

By the FOIA law, I believed the City FOIA Coordinator received the E-mail that Monday, and had five business days to respond to it.  By the end of the fifth business day (which would have been before last night's regular city council meeting), I still had nothing.  But almost magically, just after beginning to write this article, I received the response I figured that I would. 

If you are familiar with most of the landlords of Ludington you wouldn't be surprised either, nor would you be surprised if you had been noticing the deceit and corruption that has embedded itself in our city hall over the last few years.  The reply was: 

"Please find enclosed Response to your FOIA Request #290. Your request has been denied as there are no "specific written complaints from Ludington tenants about specific Ludington landlords reviewed by the city's Buildings & Licensing Committee prior and during the time it has been crafting the Rental Inspection Program"."

Along with this Form FOIA Response_290.pdf.  So here's what we've been told by three councilors, that there are specific problems existing in Ludington, and yet, none of those problems actually exist in the record, other than by oral tradition of three councilors.  Why didn't either of these councilors write down their own specific brushes with the slumlords of Ludington, and the conditions they witnessed-- and the conditions they supposedly allowed to fester despite their best intentions? 

And why are they pushing this ordinance stressing in the background that it is for the health and safety of the tenants, with our leaders telling us of the horrors hidden within the rented walls of our city, when the record shows that the slum conditions they want to portray does not even exist in Ludington except in their unspecific tales of terror?  

Why are one of our best resources, those people who provide places for their fellow man to stay, being portrayed as bogeymen and bugbears just to pass a rental inspection program that will put our already insufficient rental housing market in jeopardy?

[stump]

I don't know why more landlords are not concerned. A friend called me and asked if I could look at the wiring in her house which she rents out. The house was rewired back in the 80's about 35 years ago. A new service was put it and total rewire of the house was done. I found it had a new breaker box , 20 amp breakers and 12-2 wiring running from it. Now what I also found was that the kitchen, and both baths did not have GFI receptacles as will be required by the new code inspection, remember 35 years old. There are 2 ways to solve the problem, replace the receptacles and face plates to GFI at about $15 a piece and hope it will not trip from a mili amp draw or put in new GFI breakers at $44 each with the same hope. If the GFI trips, then the wiring will need to be separated and new wire will have to be ran to the panel.OH NO!, the panel is full . This is not a easy job and could cost hundreds of dollars just for the labor for the electrical work not counting wall repairs. I'm all for safety, but you have to draw the line some where. So I say to all you landlords, you better speak up or get out your check book cause this is going to cost you big time.

[XLFD]

Briefly stated, this article confirms one of the main questions asked by the majority of landlords and other interested parties at these meetings:  that there aren't derelict landlords in our town, and that isn't the cause of enacting this ordinance.

Joe Moloney showed us the City's hand, by telling us that having a rental inspection program/ordinance would qualify the city for grants to help us with our blight and create Neighborhood Enterprise Zones, but we don't need any RIP to qualify.

The city's main interest in getting these grants is twofold.  First, they will get an administrative stipend equaling 25% (?) of the grant for their own spending by just doing the paperwork.  Second, they can direct the money to whichever area they deem to choose, so there is a great chance of them using this power to benefit their cronies and punish their detractors.

They can't empathize that the landlords may sink thousands of dollars into upgrades like you mention, that may actually make the rental less safe, especially since the landlord will have to devote plenty of time and money towards cosmetic repairs, and if maintenance and upkeep is kept at the same level, rents will definitely go up drastically, or the rental unit will cease to be.

[Willy]

Very good points X. Your reasoning regarding this issue reveals an ongoing theme in regards to how and why City officials act on legislation and how they respond to the public. As stump points out "retrofitting" existing houses to meet current codes can be very expensive. One wonders why all of these rental units haven't imploded without Big Brothers protection and it will be a big relief to know that soon they will all be under the protection of the Government as quickly as the current hierarchy can shove this new ordinance up everyone's a_s.