The Anti-Affordable Housing Ordinance
Posted October 12th, 2009 at 8:17 AM by Jeff A. TaylorCMPD and Charlotte city staff are operating way, way out of their depth. The suppressed assumption in this proposed landlord registration law is that landlords are rolling in money. That they have an extra $335 a year to hand to the city for the privilege of renting out their property so that the city may hire more staff to work the program the law creates.
Anyone else think this is nuts?
Let’s cut to the chase. The city proposes to levy a new tax on rental properties. Not all of them, just the ones deemed “high crime.” That sounds like a lawsuit right there. But suppose not. What happens when the property owner taps out and takes their unit or units off the market? What if they just walk away? Will the city take over running some units? Or will the city knock some down and build new ones? What if a landlord decides to get out of the “high crime” tax by opting not to rent to anyone with a criminal record? Will the city stand behind them and help fight off the inevitable lawsuits that would follow?
Finally, if crime-committing renters are the problem, why not go after them directly? License them — perhaps nothing more than a $5 fee and a requirement that they be a in the country lawfully and not have any outstanding warrants. How is that any less nuts than what the city proposes to do? And yet majority of city council evidently is ready to go along.
This is all headed in a very bad direction.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Wo Hoooooooooo, Mr. Taylor. I am definitely NOT a big government guy, but your assumptions (including the false logic in several of your statements) belie some sort of ANTI-ANYTHING streak you have.
THIS IS A VERY NECESSARY AND NEEDED PROGRAM TO HELP ROOT OUT CRIME IN THE COMMUNITY!
Let me re-phrase how this program would work, but in a different way:
In Charlotte, North Carolina, a large percentage of crime citywide occurs in absentee-landlord-owned properties. This occurs from the most hoitey-toitey neighborhoods of Eastover and Myers Park, Uptown and Dilworth, all down the line to the West Charlotte, Eastway, Tuckaseegee and North Tryon neighborhoods on the latter end.
Why does a predominant amount of this crime occur in rentals? Renters have no skin in the game. Many individual owners (as opposed to property-managed company units) have no background/criminal/credit check capabilities. Even though this is available to everyone, in many instances the costs themselves are prohibitive.
When you refer to these, ‘oh-so-overtaxed, poor landlords … who [will be taxed so much that] when the property owner taps out’…and takes their unit off the market.
——>what kind of landlord drops out of the rental marketplace over $375? If that were the case, we would see tens of thousands of Charlotte landlords in trouble, because that is an abhorrent, overwhelming burden! Not.
The primary drive behind this whole program is ACCOUNTABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY. With teeth — teeth to enforce it. Even though laws are on the statutory books; and ordinances are in place with local cities …. anonymity cures all ills, right (isn’t that why Jefferson was against corporations??) When I was VP of my condo COA in 4th Ward (Uptown) what was the number one problem we had? Enforcing regs against renters. Why? Because our COA docs explicitly state only the “owner/landlord” can he held responsible. Thus, we attempted on a weekly basis to enforce and/or levy punishment to these “absentee landlords” who VERY OFTEN THEIR ENTIRE REGISTRATION CONSISTED OF THE FOLLOWING:
Harborston Premier Trust, LLC
w/r/t/ 420 North Church Street Condos, LLC
Mail To: PO Box 1494755
Dallas, TX 10101-9755
Yup, that was it. No names. No phone numbers. Just a limited liability corp to hide behind. With a friggin’ mailing address at a Mail Boxes Etc. Franchise. We’d send notices again and again for $500, even $1,000 fines (and threatening to foreclose) upon tenants who damaged the building, smashed windows, had drug dealer friends hanging around…. and all we’d get??? USPS RTS “Not deliverable as addressed” notices from PO Boxes.
With the explosion in investor-owned rental properties, this is one of the primary drivers behind this proposed ordinance. Nothing more. No “pernicious” secret plans to make 100k in extra city/tax revenue over this….. take off your tinfoil hat. We all know that even 750k in the Char-Meck Schools budget is only enough to afford six pencil sharpeners and two whiteboards (off eBay) !
October 13th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Who wants to bet the mailing address for BiSP’s Condo Association is a P.O. box with no individual’s name attached? And why was your COA so dumb as to not require individual contact names be supplied along with the owner’s LLC name?
Let’s see you post some stats to back up your “large percentage of crime citywide occurs in absentee-landlord-owned properties” statement first, big fella.
Meanwhile, your comment that there aren’t a bunch of landlords in trouble shows you have paid no attention at all to vacancy trends in either residential OR commercial.
And let me cut you off at the knees regarding your predictable retort that “I must be a landlord”. Sorry, you’ll have to debate based on facts rather than personal attacks. I’m neither a landlord nor a renter.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:04 am
The problem with MecklenPUKE County is this ,
The only people the bureaucrats and elected officials focus on is the taxpayer. Criminals are left alone because they have no money. Their motto is, make the working man PAY and let the criminals PLAY.
The police did catch a bank robber last week while running a speed trap. Some good did come out of it !!!!!!
October 13th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Bornin you are describing a problem almost wholly born out of landlords who never intended to be landlords. Of course they ignored your condo assn. — they intended to flip the condo and got stuck. The LLC likely fell apart. No amount of record keeping or fines could put it back together.
Same deal with Dilworth bungalows that “everyone” knew could be flipped once you put $5000 worth of granite, halogen track lighting, and new earth tone paint in them. These will be walk-aways sooner or later. Good luck, CMPD fining a bank for failing to comply.
And while I do not own rental property, I do know folks who do and they are utterly mystified by what the city is doing. First off, at the middle-income to low-income price point there is NO MONEY in being a landlord. Margins are impossibly slim and hours you work completely nuts. So that $350 registration fee is going straight to a $30 per month increase in rents — provided you can collect it. Congrats city staff.
Second, follow me on this, the city and CMPD are explicitly saying that rental properties cost more to police. OK, assume that is true. Landlords are going to pay more for the police to protect their property, not quite a fee for service but close. Does this mean that CMPD is going to reverse its utter indifference to property damage and other property crimes? Law-abiding, responsible landlords absolutely cannot get CMPD response for broken windows, rowdy parties, ex-boyfriends banging on doors making threats. In fact, I’ve been told by one property owner he’s taken to just telling CMPD he thinks their might be meth lab operating in order to get someone rolling on property crimes.
Finally, someone explain how we’ll tell if this policy is a success. By fewer 911 calls to rental properties? Bzzt, fail. All landlords would be nuts to call CMPD for minor property crimes lest they fall into the “high crime” bracket and get zapped with the landlord tax. And landlords already in that bracket have a powerful incentive not to call 911 lest they get deemed a “problem” by city gnomes, triggering fines, and calls for a remediation plan. Best to just fix the window yourself and hike rent again. Or get out of the market entirely.
Is the intent to deny the local criminal class housing? If so, say so upfront. “We intend to swell the ranks of the homeless with violent repeat offenders so that we may….” What? Put them on buses to Raleigh?
What is the end game? Where do the people go who are committing crime once landlords, duly deputized into law enforcement, no longer rent to them? Do they stop committing crime? Commit less crime? How would we know if official city policy and informal CMPD inertia discourages 911 calls for property crime?
Seldom have I seen more smoke and mirrors — and more people willing to suspend disbelief.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Well said, Jeff.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:16 am
[...] The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » The Anti-Affordable Housing Ordinance [...]
December 12th, 2009 at 12:26 am
[...] The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » The Anti-Affordable Housing Ordinance [...]
January 14th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
[...] The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » The Anti-Affordable Housing Ordinance [...]
January 16th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
[...] The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » The Anti-Affordable Housing Ordinance [...]
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
[...] The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » The Anti-Affordable Housing Ordinance [...]
February 1st, 2010 at 10:56 pm
[...] The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » The Anti-Affordable Housing Ordinance [...]