| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D
|
Rental ordinance may be scuttled by new council
Posted by Jerry Ernst | The Davison Flagstaff November 29, 2007 18:49PM
Categories: Davison, Davison Township
Davison's rental inspection ordinance reappeared Monday.
Like a shadow, it's always there. You might not see it for a while, but it eventually shows up.
The City Council may have thought it disposed of the controversial ordinance Nov. 12, when it approved the measure, 5-1. Two weeks later, it was back.
City officials have said the council has kicked the idea around for well over a decade before its adoption.
It's supposed to take effect Dec. 20. But it may be scuttled as soon as Dec. 10.
That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who listened closely to the council and mayoral candidates this fall.
All four people elected were opposed to or at least questioned the need for the proposed ordinance, which would require city inspections of residential rental units in the city.
Mayor-Elect "Mac" Fortner said in an interview after the council vote Nov. 12 that he might ask the panel to reconsider the matter.
And so he did, to the consternation of those strongly favoring the ordinance.
"I haven't really heard a reasonable argument from the landlords," said council member Joy Murray about a group that has lambasted the ordinance at meeting after meeting. "... I have only heard from five landlords over and over again."
If she were a landlord, Murray said, she would consider passing an inspection like winning a "gold star."
Council member Ron Emery said repeal would be "unfair to 50 percent of the population that live in rental housing in this community."
Council member Tim Bishop, in his first meeting on that panel, expressed surprise at the proposed fees that landlords would pay the city.
During the prolonged argument over the ordinance, he said, he kept hearing landlords would pay $25 for inspection of a rental unit.
Upon reading the proposed schedule of fees, however, he discovered that $25 was the cost of just registering a unit with the city, and inspection fees would then start at $75 per unit.
Bishop said the higher rates might "tip" him into voting for repeal.
Colleen Hackney, Davison community development director, said the fees were based on the expense to the city of sending an inspector to a site and paying the inspector to complete a report.
Emery said the $25 figure was arbitrary and that the actual fees could be lowered if the council wished.
Fortner said he would not seek a vote on repeal until the next council meeting because two members were absent: Don Csutoras, who voted against the ordinance twice, and Keith Flewelling, a strong proponent.
Murray and Emery also voted for it.
Fortner has declared his opposition, and new council member Jim Hershberger has sounded skeptical.
Bishop, who might cast the deciding vote, said he doesn't know which way to vote.
"I don't know what's going to sway my vote," he said after the meeting. "I'm going to sit there and listen."
Bishop said he'll also ask others for advice.
"I don't think anyone could be more on the fence than I am," he said.
Emery questioned the propriety of Fortner voting.
"You, sir, are a landlord, and I think you should abstain from this vote, because you have a conflict of interest," he said.
Fortner denied after the meeting that his vote would be affected by self-interest.
The council was advised to adopt the fee schedule by its Dec. 10 meeting. |
_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com |
|
Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:38 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
Did they learn by example of Flint city council? 
Flint should have rental inspections, and landlords should screen their tenants more thoroughly before renting to them! |
|
|
|
Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:03 am |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
00SL2 schreef:
Flint should have rental inspections, and landlords should screen their tenants more thoroughly before renting to them!
Maybe if landlords could run their own property they would do it. It's easy to blame the landlords but their hands are often tied behind their backs. I've heard it can take six months to get someone evicted after they stop paying you. Banks are under similar rules. When I bought my house I was told I could not pay anything for a year before I was evicted.
Maybe before we go after landlords we should go after tenants that maliciously destroy the property they are renting.
Another option is to do nothing and just keep tearing houses down which costs money and destroys our overly taxed tax base. |
|
|
|
Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:18 am |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Adam Ford schreef:
Maybe if landlords could run their own property they would do it. It's easy to blame the landlords but their hands are often tied behind their backs. I've heard it can take six months to get someone evicted after they stop paying you.
For drug use I believe there's a 24-hour eviction notice. For property destruction there should be something similar.
quote:
Adam Ford schreef:
Banks are under similar rules. When I bought my house I was told I could not pay anything for a year before I was evicted.
A mortgage foreclosure is different from a landlord/tenant situation. Personally, I think it should be a crime that a purchaser can live in the house so long (maybe three months) before the foreclosure starts, then as you say a year before they're actually removed from the premises. Not certain how accurate that is, but it's close because I know someone who did it.
quote:
Adam Ford schreef:
Maybe before we go after landlords we should go after tenants that maliciously destroy the property they are renting.
Malicious destruction of property is a crime, not just a civil infraction. Have them arrested!
quote:
Adam Ford schreef:
Another option is to do nothing and just keep tearing houses down which costs money and destroys our overly taxed tax base.
Doing nothing ruins other property valuations. Demolitions are slow in coming because there are too many and not enough money. |
|
|
|
Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:35 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
00SL2 schreef:
Did they learn by example of Flint city council?
Flint should have rental inspections, and landlords should screen their tenants more thoroughly before renting to them!
Flint does. Rentals must be registered as such, and inspected every 2 years. Some landlords screen, others don't care as long as they get the money every month. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:27 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
There are good and bad landlords, and the same for tenants. We have both types of landlords on our block. Right now, we have all good tenants, but have had a few bad ones in the past. These are experiences on our block....
GOOD LANDLORD -
Tenant has bad knees, getting both replaced, and has trouble getting up & down stairs. Landlord had a area downstairs partitioned off & installed a toilet & shower stall. Landlord also installed central air. Rent was not increased a cent.
BAD LANDLORD 1 -
When thieves stole the copper plumbing, now replaced, they took the water meter and broke the pipe coming into the house off at the wall. A new mater can't be installed until part of the basement wall is broken out & the pipe repaired. The landlord has taken deposits from and first month's rent from 2 different people, then tells them the water situation is their problem. Refuses to refund money.
BAD LANDLORD 2 -
Checking City web site shows he owns 10 houses and is over 2 years delinquent on taxes on all of them. When asked, he claims he never got the tax bills. House he owns on this block not listed as a rental as required. Building inspector posts the house, says it needs a new roof and sheathing, new plumbing, and new wiring. Permits must be pulled, and work must be inspected before occupying again. Landlord paints inside, outs up new light fixtures, and installs new kitchen sink. landlord's wife removed the condemned notice & outs up a for rent sign. City called about situation, inspector comes out, stays 15 minutes talking to landlord, and leaves. The next day, the posting is removed from the web page. people come to look at the house, but leave, telling neighbors: "It smells like something died in there".
BAD TENANT -
This is the house owned by good landlord one, tenant before current one. Tenant never pays rent. takes landlord 2 years to get an eviction order. Judge keeps telling him to give them a chance. When finally evicted, 13 year old son destroys the interior of the house. Tells landlord he did it, but "you can't prove it". Holes smashed in every wall of the house, ketchup, mustard & jelly smeared on walls. Bathroom fixtures broken, so water flows through floor, destroying ceilings below. Total cost of repairs, $18,000.00. Not all covered by insurance.
|
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:51 am |
|
|
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D
|
Amen I agree 110%, some of these properties shouldn't even be rented out. I heard from a friend of mine in Davison that most houses in the city are rentals..
quote:
00SL2 schreef:
Did they learn by example of Flint city council?
Flint should have rental inspections, and landlords should screen their tenants more thoroughly before renting to them!
|
_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com |
|
|
Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:39 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
