More Muscle
By Scott Rochat
Originally published 02:11 p.m., October 1, 2007
Updated 02:11 p.m., October 1, 2007
Natalia Barb shows the mold that is growing in her carpet along with the rusted and damaged air conditioner in her bedroom closet. The mold is so bad that at one point Barb had a mushroom growing out of her carpet.
When Natalia Barb saw the mushroom growing through her bedroom carpet, she knew it was time to move.
Barb knew her one-bedroom Emporia apartment was no palace. At $295 a month, you don’t get Trump Tower. But a college freshman’s budget only goes so far, and when she first moved in about two months ago, the place seemed dirty but livable.
That was before she saw the cockroaches in the broken dishwasher.
Or the mold growing around the bedroom closet.
Or the leaking air conditioner with visible rust.
After all that, maybe she shouldn’t have been surprised when a visiting friend found the fungi.
Steep and worn stairs lead to the second floor of an apartment building. There are no lights to illuminate the stairs at night.
“I stared at that for 20 minutes,” said Barb, an 18-year-old English major at Allen County Community College’s Burlingame campus. “It started getting me angry. By the time I got to work, I had the newspaper in my hand and was calling other landlords. The mushroom was the breaking point.”
Barb’s one of the lucky ones. She’s moving out. She can stretch her wages as a server to cover another $20 a month for a better place with an attentive landlord. Others can’t, she said.
“It’s just a bad situation for everybody — except the people who are trying to take advantage of people,” Barb said.
She wants tougher rules for Emporia rentals. And she may just get her wish.
Seeking standards
Wires hang out of where lights should be to illuminate a steep and worn set of stairs that lead to apartments on a second floor.
Most agree that Emporia has only four or five “slumlords” who rent substandard houses or apartments. But fixing the situation hasn’t been easy.
State law lets a tenant break the lease if a rented home isn’t livable and the rent is paid, but it doesn’t require the landlord to repair the property. And most city efforts to make that a requirement collapsed of their own bureaucratic weight.
Finally, in 2003, Emporia enacted a bare-bones set of standards for rental housing. Landlords would have to provide safe wiring, working heat, decent bathroom plumbing and other basics. If the rental wasn’t up to snuff, a tenant could complain to the city, get the property looked at and maybe take the landlord to court.
Problem solved, right? Not exactly.
First, few renters stepped forward. In the first year of the housing standards, 313 people called the city — but only 23 signed a formal complaint that would let the city take action. Last year, only about 30 complaints were made. Making a complaint means giving a name, and some city officials think the tenants may fear landlord retaliation.
“If you’re renting a house with all these troubles and you make the landlord mad enough that you have to leave, where do you go from there?” asked former City Commissioner Tom Myers, who was instrumental in getting the standards adopted. “A Maytag box?”
Second, a tenant in a bad situation may get sick of it and decide to move out. Understandable — but if it happens before the house or apartment has been inspected, the city can’t go any further, even if a complaint has been made. None of last year’s complaints ever went to court.
Reader poll
Should the city of Emporia beef up its rental housing standards?
- Yes
- No
- Not sure
84 total votes.
“Once the tenant has left the property, we don’t have the authority to compel the landlord to let us in and see if repairs were made,” said Patty Gilligan, the city’s human resources coordinator.
“When we were adopting this, I was not aware that was going to be an issue,” she said. “The first time a landlord let the person move out, our inspector asked ‘If they’re not renting, how do I get someone to let me in?’ The city attorney’s answer was ‘There’s nothing really that you can do,’ so we dropped it.
“Doing it on a complaint basis was not a good long-term solution.”
Getting tough
Good or bad, that’s how it stayed for a while. But earlier this year, a new city manager and a mostly new city commission decided it was time for rental housing standards to move again to the front burner.
After a goal-setting session, city leaders asked the appointed Human Relations Commission to study the issue and come up with a policy that had some teeth and would let the city get a handle on just how many rental properties were out there. (There are believed to be nearly 3,000 but nobody’s certain.)
And of course, in a tight budget time, the program would have to be self-funded.
“I think we’ve given them something that meets all those qualifications,” said Myers, who is now the Human Relations Commission’s newest member.
He’s already satisfied with one aspect of the new proposal crafted by the board over the summer: it’s not purely complaint-driven. Instead, a city inspector would visit each rental property at least once every four years to make sure it meets the standards.
“I always thought that complaint-driven was a way of passive-aggressively saying ‘Yeah, we’ve got a standard,’ and not actually doing much with it,” Myers said.
Under the proposal, landlords would have to buy a license and renew it each year. The initial fee can range from $25 a year to rent out a single home up to $550 for a property with more than 50 units.
Renewals would likewise range from $15 to $500. And the fee is per site, so a landlord with a 10-apartment building in one part of town ($110 fee) and a 20-apartment unit elsewhere ($180 fee) would pay an initial cost of $290.
Landlords would have a six-month grace period to make sure their properties were up to the new standards, after which inspections would begin. Properties that had drawn complaints (which could be made anonymously or by a neighbor) would be top priority, followed by any property that had recently changed hands.
After that would come the routine inspections, moving from older to newer neighborhoods.
The standards themselves are a bit more extensive than the wallet-sized rules passed in 2003, but they’re still mostly concerned with basics. A quick version of the standards would run something like this:
• Roofs must have no leaks and be of a good material.
• Attics should be well-insulated (at least R-13).
• Vents should connect to the outside of the building.
• Homes should be reasonably free of mold, moisture and standing water, though some dampness in the basement or crawlspace may be acceptable.
• Ceilings and floors should be safe.
• Stairways should be secure, lit and where possible, have handrails.
• The door to the outside should be lit and have secure floorboards and steps. Outside steps and porches or balconies should have a railing.
• Bedrooms and nearby hallways should have a smoke detector, though the tenant can be made responsible for the batteries.
• Locks should work and doors and windows should be reasonably sealed. No broken or missing windowpanes.
• Sheds and other accessory buildings should have a latch and possibly a lock.
• Plumbing should work and have no leaks. The kitchen must have its own sink.
• The bathroom must have a shower or tub, a sink and a toilet. Waste pipes must carry the sewage out of the home.
• Gas connections have to be properly put in and maintained.
• The water heater should be able to heat water to 110 degrees.
• Wiring should be safe and properly installed and maintained.
• Any heating and cooling equipment should be properly installed and the home’s heating equipment should be able to maintain a 60-degree temperature.
None of it, Myers said, is terribly out of line.
“These are very reasonable basic standards — that you won’t fall through the floor or the ceiling won’t be falling on your head, or sewage won’t be running out into your backyard,” he said.
Failing an inspection would cost $100 plus an inspection fee of $75 to $250. Other offenses, such as failing to keep an appointment or not getting a license, could range from $50 to $500.
To Gilligan, a tougher system is long overdue.
“The landlords think this is just between them and the tenant, but more and more, we get calls from people who are neighbors to a substandard property,” she said. “People are tired of tolerating it.”
The proposal is scheduled for discussion at the Emporia City Commission’s Oct. 10 study session. And there’s bound to be plenty of that. Because while the draft policy certainly has its fans, its critics are far from silent.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
JessicaNelson (anonymous) says...
STRAHM is a slumlord. he owns the dumps on Beverly street. He showed me a basement rental once, and it was absolutely disgusting. It was horrible. It was like he rummaged through the city dump, found the oldest, nastiest, most repulsive crap he could find and came up with this basement. Beware when people like this guy put an "all bills paid" bandaid on his crappy rental properties.
October 1, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gpaul519 (anonymous) says...
Am I missing something ?? Does Natalia live in Emporia or Burlingame ?? I thought that the subject was Emporia housing ?? Also it states that Natalia had lived in the apartment two months ?? Did Natalia ever notify her "Landlord" of the problem ? Landlord's can"t fix things unless they know about them.
October 1, 2007 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gpaul519 (anonymous) says...
Question for Jessica. OK so you didn't like the place but no one made you live there if you didn't want to. I assume that you found a place more to your likeing. It's called freedom of choice. Problem solved.
October 1, 2007 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
You sound like a slumlord, gpaul. I left a post for you on the other thread that accompanies the editorial. You are being way too defensive here, and very unreasonable. What is more, you use the excuse of freedom of choice? In other words, Slumlords should be allowed to rent out rat holes as long as people choose to live in them? What about people who can't afford anything else? You gonna take advantage of them? Just push them into your rat hole and take the money and run, is it? That is deceitful, dishonest, and immoral !!!
I helped take the last census in Emporia, and I personally have seen several rentals in this town that shouldn't be used to house animals, some even without running water. Yes! Some with rotting front porches and sewage running out the backyard. Wood takes a long time to rot. These are problems that didn't crop up overnight. Where was the landlord? C'mon!
October 1, 2007 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
The slum lords in this city are a huge problem, particularly in the city's core. They have several negative effects. First, they prey on people who live at the low edges of our economy. They do nothing to fix these places up. Many of the renters are afraid to complain because they will either be evicted or will have to put themselves at the mercy of the next slum lord. Second, they take advantage of those of us who improve our properties and pay the tax increases that go with the improvements. Since we moved here in 1999 our real estate taxes have close to doubled. Doubled! Over that same period the slum lord who lives catty corner from us has had an increase of about $80 on his. He does nothing to the property but profit and reaps the benefit of a low valuation (low taxes). There's something fundamentally unjust about that.. Third, for reponsible homeowners wanting to sell and move on the slum lords create another huge problem. People don't want to move into homes with eyesores like that in the neighborhood. So, there are a lot of empty homes that people have just abandoned.
It's okay that the city is studying the problem, but what we need is action, and it shouldn't cost $100,000 to fix it. There's a way that these programs can be self-funded. If the slum lords don't want to fix these gruesome properties then they should pay severe penalties. There are other mechanisms to fix the problem as well.
October 1, 2007 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
offc_grl76 (anonymous) says...
Ok I can say I rented a place on Beverly Street from Mr. STRAHM and never never never had a problem. Unfortunately, we had to move due to health reasons and could not live next door to a smoker. So we moved into another rental house that unknown to us until after we signed the lease was infected with cockroaches, mice, and snakes. My daughter's bedroom had a hole in the floor allowing the creatures to come in. We had to call our landlord numerous times to come out and fix our furnace which was leaking gas and never was fixed. The toilet was leaking. The landlord ROBERT SPARKS kept promising us that things would be fixed and never were. 3/4 of the windows wouldn't open so if there was ever a fire we couldnt get out or my daughter couldn't get out from her room.We ended up calling the city and they came out and found faulty wiring and faulty plumbing and finally made him fix it. I agree we need to have tougher standards when it comes to our landlords. EVERYONE DESERVES A NICE PLACE TO LIVE, EVEN IF YOU ARE ONY PAYING $229 MOTNH.
October 1, 2007 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporian (anonymous) says...
Funny, the one I was thinking of was mentioned first. Something needs to be done, what I am not sure of yet, but something.
October 1, 2007 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
techie (anonymous) says...
I can remememebr my first apartment on my own. i was young It was "managed" by Farm and Home. There was no heat, it was a basement apartment also no ac and only one window with no screen. It was at the warmest 40 degrees all winter. In the summer it got so hot the floors would sweat with humidty. I complained many times about the cold, I was sick for three months straight. I was always told "No one has ever complained before." i was young and the was my first place on my own.
Occasionally I drive by and feel sorry for the people that might live there now.,
October 1, 2007 at 7:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JessicaNelson (anonymous) says...
i dont care what anyone says. im in this girls shoes. its a buncha crap no matter which way you look at it. period.
October 2, 2007 at 1:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bigearl2 (anonymous) says...
Sad and what is also crazy , nothing will be done about it ! There is not enough affordable nice and clean apartments to rent here in Emporia. So even though we might complain , no actions will be taken. Maybe a slap on the wrist.
October 2, 2007 at 3:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (Gwen Larson) says...
Sorry all. I meant to get a poll attached to this story when it posted yesterday. I'm sure all of you will continue visiting, however, so feel free to vote now that it's added.
Gwen Larson
October 2, 2007 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Good, gwen, I'm so glad you posted that poll. This story and the accompanying editorial is going to create a huge backlash of comment on both threads. We are all either renters or property owners who have been impacted by slumlords in one way or another, and we are all ready for the city to make changes. Oh sure, slumlords are going to complain, but too bad for them. Sounds like the wheels of change have begun to roll. I'm glad to see names being mentioned too.
Netloafer nails it down tight when he describes the problem for property owners who end up losing property value because neighboring slumlords won't improve their rentals. Key word, WON'T. I've run into that in my neighborhood too and it is frustrating. But that is not the primary reason for needing change to occur, people are. People must have decent housing, period!
October 2, 2007 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I think the Gazette is doing a great public service here. Kudos to Scott Rochat on his last hurrah. Now what we need to do is keep the pressure on the city and the slum lords. This problem has festered far too long.
I think the Gazette would do well to keep this issue in the limelight. I think it would take some courage, but I think it would help to identify the slum lords by name and hold them up to public scrutiny.
October 2, 2007 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
Landlords definately need to be held to a higher standard, however the tenants need to understand that they are also part of the problem. My family owns many college campus located rentals (different city). We get young people in who stay one year and trash the heck out of a place and then leave behind their crap for us to deal with. We've gone into apts a week after they left and found their pets left behind!
Carpet, drywall, broken toilets, et al all cost money and we have to try to average that out and figure out what to charge for rent.
If a tenant would move in, take care of the place, and leave it in good condition for the next person.........we would wholeheartedly keep up repairs and fix problems. It gets disheartening to see how people take care of places though.
We are at the point of selling most of the properties to be developed into high rise/expensive condos that no student will ever be able to afford.
Fix the landlords sure, but fix the tenants while you are at it and you've got a win/win situation. Believe me, the one month security deposit will NOT cover most of the damages left behind.
October 2, 2007 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bigearl2 (anonymous) says...
I remember a friend who has 6 kids rented a 2 story house that was leaning (unsafe )
their gas bill was over $600 due to when you stood outside of the windows you could feel the heat coming from the inside of the house. Landlord did nothing . Raw sewage ran in the basement , Landlord did nothing ! She was force to move due to the gas bill was over $1200.(past due) When the weather got warm her service was shut off.
October 2, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LocalGuy (anonymous) says...
BILLS PAID/ NEAR ESU
1 - 6 bedrooms. Nice. $295. Ask details.
620-757-1220.
This guy is a Slumlord. He goes by Bill his real name is Billal Syed or something close to that. He is awful and has properties all over Emporia. I rented from him for a short period of time and I had a problem with the electricty. He sent over one of his friends who had know idea what he was doing and the guy actually asked me which wire is the Hot wire. Everyone beware of this SLUMLORD.
October 2, 2007 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
offc_grl76 (anonymous) says...
Kstrebuchet: You absolutely hit the nail on the head when it came to BOB SPARKS. Everytime we would go to his house to talk to him he was outside drinking a beer. When we moved into his rental he promised to paint the house, NOT DONE, said he would replace the garage door opener, HE DID, with a USED ONE THAT DIDNT WORK, then tried to charge us to fix it. I AM GLAD TO SEE THAT THIS SUBJECT WAS BROUGHT TO LIGHT, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO PROTECT THOSE WHO RENT.
"offc_grl, I happen to know Bob Sparks or at least have met him several times , he has ALWAYS come across as a slumlord, he owns SIXTEEN properties that I know of and I have Never seen him doing anything except sitting around bragging about all his property, the money he makes and drinking a beer, I have watched him turn in all his neighbors to the city when they try to make improvements to their homes, making sure they have all the proper permits, licensed contractors,etc., all the while he sits on his porch and does NOTHING to improve his rathole rentals."
RENTERS BEWARE IS ALL I CAN SAY
October 2, 2007 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bigearl2 (anonymous) says...
Alot of feedback on this topic, means there is a problem ! Question How do we fix it?
October 2, 2007 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
Who are the A+ landlords and who is nominated for the bottom 10?
October 2, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Bigearl, you're absolutely right. This amount of feedback can only mean one thing, and that thing is trouble, right here in our city, trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with G and that stands for Gouging. (couldn't resist)
This series of articles is exactly what we have needed in this town in order to expose the problems with slumlords. Public outcry should be loud and ugly to keep it at the forefront. We need to all remember the date of the commission hearing and be there. That date is in the other article, I think the 10th.
October 2, 2007 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
been_there (anonymous) says...
I own two rental properties in Emporia and at one time had four. I don't consider myself to be a bad landlord. I fix anything that needs attention in both locations, usually the day after it is brought to my attention. In my experience, I have kept the rent low and am NOT making a profit, they barely cover the mortgage. One of my properties is a 2 bedroom, 20 year old ranch that was completely remodeled in the past 3 years that I rent for $400 a month and the taxes on it have doubled in the past ten years. I have kept these properties over the years for the sole purpose of my children being able to use them as a stepping stone when the time came and to know that they would be living in a decent home without having someone take advantage of them. Of all the renters I have had over the past 15 years, and there haven't been that many since most were long term renters, all but one have gone on to BUY their own properties. Except for the one couple, I have never had problems with the properties being destroyed in any fashion. I feel that because I kept the rent reasonable, the renters treated my property with a little more respect.
I do see the properties that are being mentioned and I agree that something needs to be done. I don't feel that making property owners PAY to have a license or PAY to have the properties inspected is the answer. I agree to have my property inspected as many times a year as the city wants and then FINE me according to their policy. I think the whole paying to have rental properties is yet another way the commisioners feel they can get more money out of the already over-taxed taxpayers. Why should the majority of decent landlords and property owners have to suffer for the likes of Bilal, (I too have SEEN his properties and know how he treats his renters).
But, while you are at it, if you are going to make a landlord PAY to have houses inspected, why not make ALL property owners pay to have their properties inspected? Shouldn't all home owners have to be held to the same 'reasonable living expectations'? Are you saying it is okay for someone to allow ANY of these unsafe or unhealthy conditions to exist in their own properties just because they own them? Please don't assume I am being defensive because I have nothing to be defensive about, just feel that everyone should be held to the same standards.
October 2, 2007 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gpaul519 (anonymous) says...
response to kstrebuchet
Yes, problems should be addressed by the landlords when they are brought to their attention. That's my point, the tenant needs to promptly bring the problem to his or her landlord to be resolved. In the vast majority of landlord tenant relationships that is all that is needed. The landlord wants and needs to know when there is a problem to be addressed. Problem solved, no City intervention needed. The tenant needs to show that they first attempted resolution with their landlord. The way this proposal is written up the tenant is advised to file a inspection request direct with them (the City.) They come out and see the problem and bill the landlord $100.00 for a violation and a follow up inspection fee of another $75 for something as simple as a missing window screen. Also, heaven forbid you miss your follow up inspection that's another $100 plus. You think I'm making this up ?? Get a copy and read it for yourslef.
October 2, 2007 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I agree that we need to target the areas of neglect, irresponsible landlords, homeowners, and renters as well. I would hope that responsible landlords homeowners, and renters would support that aim, rather than working against reform. They need to join with us to fix the problem rather than protecting their turf.
I think we need to be at the meeting on the 10th and start to work our way through the issues and come up with community consensus. It can be done. It can be targeted to eliminate the profiteering, neglect, etc. And, it can be self-funded.
Once we get past the first few meetings the community needs to keep the pressure on. This local government seems to respond to pressure. We just need to hold them and the slumlords accountable for fixing the problem.
October 3, 2007 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I agree with tre and netloafer. First, that landlords should make sure their properties are in good shape to begin with even before they rent them out. That's not happening now or we wouldn't be having this backlash of commentary, or even a front page feature in the Gazette.
Next, that we need to attend the meeting on the 10th so we can iron out problems with the current system and work toward an agreement. Renters need to attend too because their input is invaluable. And keep this pressure up, yes.
The number one problem seems to be slumlords who either don't fix what is broken, or like BOB SPARKS did, actually CHARGE tenants for fixing things. You can't do that! The landlord is already taking that repair off his income taxes, then he charges on top of that? Boy does he need an IRS audit or what?
October 3, 2007 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Apparently this series of articles is hitting home. I was at the hardware store today when I overhead a couple nearby. She was telling him that they needed to fix something because of the city commission passing some "new property laws." For his answer, read between the lines. "F 'em. Those ------- ers can't tell me what to do. It's private property! *(&%$## !!!"
There you have it. This is gonna get ugly before it gets better.
October 3, 2007 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )