The current rental inspection ordinance that will be voted on by City Council on Monday evening falls flat in several major respects.
First, the proposed system is unique among those already in place throughout Ohio in that it is entirely unfunded; it costs more to register your bicycle in Bowling Green than your rental unit. In nearly all of the Ohio communities where rental properties are regulated landlords are charged an annual registration fee. Base fees per unit (not including additional fees for inspection, additional units, etc.) are as follows: Kent, $100; Oxford, $55; Athens, $150; Rossford $50; Sandusky, $100.
We have opted for $0 when a mere $25 per unit would generate approximately $175,000 annually based on our estimated 7,000 rental units. That would be enough to hire full-time inspectors, inspect 100% of our rental units for free (unless a violation is found and subsequent inspections are necessary), proactively enforce exterior code regulations, and have enough left over to invest tens of thousands of dollars in housing and neighborhood improvements every year. If this $25 annual fee were passed on to the tenant (and we’d be naïve to think it wouldn’t be), the cost per unit per month would be $2.09. In a three-bedroom unit the cost per tenant per month would be less than $0.70. More likely, the landlord would simply charge an extra $25 at the point of lease signing when they collect the security deposit (which many tenants already refer to as the “13th month of rent”).
The primary argument against this or any other regulation is the lack of available data. That’s precisely why establishing this baseline is so important. Establishing a baseline would allow the City to address this problem systematically and focus our efforts exclusively on problem properties while allowing other landlords to continue to operate largely unregulated (“self-inspection”) for five to ten years until their next regular inspection. Definitively identifying problem properties would also allow us to stop demonizing all landlords regardless of the condition of their properties. This “us vs. them” mentality that has existed in our community for decades does nothing to reward “good” landlords and disincentivizes those who would go the extra mile.
Rather than charging a nominal fee, hiring public employees, and guaranteeing minimum health and safety standards, our proposed ordinance will require landlords who are not eligible for “self-certification” to pay for private, third party inspections. Property owners I’ve talked to have estimated that these private inspections will cost anywhere from $250 to $400 each. That cost will be passed on to the tenant and none of it will be reinvested in our neighborhoods or housing. In all likelihood, the mere threat of this large expense will be enough to raise the cost of rental housing citywide.
To make matter worse, this proposal is not just expensive and inefficient, it will also be ineffective. Relying on tenant complaints – even if “random audits” were required (discussed below) – means it will take years, perhaps decades, to identify problem properties (if they’re identified at all). This is the same system we’ve always had and one which does not work. That shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s spent any time talking to tenants. The most frequent reason cited by those living in substandard conditions for failing to report those conditions and often only speaking on the condition of anonymity is fear of retaliation. It’s often the tenants who are living in the worst conditions who have the fewest options and are least able to relocate at the drop of a hat. It is all but guaranteed that the worst issues will continue to go unchecked under a system that relies on those individuals reporting the person who controls their housing. Most importantly, the responsibility for policing our community’s health and safety standards should not fall solely on tenants.
Finally, this proposal merely permits and does not even require any third-party “audit inspections” (whether by the city or any other disinterested party). This flies in the face of the Community Improvement Committee’s recommendations, which were made after two years of careful consideration and input from the public. This also means that this entire program could, in effect, be dismantled by an administration that does not believe the City should be regulating this sector at all (historically, all of them). That’s not predictable for landlords or tenants and it’s not good policy.
Bowling Green has debated the need for substantive reform to the way we regulate rental properties for at least four decades – longer than I’ve been alive. While I believe regulation is needed (and would welcome the opportunity to collect the necessary data to determine to what extent) I cannot vote for this ordinance. Despite the many hours that some of my colleagues have dedicated to this work, the result is a proposal that will create all of the burdens and provide very little benefit, either for Bowling Green tenants or those responsible landlords who deserve to be distinguished from their peers.
Jeff Dennis
Bowling Green City Council, At-Large
