Well I have finally been able to get my hands on a preliminary copy of the city of Milwaukee’s proposed mandatory rental inspection ordinance. The ordinance is sponsored by Alderman Kovac, Wade, Davis and Hines. The ordinance refers to the proposed program as a “Residential Rental Certificate” program. The program is really just a variation on “landlord licensing” and mandatorty rental inspection programs. I would encourage you to read the enitre proposed ordinance, but I have also set forth the key points below:
- This will be a 5 year pilot program.
- The targeted area includes the UWM area on the city’s east side and the Lindsay Heights neighborhood on the city’s north side. These areas were selected because the city believes the areas need to be monitored to prevent deterioration. Allegedly these two areas include older housing stock, have a high density of rental properties, have a higher percentage of complaints, and have high tenant turnover. The city feels that frequent inspections of the rental properties in these two areas are needed to maintain safe, decent, and sanitary living conditions.
- Every rental unit in the selected areas must apply for and receive a rental certificate before the owner is allowed to rent out the unit.
- The ordinance includes duplexes and larger multi-unit rental properties. Owner-occupied duplexes are excluded.
- The owner must also complete, sign and submit an application to the city that will include the owner’s legal name, the address of the rental property, the owner’s phone number, and the owner’s date of birth.
- A fee of $85 must accompany each rental unit application.
- Prior to the city issuing a rental certificate the unit will be subject to an internal and external inspection by the Department of Neighborhood Services (D.N.S.).
- DNS will conduct the inspection within 60 days of receipt of the application.
- The owner must notify the tenant at least 2 days in advance of the inspection.
- A fee of $50 will be imposed if DNS is unable to gain access to the unit for inspection.
- If during the inspection DNS finds a “disqualifying violation” (defined as a condition that affects safe, decent and sanitary living conditions or other conditions that violate the city building code, building maintenance code or zoning code) the unit will be issued a 1 year certificate.
- Any violation identified during the inspection must be abated within a reasonable amount of time (to be determiend by DNS).
- If conditions are found that are determined to constitute an imminent danger to health and safety, DNS shall order the condition to be remedied and may limit or prohibit occupancy where approporiate.
- DNS shall reinspect the unit as necessary to determine if any “disqualifying violations” have been remedied. A reinspection fee may be charged.
- If no disqualifying violations are found the unit will be given a 4 year certificate.
- A temporary certificate can be given for up to 30 days if the disqualifying violations do not constitute a hazard to the occupants of the rental and if a plan to correct the violations is submitted and approved by DNS.
- After the certificate expires the owner will be required to renew the certificate and submit to another inspection and pay another $85 fee per unit.
- If after the issuance of a 4 year certificate, DNS determines learns that there is a building or zoning code violation, the 4 year certificate can be revoked and the city can choose to replace the 4 year certificate with a 1 year certificate.
- If at any time after the issuance of a 4 year certificate or a 1 year certificate, DNS determines that there are building or zoning code violations that are critical and constitute an unsafe or unfit condition, the city can revoke the certificate.
- Any violation identified after a certificate has been issued must be abated within a reasonable amount of time (to be determiend by DNS).
- Any person who purchases a rental unit in the targeted areas must apply for a rental certificate and pay the accompanying fee within 30 days of the purchase.
- Any person that sells a rental unit in the targeted areas must notify the purchasor of the property that a residential rental certificate is required by the city.
- An owner that fails to apply for a residential rental certificate will be fined $100 for the first infraction. If the owner fails to respond to a subsequent notices by the city the fine will increase to $150.
- Residential rental inspection fees will be charged against the owner’s real estate and will be considered a “special charge.”
If you would like to contact your alderman you can find contact information here.
#1 by Craig Smith on October 21st, 2009
| Quote
I’m so glad I sold my last rental property in the city of Milwaukee ( UWM area). Dealing with young tenants and Milwaukee’s DNS makes owning rental property in the city difficult enough. Paying for additional dealings with DNS is complete insanity.
#2 by Kathy on October 21st, 2009
| Quote
I can’t access your links to the proposed rental inspection ordinance as I don’t have word press. Thanks for any help you can give me for this.
#3 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on October 21st, 2009
| Quote
Kathy — I will email you a PDF of it.
Thanks
T
#4 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on October 21st, 2009
| Quote
Craig – Thanks for your comment. I am hearing more and more landlords say this (they are glad they sold or are thinking of selling off their rentals) about all of their rental properties in Milwaukee. As my post earlier this week commented — what would the city do without us?????
#5 by Brian on October 22nd, 2009
| Quote
There are a multitude of questions that come to mind, i.e., how can they issue a 4 yr. (or 1 yr.) “certificate” if they can turn right around and revoke it?,..but I’ll try to contain myself.
1. How can they demand that a citizen give up his state statutory rights of trespass, etc., and his constitutional rights to be free from warrantless searches, by demanding that he allow “internal and external” searches of his property?
2. If he refuses to relinquish those civil rights and is then forbidden to rent his property that he has invested his money in, why is that not a government “taking” of his private property?
3. How can he be compelled to disclose personal and private information to a government agency who will make it public in this day and age of identity theft? Isn’t that a violation of his liberty interests?
4. Is the apt. assn. going to stand up to these people?
Thank you.
#6 by billie on October 22nd, 2009
| Quote
Brian,
do not get distracted by the details of the program. It is not about collecting fees, its about stealing the real estate. These “code compliant” areas are the 2nd step to “saving the neighborhood”. They are the “legal” versions of the same tactics that drove Savage out of Merril Park, LaPlant out of the area of Lisbon to North Ave. 17th to 27th before a non-profit developer came in. Same thing in the area from North to Center, 4th to 12th. What was Goven – Mazat’s official role in BI? What was his “actual” role?
If you want to know who is behind this, look at who benefits from it? This is the same kind of stuff that UW-Madison did just before they went crazy building student housing.
#7 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on October 22nd, 2009
| Quote
Brian — All good and valid concerns. The National Apartment Association has an article all about the constitutional challenges to these “landlord licensing” ordinances across the country. DNS gave us a copy of the article when they told us about their planned program. The article in essence summarizes all of the legal challenges that the various municipalities have brought against these types of programs — and they have all lost. I will try and post the article later today for all to read. That being said – legal challenges are expensive and based on past challenges, not successful.
Yes, the AASEW is doing all that it can to prevent this ordinance from passing. We discuss it at every meeting telling people to call their alderman. I have mentioned it at all of my seminars in the past few months. I have posted this information onthis blog, on my twitter account and on my facebook account. I have personally spoken with over 50 landlords on the topic. We will be sending out a mailing to our members about the proposed ordinance in the near future. We have tried organizing as many of the east side landlords as possible on this topic. We have also provided our members with some of the top arguments against the ordinance – “talking points” if you will.
Now we need each and one of you to speak out, talk to your alderpersons and inform your tenants about what this will do to them (loss of privacy and increase in rent) and suggest they speak out as well.
#8 by Dave on October 22nd, 2009
| Quote
Perhaps DNS should consider requiring all TENANTS to become licensed. This could include an application fee for mandatory tenant training, as well as processing of a thorough criminal, employment and rental background check.
Only those tenants in possesion of a current, valid tenant license would be eligible to rent.
The justification would be the decrease in court and law enforcement costs dealing with problem tenants.
Just a thought…
#9 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on October 22nd, 2009
| Quote
I had an incorrect link to the proposed ordinance – sorry about that. The correct link is now up and ready to go.
T
#10 by Anonymous on January 17th, 2010
| Quote
It is a sad state of affairs when such an ordinance passes. One might say that it can be challenged in court, but think again. The courts have largely become a rubber stamp of government decisions. After all, if one brings an action against the “state” you are asking a court to rule against an entity that pays his/her salary. So much for the separation of powers concept, because that is what it really is, a concept, and rarely, and indeed very rarely, put into practice. I wish they would stop teaching such ideals in the primary schools, since it is largely and effectively a farce.
#11 by lynda williams on December 2nd, 2010
| Quote
i need help or guidance for Ythe tickets and fines that DNS is charging my properties, they went into my gararge and took away and destroyed all my belongs, use with a three strikes against me…i went before the admin. appeal board…who dissmiss my appeal without hearing them…and this is a continuing practice of them entering my property and demand i discard picnic tables chairs person things…if you can help me to find someone to look at these orders of mines and help to file a lawsuit against the city dept of neighorhood service
#12 by lynda williams on December 2nd, 2010
| Quote
PLEASE WILL YOU PROVIDE ME THE NAME OF FELLOW PROPERTIES OWNERS WHO HAS BEEN DISCRIMNATED AGAINST BY THE DEPT. OF NEIGHBORHOOD SREVICE…A SUPPORT GROUP …SOMEONE WHO HAS FILED A SUIT OR HAS EXPERIENCE THANK YOU
#13 by lynda williams on December 2nd, 2010
| Quote
AGAIN PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE NAMES OF A CONTACT PERSON FOR HELP NAME AND NUMBER
#14 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on December 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Ms. Williams — I will reply to you via your private email to give you the name of someone who may be able to assist you. You may want to also consider joining the AASEW (Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin) in terms of being able to talk with other landlords in similar situations. The webiste for the AASEW is http://www.apartmentassoc.org.