There is some very good and insightful discussions regarding RIP, landlords and problems renters have with some landlords on the Ludington Houses/Apartments for rent/sale page on facebook - November 12. Clearly shows those who could not and still cannot get help for problems with their rentals and the routes they tried to receive help. I have always been for the rental inspections, yet do wonder if some could not even receive help from the city inspector prior to, how will the rental inspection ordinance help now? As i read ordinance, doesn't the city still control the inspections and if the city ignored problems before, why would they not ignore or find away around them now?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/166941866826193/

Views: 344

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Nonfiction, I hope you don't mind me adding a link to that page on Facebook underneath your narrative.

I see a lot of inefficiencies in the rental inspection program, even when you get past the other contentions that both landlords and tenants have made known.  It looks like they expect the RIP to cost/receive about $40- 50,000 a year, and it likely won't do anything beyond make it more difficult to find inexpensive housing and inflate rental rates. 

This is because many of the more questionable (and typically cheaper) rental stock will either be taken off the market voluntarily or involuntarily.  If you are fortunate enough to keep your apartment/house for rent, this inflation will likely affect what you are charged.  If you have a bad landlord and basic problems exist, you're likely going to lose your home.  If you have a bad apartment (one with defects that are beyond easy repair like room dimensions and window height), you're likely to lose your home.

The RIP's mechanics do not address the real problems.  Ideally, landlords and tenants are well-informed and well-meaning and arrive at a rental lease that both can live with, and both have a vested interest in keeping the other party happy.  The conflict occurs when one or both parties fail to meet their contractual obligations, but this won't be cured by a once every three years mandated inspection that neither of the parties are happy with. 

The RIP will spend 90%+ of its resources at places where no real problems exist, a similar percentage of adequate rental housing stock will be lost when compared to inadequate units lost.  It's wasteful and is exactly why you seen a lot of speakers argue for a complaint-based approach, like we have now.  It's not perfect, but it's better and tons more efficient for all parties than what the RIP offers. 

XLPD, Thank you for adding link. This may be a silly question, but are places like the Towers, Pine Way, condos. privately owned assisted living, foster care and such included in on the inspections? I do know that yes the state does come in and do reviews on some of those places, but people do pay monthly housing cost to live in them whether short term or long. There is a lot of inefficiencies in the RIP as you said and i was very disappointed when i read the ordinance. Can you also tell me where the city limit ends pertaining to North Lakeshore Dr.? Thank you for the information you have provided.   

Your welcome, Nonfiction, but my acronym is XLFD, which refers to my resignation from the Ludington Fire Department, hence X-LFD.  Now, if Fire was spelled "phire" or I had been on the "police" department...  I swear if you mess up again, I will start putting a hyphen inside your name after the 'non', LOL.

 I include a video of an XLPD.  But to answer your question, if we go by the ordinance's language and likely interpretations, sec. sec. 6-215(g) says that those units already inspected by HUD or MSHDA are exempt from the inspections, so Pineway is off your list.  Longfellow Towers is questionable. as I think it may have MSHDA inspections, but that may only be partially, as a significant portion of the apartments are traditionally leased.  Typical foster care and assisted living facilities also may be exempt depending on the arrangements made not being considered 'renting' or 'leasing'. 

Condominiums units are not rented or leased, they are individually owned and thus do not fall under the RIP.  Perhaps the best way to avoid these inspections is to re-structure the agreements so they do not fall under a rental or lease agreement. 

For example, instead of renting out a house, you 'sell' it to the 'purchaser' on a land contract where the terms makes it so that the monthly payment covers only a little more than the interest.  When the 'purchaser' moves and fails to pay the monthly bill, the 'seller' gets back the house.  Converting your duplex or apartment complex into condos with similar arrangements, would also work. 

For the second part of your question, here's a map showing the extent of the city limits in red to best explain where the 'city limits' ends on north Lakeshore.  On the west side of M-116/Lakeshore, it ends at Bryant Road (and Epworth begins), on the east it goes all the way to Lincoln Lake. 

What the City should have done is to address housing problems on a complaint basis. If tenants have problems with housing issues the City could enter the premise on behalf of the tenant and have the landlord correct any violations. This would help fix housing problems without putting the entire City into a tizzy by forcing people to provide access to the City to inspect their homes.

I personally know that many of the condos in Ludington that are rented on a weekly/monthly basis that are rented through property management companies.  I have myself used these services.  I am sure the city will not touch their golden goose.  Any units that are rented in this manner should be inspected through the RIP

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service