The city of Milwaukee is planning on introducing a new ordinance that will require rental property owners in certain parts of the city to license their rental properties and submit to mandatory interior inspections by the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS).
Many of the AASEW board members have been having regular monthly meetings with the new DNS Commissioner Art Dahlberg. During a recent meeting Mr. Dahlberg informed us that in the near future he will be pushing for some form of residential rental inspection program (a.k.a “Landlord Licensing”) for portions of the city. During a meeting with Alderman Bob Donovan it was confirmed that this program was in the works and that the city’s forthcoming budget already has money earmarked for the program.
Under this program DNS would target certain areas of the city which they consider to be “blighted” or which will soon become “blighted” if something is not done. Other factors that would be considered in determining what areas to target would be the age of the housing stock, the percentage of rental units to owner occupied properties, and the history of complaints in the neighborhood. Mr. Dahlberg indicated that the area of the city that would most likely be addressed first would be the east side near UWM due to the large number of illegally converted dwelling units and poorly maintained properties.
The goal of the program would allegedly be for the owners and the city building inspectors to work together to better the rental housing stock with the building inspectors becoming a resource for rental property owners.
While the specific details were not provided to me, any proposed program will most certainly contain provisions such as the following:
- A requirement that all rental property owners in the targeted area pay a fee to the city for each unit that they own.
- A requirement that rental property owners allow the city building inspectors to conduct mandatory inspections of the interiors of each of their rental properties that are located within the targeted area.
- If no code violations are found then the rental property would receive a certificate of code compliance which would allow the owner to rent out the unit for a period of time until the next mandatory interior inspection would be required.
- If code violations were to be found in the rental property then the owner would be denied a certificate of code compliance (thus preventing the unit from being rented) until the violations were corrected. Depending on the the number and severity of the violations, the rental property owner would be required to submit to an increased number of interior inspections during the ensuing months until the city would determine that the rental property was safe.
While this new program would only focus on the UWM area initially, other areas of town were also mentioned (the north side of Milwaukee for instance) as being targeted eventually. It is fairly obvious that the end goal would be to have all rental properties within the city under this program.
I personally am not in favor of this program and I can’t imagine that many landlords would be. If passed this new ordinance will be yet another regulation on rental property owners - a group that is already overly regulated. I can’t imagine that tenants are going to enjoy this invasion of their privacy either. Not to mention that the additional costs to landlords will most likely be passed on to the tenant by increased rents. I also personally have difficulty with the fact that the city regularly threatens to cut the number of police, refuse overtime for police, eliminate the number of firemen at ladder companies, and close libraries, but yet they are willing to provide additional money for the hiring of more building inspectors.
While the alleged goal of this residential rental recording program is to improve the quality of the housing stock in the city I can’t help but think that it will also be a source of revenue for a city that allegedly is broke.
This proposed ordinance will be addressed in more detail in my future posts.
To read why this program is not a good idea click here.
To read the text of a study conducted by the LaFollette Institute in 2002 on whether or not Landlord Licensing should be implemented in Milwaukee click here. To read a summary of the the study concluding that Landlord Licensing would casue more harm then good if implemented in Milwaukee click here.
For more information go to www.rentalinspectionprogram.com
#1 by Dan on September 10th, 2009
| Quote
This is a great idea. Landlording is far too unregulated and far to consequential for neighborhood quality of life not to have policies like this.
It now appears that at least one of the July murders in Riverwest and a second shooting both occurred at the hand of a young thug with a clear, recent criminal record in another city who moved directly from jail to his East Side landlord’s Riverwest property. The non-fatal shooting he committed 12 hours after the first homicide occurred at a second site that is a major chronic nuisance, also owned by an East Side landlord and marked for inspection by DNS for possible abandonment.
Irresponsible, clueless landlords are the main enablers of blight and criminal behavior. This is something I’ve seen proved true time after time. Landlord compacts with police and neighborhood associations or similar groups are also needed from people who don’t want to live in victim neighborhoods.
#2 by Nicholas Crawford on September 10th, 2009
| Quote
Sounds like the only real way to clean-up disastrously under-maintained properties and to find the illegally occupied rental properties all over. Do you have a better option? Because our current system is broke.
#3 by dw on September 10th, 2009
| Quote
So, if tenants are living in the property, the city can say that they want to inspect it and they have to be let in? Doesn’t this seem like a warrant-less invasion of privacy? Maybe the city should make a simple website detailing all the codes so renters can see if their place is up to code (or has been illegally divided into too many apartments, etc).
#4 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on September 10th, 2009
| Quote
Yes, under this proposed ordinance the landlord will most likley be required to obtain the tenant’s consent to allow the inspection/search. If the landlord cannot obtain that consent I am unaware of how the city will handle will respond since I have not yet seen the specifics. One option in that situation however could be for the city to refuse to grant the certificate to the landlord thereby causing him/her to not be able to rent the unit. If that is the case then you, the tenant, would have to move.
You have hit on a very significant issue with this proposed ordinance – namely that tenant’s unit and their property will be subject to a warrantless search. If that bothers you then you need to let the city know that you don’t appreciate them searching your home and speak out against the ordinance.
#5 by Linda on September 10th, 2009
| Quote
This is an excellent idea. I’m a landlord. I keep my properties up and it really tees me off when other landlords don’t. Every rental property should be liveable.
As for unwarrented searches… there must be a way to reach a compromise. I think that several weeks notice before a search is appropriate.
#6 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on September 10th, 2009
| Quote
Linda – Thanks for your comments. I agree that every apartment should be liveable. I think that if this ordinance is passed and if it makes its way to the Riverwest neighborhood that you might feel differently once you see how invasive the inspections can be and all the various little things that they write orders on — most of which have nothing to do with liveability and habitability.
#7 by Carrie on September 10th, 2009
| Quote
I think this is a fantastic idea as well. My block has several properties owned by absentee / slumlords and I would love to see them accountable for their blatant code violations — the few are ruining the peace for the many. If this is what it takes, I’m all for it!
#8 by Brian on September 11th, 2009
| Quote
As an individual who has been fighting the DNS on his own in court for 3 years over their warrantless inspections, I am dumbfounded by private property owners in this city who seem so willing to give up both their statutory and civil rights. This issue should not even be up for debate. There are at least 4 state statutes – 66.0119 Special inspection Warrants, 844.01 real estate private nuisance, 943.13 Trespassing, and 995 privacy – plus two city ordinances which protect private property owners. There is also an unpublished appellate court decision which I won in 2002.
It seems obvious to me – if you don’t stand up for your rights, no one else will.
#9 by Bill on September 11th, 2009
| Quote
This policy is a clear violation of our rights. If a tenant is not happy with the condition of a property, then they should not move there in the first place. The city is bad enough as it is. The only reason this is being pursued is so the city can collect more money from fines and penalties. This has nothing to do with the concerns of the poor, helpless tenants.
People, WAKE UP! Keep the government out of your personal lives before they end up taking them over.
#10 by Bill on September 11th, 2009
| Quote
To Dan (#1 comment above),
Way to take the responsibility off the criminal and blame the landlord. You sound like a foolish socialist who grew up in a sheltered environment. Riverwest is a dump. Why don’t you move somewhere safe like St Francis or Bay View?
You said “Irresponsible, clueless landlords are the main enablers of blight and criminal behavior.” Are you seriously that stupid? You are going to sit here and blame the landlords for the main reason behind criminal activity? Why don’t you get to the real root of the problem? Oh, that’s right, you are afraid to go down that road aren’t you.
Bill
#11 by Kavi on September 15th, 2009
| Quote
Bill, #10, let’s keep it civil. Some people like Riverwest and think it’s a great neighborhood, myself included.
I have several concerns with this proposal, including increased cost to the tenant (I am a renter), invasion of privacy, and also a concern for what happens to the people currently living in housing situations that are not up to code. It seems like they’ll simply be kicked out into the street when the landlord gets his/her certificate taken away for that property. If they can’t find another apartment they can afford, they may end up homeless or just move to another neighbor where the inspections are not yet required.
#12 by Jack on September 16th, 2009
| Quote
I have a serious problem with the city doing interior walkthroughs once a year. That’s a little too much big brother in my living room. Exterior inspections happen already and I suppose if they want to check the basement/attic, that’s fine. But I will move out of the city if they literally start coming into my bedroom, living room, bathroom, kitchen… What is happening to this country?
#13 by mike gibilian on September 17th, 2009
| Quote
If the Root of the problem is money, let the lawyers go for it.
Reports could be file on every address in the city and accessed just like drunk driving citations, strict and definite fair laws is all we can expect here.
The last traffic violation I heard about was followed up with several letters from attorneys. Documenting reports could be done by landlords, tenants or the public.
#14 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on September 17th, 2009
| Quote
Jack – Thanks for your comments. Please don’t move out of the city yet . . . instead help us to defeat this proposed ordinance if possible. Keep checking back to this blog or sign up to receive emails directly when I make a new post – and we will keep you up to date on this very important issue.
Thanks
T
#15 by curt on September 19th, 2009
| Quote
Milwaukee is making it increasingly difficult for landlords. 28% increase in water bills, higher property taxes, etc. We fix up our properties and by the time DNS gets to checking them, they can be broken again. Higher eviction costs,new fees, more regulations will face more landlords into foreclosure-especially the smaller ones. We cannot raise rents to keep up. This will eventually lead to less affordable housing in the city. More boarded up homes and duplexes-just what the city needs with no property taxes coming from these properties. A real smart idea by government.
#16 by Mary on September 20th, 2009
| Quote
I’ve owned apartments for over 8 years. My tenants are good and we are good to them. This would only create higher rents on my tenants because the landlord would have to include these costs into the rents. Just like the higher water bills and the outrageous taxes etc. That’s one reason landlords have a hard time putting anything back into the apartments, because of less money coming in. And if rents are as high as suburbs where would you move?
If you want landlords to put money into fixing the apartments better, make the laws and better court processes on tenants too. When tenants are in some rental programs you can’t get any thing back on damages they create by way of garnishment. And most security deposits are very minimum because people that rent generally don’t have it. So who usually has to pay the damage costs, or lost rent the LANDLORDS….
Start enforcing the responsibilities and pay back of damages and maybe you’d wouldn’t have all this blight. What is the ratio of landlord damages vs. tenant damages? Look at all the court cases on tenant damages or rent owed. Numbers do tell a lot.
A good suggestion would be to give ALL the landlords more opportunities for low interest loans to fix any apartment up located in Milwaukee, just like you have for homeowners in Milwaukee. And inspect what they do with using the interest rate money. Then while under the loan program for repayment if landlords are sighted for problems, up the interest rate or call the loan due, or add it to the tax bill, if not fixed in so many days. Why are there only programs for residential owners in certain areas and not multi family where many families call these their home?
There are no incentives for landlords anymore. Just because of some absentee landlords we all should have inspections? Make absentee landlords either fix it or offer the loan program and then the city gets the interest and the owner makes repairs. If not fine them.
As far as CCAP the open records law says it all. No one should have to pay for this. Our taxes and expenses are high enough…..This is absolutely a ridiculous proposal….
And this proposal would be one more thing for income property owners not to buy in Milwaukee……
#17 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on September 21st, 2009
| Quote
Curt — Thanks for taking the time to comment —– I feel your pain and agree 100%.
#18 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on September 21st, 2009
| Quote
Mary — You make many good points. A recent article in the Journal Sentinel mentions one of your issues as well —- it is very clear that the city needs landlords so why do they treat us so poorly. Check out my post from las week that mentions Patrick McIlheran’s J-S article. A public policy forum a few months ago came to the conclusion that there is not enough low-cost housing in Milwaukee and therefore the city needs more landlords to offer this housing. Well maybe the city should stop making it so difficult to be a landlord and maybe we could assit them in this endeavor.
#19 by Dan Knauss on September 22nd, 2009
| Quote
Bill–
Many landlords ARE criminals. Accusing people of “socialism” is getting pretty boring and stale these days. I guess Milwaukee wasn’t a complete hell-hole for most of the 20th Century when socialists ran everything, but I’m not into -isms. Facts and reasons are pretty good on their own; ideology is for the weak minds.
I’ve lived around and outside the country; Milwaukee is the most small-minded and segregated, fearful places I’ve ever been. I don’t live in Riverwest anymore; I moved westward to Harambee, which probably connotes even worse horrors to you. But on a 99% owner-occupied block of beautiful homes owned by people who look very different but are united in keeping things cool and safe, we have fewer crime-related problems than blocks around UWM.
Yes I did say “Irresponsible, clueless landlords are the main enablers of blight and criminal behavior,” and the City has been providing the data to prove it for years. I have watched in detail and compiled detailed cross-referenced profiles on a number of first and second tier scoundrels on the NE side. Massive deadbeats on taxes, major and extensive unabated code violations that end up in the courts, more evictions than any sensible screening would allow, and then the nastier court stuff pointing to personal problems–the restraining orders and threatening phone calls. The real dirtbags all resemble each other, and they typically live in a suburb, exurb, and sometimes the east side. If anyone wants to stick their head up as advocate for the poor victimized landlords, they better have a clean record because I will publish the whole thing as I have for years.
Just Google the name of guys like Tim Olson or Tim Brophy, or the address of any of their properties. Foreclosures and bankruptcy haven’t totally eliminated those two; Olson is currently part of the effort to bring a new strip club into the 5th ward.
You may enjoy this slice of history in particular:
http://www.riverwestneighborhood.org/news/news-briefs/1221-olson-pays-up-taxes-and-fines-some-znd-members-move-to-block-holton-st-development-anyway.html
#20 by Mark Twain on July 1st, 2010
| Quote
The landlords are not in favor because they would have to keep their property code compliant; the home owners are being ‘taxed’ from the expenses the City has for babysitting and chasing the landlords.
AS for ‘low cost housing-low cost housing = high price tenants-unemployed, single moms, disengaged, disenfranchised, felons, etc. We need more moderate and high price housing to attract working middle class and upper middle class families.
We have enough low cost housing to baby sit; if you can’t afford a decent place to live here go to Racine, Kentucky, or Arkansas