Posted by Brian (UT) on January 19, 2006 at 12:03:02:
Jeff
I would also be concerned if I were a mere homeowner because it is taking options away from me. What if I wanted to buy a new home and keep the old home for my retirement income, I would need to retrofit the property because it is now a rental. Or if I was transfered for a few yeats and planned to return, or it is a tough market and I’m trying to sell, can’t find a buyer and can’t do a short term rental to help cover double payments.
Legal battles are costly but this reminds me of when the lenders were redlining and said they weren’t discriminating except ecomonically, seems many of the same issues are envolved here. Maybe there is a hot shot attorney in the area who would be willing to take on city hall with a class action suit by the landlords and concerned homeowners.
Hello:
I am an investor in low income properties. Over the last few years, some of the municipalities in which I invest have begun to adopt new ordinances, in an attempt to dissuade investors from investing in their municipality, and renting to low income people. For instance, one borough adopted an ordinance which states that any home that is transferring from “owner-occupant” to a rental has to be sprinklered (cost $8000 to $15000 on properties valued at $40,000). As I see it this is an attempt to discriminate against the low income tenants. It seems to me that this is “unequal protection” since they do not require the sprinklers in owner-occupied properties. This ordinance is now filtering to surrounding municipalities since they see how effective it is in the first borough. Any ideas on how to fight this without spending tons of money?
Re: How to fight new ordinances - Posted by River City
Posted by River City on January 18, 2006 at 11:45:11:
Maybe you should attend the meetings where these decisions are made. They should be open to the public, even if you cannot speak at them. After the meetings you can send comments to all of the members on the boards and express your feelings.
Generally, there is a reason why these ordinances are passed. When a person lives in their own home, they tend to take better care of the home and the yard. Renters sometimes take care of the inside of the home and leave the outside (other than mowing) to the owners. If the outside appearance is not maintained, the prices of all of the homes around it is affected. People want the resale values of their homes to go up, not down.
Thanks for the reply. We already go to the meetings, and even speak at some of them. I was looking more for a legal angle, since I do not believe what they are doing is fair or equitable.
I take exception to what you say about renters. I, as a responsible LL, make sure that my tenants take care of the property, both inside and out. If you drove past my properties, you would have no idea that they are rentals. Why, therefore, are the municipalities punishing me? They already have ordinances about taking care of the properties, and if the person living there is not fullfilling their obligations, be they a tenant or an owner occupant, they can be fined. The city/borough can cite the owner, to have the problem corrected.
However, this sprinkler thing basically takes us out of business, due to the cost of a retrofit. They are really hurting their owner occupants, since each of these homes is now worth LESS to an investor. It may be worth the same as it was to a new ower/occupant, but, since there are less buyers, the value of that property should, in theory, go down. My other comment is why do the boroughs only wish to protect the renters??? Are the lives of the owner/occupants worth less that the lives of the renters. If you wish to protect your residents by having a sprinkler ordinance, it should apply to ALL properties, not just rentals. That is what I wish to fight. Any ideas???
Best bet, get together with the other landlords in the area and start a campaign against the ordinance. Both political and legal. Your argument about equal protection seams sound, at least as an arguing position. Jointly fund a lawyer and drag the county through court. Make them pay for trying to pass this orgdinance. And make sure everyone knows they are paying to pass such a discriminatory rule. Meanwhile raise the political side of the issue. Court the people and explain to them how this ordinance affect them in the long run as well. Lost possible income, opportunities, the unfairness of it all, etc. A nice point to add would be that a court ruling against this ordinance could very well force this ordinance on everyone else as well. Course this has to be worded very carefully as you want to turn the homeowners’ fears against those in power not your group. At the same time you can try to frame the issue as a cause of liberty or the rich trying to force something unaffordable onto the poor. Who’s to say this ordinance wouldn’t expand to the other homeowners at some point as well and then only the rich among them will be able to stay in the neighborhood. Some time on TV decrying this discrimination against the poor would also be helpful. Perhaps with the assistance of renters consisting of the nice old ladies or very young kids crying on the TV how the evil local government was trying to kick them out of their home. Harse politics but very effective. I’m sure a few lamintating grandmothers or toddlers on TV will work wonders for your position. Good luck.