Rental Inspections Ready to Roll in Ludington

[XLFD]

Last fall, when the City of Ludington announced and adopted its 2015 Budget, they had noted that over $26,000 in new revenues were expected if the city launched a "rental inspection" program (see p. 16 here):

But even before that, there was talk at an August 18, 2014 workshop, where rental inspections were part of the city's 2015 (fundraising) goals:

So it came as no surprise that this topic would show itself this year-- the surprise is that it hasn't been visited until now.  The City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) in today's newspaper brought out the news that the June 4th workshop scheduled at 3:30 PM at City Hall would be the time for landlords to air their voices about what they plan to do. 

This also wasn't a surprise, as I heard from a landlord just last night about how thrilled they were with the letter they got from the City announcing their plans to extract even more money out of them.  I haven't yet seen the full proposal, and of course, the COLDNews only tells us what our benevolent (yet very greedy) city leaders want put out.  The article follows

Ludington’s landlords could soon have to pay the city to inspect their rental units every three years to ensure there are no health or safety violations.

It’s a possibility some landlords oppose, including Jim Schiebner, who described the $75-per-unit inspection fee as an extra tax levied on landlords.

City Manager John Shay said the city council has considered implementing a rental property inspection program for many years and is again thinking of putting one in place. To that end, he said, the city mailed information about the proposal to Ludington landlords and invited them to a meeting about the issue that is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. Thursday, June 4 at city hall.

Shay said the council’s building and licensing committee is looking into the issue and wants landlord feedback before bringing the issue to the full council for a vote.

We will update this issue as new information comes out.  In the meantime, what do you think about this policy?  Do you believe it is legal to raise funds like this?  I am already on record asking a question at the November 24, 2014 meeting:  "The as-of-yet unpassed rental inspection program has been estimated to bring in $27,000 in rental inspection fees for the upcoming year; how does the city plan on doing this and will this be complaint-based or mandatory for those who rent property?"  Over seven months later, those issues are still not addressed fully. 

[Willy]

First of all, rental inspection by municipalities is not a money making project. Most cities lose money and code compliance divisions need help from taxpayers to exist. Unless Ludington has a housing "problem" I would suggest not creating a mandatory rental inspection but instead inspect rental property on a complaint basis.

If Ludington implements a mandatory rental inspection then a Housing Code must be adopted which will be the beginning of the canned worms opening. How to inspect dwellings?  Using existing codes or past codes? Should buildings constructed prior to codes be required to meet new code standards? After all aren't those the standards for safety? How about fire codes? Will fire rated drywall be required between attached garages and dwellings? Will 100 or 200 amp services be required to meet today's appliance uses? Will older exterior chimneys be required to be lined? There are many cities who have been inspecting rental property for years so it would be a good idea to contact some of them to see what will be required to put this idea into action.

Also, what rental units will require an inspection? A duplex with a homeowner occupying one of the units? Summer rentals? Rooming houses? Motels? Hotels? Nursing homes?

A knowledgeable inspector is going to be a must. Someone with structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire code experience. Unless they can find a retired inspector, someone of that caliber of expertise does not walk thru the door everyday. Also the inspector must be a good communicator and have a good disposition because they will be in contact with irate people every day, from an angry tenet to a landlord who thinks they are being picked on. Unless there is a real need to keep Ludington's housing stock from slipping into blight, then in my opinion, this may be one road Ludington does not want to go down.

Other questions. Will landlords be allowed to make required repairs themselves? Will there be "reinspection fees" because several inspections after the initial inspection may be required before all repairs are in compliance? If repairs are not completed will landlords be prosecuted and or will the dwelling be tagged and vacated because how can people be allowed to live in a substandard dwelling? Can the City and or inspector be sued due to a condition that was overlooked and which caused harm to an occupant?

[XLFD]

The costs are there, and they are going to substantial.  This year they claim $26,700 will go into the rental inspection program, but when you add up the line items in the budget that are relevant to the program, you get just $18,900, a far cry from the total.  Next year figures, shown by the highlighted areas for the first full year of the program, shows there is over $40,000 budgeted, plus, one would think, $10,000 or so in other expenses. 

The costs in other categories that you so astutely mention, Willy, are not even considered, just inspections.  When the City O' Ludington tries to flex its authority on doing these searches, the money will begin to flow from our pockets and the city's pockets into pricy litigation.  No wonder the City wants to reign in the civil rights legislation by sending a proclamation to the US Congress, the actions they propose to take will hold them liable under both state and federal statutes found in the Constitutions of each (read verbatim the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution, both of which effectively say:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I, as a tenant, homeowner, or landlord, would resent some tin-plated local agency that believes it has the power to initiate a search on my property without my consent and lacking any basis for doing so.

[Willy]

When a tenet rents from the landlord they are the controller of that property and unless there is an emergency the landlord cannot enter without the tenets permission. The same holds true for inspections. However most tenets have no objections to allowing an inspection because they want to know if their unit is code compliant. But, I'm sure the owners of Longfellow tower as well as their tenets are not going to appreciate the intrusion of a City inspection. Many older citizens are tired of Government sticking their noses into their lives.

[shinblind]

Willy, "A knowledgeable inspector is going to be a must."??? 

More like which City Councillor has a family member who needs a job. Or who can we promote within the COL so that there will be a job opening for a family member of a City Councilor.

[XLFD]

I hear tell they have found the perfect candidate, someone who has been a health inspector and even took the Browns to the Super Bowl.  Rumor has it that he is related to former Mayor John Henderson.

[stump]

$27,000 , Who is doing the math, Holman ? there isn't 3000 rental units in the city of Ludington. Or are they counting Hotel / Motel rooms? If so those people are going to be p. issed if they have to pay $75 bucks for every room they rent . So what does the land lord get out of this except a liter wallet?

[XLFD]

Stump, I think your math may be a little off this time; did you borrow Holman's slide rule?

I can't claim to know how many rental units are in Ludington, nor do I know whether they will visit those places subsidized by the state or feds that already require at least annual checks, but  $27,000/$75 = 360 rental inspections per year by that standard.  Since they plan on hitting every rental unit every third year, some city bean-counter estimated there is about 1080 rental units that apply here.

[Willy]

According to the statistics I've read the number of dwelling units in Ludington is around 3700, of those aprox. 40% are rental. That would amount to around 1480 rental units. That means about 490 units per year must be inspected in order to complete a 3 year cycle. 

[XLFD]

Your 3700 dwelling units number is close to the number of households in Ludington claimed by the 2010 Census (3549) and under the figure they determined for 'housing units' (4432).  Other studies and mid-decade statistics may influence such numbers in actuality.  The approximation of rental units to be inspected each year probably falls within the 1080 to 1480 figure, I would bet, without knowing the city's definition of what needs to be inspected.  LIAA had some up to date statistics when they came to town on our demographics, so the city should have some sort of accurate estimation in their pockets of what to expect.

[stump]

I threw that 3000 out there as I knew somebody would have the correct answer. I didn't

[dowland]

Agenda 21 is coming to fold. It has already happened in Lansing and as usual it was a power grab.  My son rents in Lansing, and his inspector told him he had to use a specific furnace filter or he would be fined. I would believe this if we lived in San-Fransisco. All of are council members ran as republicans.  What a crock.

[XLFD]

Very good correlation with the Agenda 21 angle, Dowland.  Rental inspections are an incremental step towards making people compliant with the notion that there are no real private property rights (unless you're part of the government elite that are immune to such infringements).  Unfortunately, once those rights are ceded to those in power, they won't come back without a revolution.

America is stronger because we have private freedoms that are guaranteed us by our federal and state constitution, we just have to assert those warranties at times like these and remind those who take oaths to defend these constitutions that our rights are not suppressed by their own power grabs.

FYI, the county commission is all RINO (Republican in Name Only), but the city council of Ludington runs non-partisan elections.  However... if the council continually and unanimously make laws that defy the constitution and city charter, they show that their actual color is red-- not like in a 'red state', but 'red' as in Marxist.