Rental code provokes comment
Some landlords are not big fans
By Brandy Nance
Originally published 01:34 p.m., October 11, 2007
Updated 01:34 p.m., October 11, 2007
It was standing room only Wednesday afternoon in the City Conference Room when the Emporia City Commission got its first look at the proposed rental codes.
Before the proposal to inspect and regulate rental housing was presented, Emporia Mayor Julie Johnson explained that after the spring election in April and shortly after City Manager Matthew Zimmerman came on board, the city held a series of sessions to discuss strategy and priorities. One thing that became apparent from those meetings, Johnson said, was a concern for available housing in Emporia and the need to improve the safety and physical appearance of the city.
The Human Relations Commission was asked to draft a proposal to address rental housing standards. The only stipulation was that any program developed be self-funded, Johnson said. Those recommendations, a 22-page packet of proposed standards and regulations, was presented to city commissioners and the public on Wednesday.
Before the discussion was opened up for public comment, city commissioners talked about their opinions and concerns.
Commissioner Kevin Nelson asked if the proposal would require a tenant to contact the landlord before filing a formal complaint.
“It looks like we’re jumping over that,” Nelson said, adding that if the landlord doesn’t know about any problems first, they have no way to fix the problem beforehand.
Tom Myers, a member of the Human Relations Commission, said contacting the landlord first needs to be a step in the process, it just wasn’t included in the proposal.
“We have a lot of sympathy for landlords who are not aware (of problems),” Myers said.
Commissioner Bobbie Agler voiced concerns over a provision that would allow anonymous reports of housing problems.
Steve Idhe, a member of the Human Relations Commission, said whether a report is filed anonymously or not, a relationship still has to be established and a description of why an inspection is needed needs to be provided.
“When you fill out a request form, there has to be substance to the reason for requesting an inspection,” Idhe said. “It needs to have merit.”
After about an hour of discussion and presentation of the proposed standards, Johnson opened up the floor for public comment. Landlords present at the meeting had a lot to say.
Ethel Carter, who manages Eastwood Lake Apartments, 1102 East St., commented on some of the research that was done for the proposed standards.
“Just because something has worked in one place doesn’t mean it will work somewhere else,” she said.
Gina Johnson of Cornerstone Residential said the research was done in other communities and people are not getting the correct information. She went on to ask if a tenant can file a complaint against a landlord, then can the landlord file a complaint against the tenants who are destroying property.
Carter said the Census Bureau said that one-third of a person’s income is typically spent on rent and that the proposal would put an added burden on renters. Improvements would cost landlords money and they would pass those costs on to tenants.
“When we up their rent they have less money for other things,” she said.
Carter said she has been in the apartment industry for many years, 10 of those years in Emporia.
“We want you to consider that this is not the way to go about it...” she said.
Emporia resident Phil Dillon said the proposed standards are a step in the right direction. Dillon said there are slumlords in his neighborhood and those property owners are paying lower taxes because of their decreased property value, which puts an additional burden on the other property owners. Dillon said it’s important for everybody to work together on the issue and that it can work for all involved.
“Responsible landlords aren’t going be swept up in this,” he said. “We need to work together to solve this problem. If we do, we will build value in properties.”
Other landlords in the room disagreed. Some told horror stories of what tenants have done to housing.
Landlord James Scott of Olpe said any community is going to have poverty.
“You can’t clean up poverty,” Scott said.
Scott didn’t disagree that there should be minimum housing standards. He voiced concerns about the costs of those standards being passed on to tenants who already are strapped for money. He asked what is going to happen to people who can only pay $200 or $300 in rent a month and their rent is raised to cover costs imposed upon landlords.
“What do you do with the poor people in Emporia?” he asked. “This has a large rippling effect in Emporia.”
Bruce Anderson of Anderson Property Management said he has been in property management for 13 years and has seen everything. He said to fully understand the issue with property management, people need to have seen what tenants do to property. He also said he doesn’t want government getting involved in private businesses.
“You have a committee that does not have the experience we have in managing properties,” Anderson said.
Landlord Becky Samuelson asked the commission to stay away from inexact terms such as “reasonably free.” Portions of the proposed regulations state that properties should be “reasonably free” of things such as mold.
“Resonably free by whose standards?” Samuelson asked.
Samuelson also wanted to know what is being licensed under the proposed standards — landlords, buildings or individual apartments.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Johnson said there would be more opportunities for the public to discuss proposed rental codes. The next meeting was tentatively set for 7 p.m. Oct. 22. The location will be announced later.
Other business
In other business, city commissioners discussed infrastructure improvement in parts of downtown Emporia following heavy rains that damaged downtown businesses. City Engineer Keith Beatty said nothing has been done with the storm drains in the downtown area since before the 1940s. He said major improvements would eventually be needed, but not in the near future. The improvements that he suggested Wednesday would cost about $25,000. The discussion then centered on how to pay for the improvements, which are not included in this year’s or 2008’s budget.
Commissioners also discussed a request to establish an Accessibility Advisory Committee in Emporia. The request was filed by Shanti Ramcharan, the director of the Office of Disability Services at Emporia State University and Carrie Boettcher, director of Community Outreach at the Resource Center for Independent Living. Zimmerman said the proposal will be evaluated further and brought back to commissioners at a future meeting.
emporian (anonymous) says...
Maybe make it mandatory an inspector inspect each apartment, house, etc before a new renter can move in. That way the landlord can recoup their monies from damaging tenants. This also allows them to look at an apartment and say this looks livable. Charge $25 per apartment, house, etc and a landlord could have a tenant pay the fee. I know I spend at least $25 on junk so it would be worth it for a prospective tenant. There could also be a complaint system, but this way a complaint could be handled and the inspector should to know if this is due to an existing problem or one caused by tenant abuse and/or neglect. Maybe they could take a couple digital pictures on the first inspection so they can be pulled up again in case a complaint is filed. If a complaint is filed and the landlord is found at fault, then any reinspection fees that may occur would then be the responsiblity of the landlord. If nothing is found no charge. If the complaint was filed maliciously by a tenant then the tenant pays for the reinspection.
It is also very hard to market our university with the housing situation so poor. Drive in the 1100 blk of Merchant and look at the houses that have been converted into apartments. Peeling paint, windows that seem to fit very loosely, poorly built accesses and egresses, etc. That is a landlord problem, but they are still profiting off of college students so why fix it. Unless you want to live in the dorms, there are very few "nice" apartments in this town that are financially feasible for college students. Low paying jobs combined with high housing costs do not make Emporia a desirable community for prospective college students unless Mommy and Daddy have a large pocketbook.
Just some ideas that I had folks. Take them for what they are worth...my opinion
October 11, 2007 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
Emporian posted: "Peeling paint, windows that seem to fit very loosely, poorly built accesses and egresses, etc. That is a landlord problem, but they are still profiting...." becasue there are people poor enough to put up with it.
This is the crux of the problem, and not just the exteriors we can all see. Why can't the bad landlords take pride in their properties? There are places like this all over town, but especially in the central part of the city, on highly visible routes like Merchant, 6th Ave, etc.
I once heard a guy bragging about how he'd fooled the inpsector by painting his furnace to hide asbestos. I heard another talking about why he wasn't going to fix an open sewer in the backyard--because his tenants were immigrants and "that's what they're used to."
There are two rancid rental homes on my otherwise lovely residential street--and the owners keep putting trashy, drinking, drug addicts in there, instead of fixing it up a bit to get a better clientele. We all suffer for their obstinancy.
As for tenants tearing things up, some landlords (not all!) need to realize that if you treat people like animals they are going to behave like animals. I had a landlord (Thomas Property Mngmt.) that kept me waiting 3 months without a functioning refrigerator. My choice? Break the lease and move from an otherwise perfect apartment, losing my deposit in the process. That can't be allowed to continue.
As much as it gripes these landlords, something has to be done! Emporia deserves better. (JMO)
October 11, 2007 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I too have heard bragging about not fixing open sewers, and fooling inspectors in a number of ways. These are the genuine slumlords that gave rise to the committee studying the problem to begin with. Unfortunately, too many landlords who are not slumlords are getting on the complaint wagon.
I do have a problem with this one: "Landlord James Scott of Olpe said any community is going to have poverty." and “You can’t clean up poverty,” Scott said.
What an idiot! Just because people are poor does not mean we should give them sub-standard housing to live in.
Well, well, well, Mr. Scott. What a fine pillar of the community you must be. I can only imagine what your properties look like.
October 11, 2007 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Mr. Scott's comment stunned me as well. Unfortunately it's indicative of the type of attitude of those here in Emporia who want nothing but the status quo. It reminds me a bit of an old western - "The Magnificent Seven" - The villain of the piece was the leader of a gang of thieves who were taking advantage of a village of poor Mexican farmers. His rationale was - "If God hadn't wanted them to be fleeced, He wouldn't have made them sheep."
We can do better than that. We should do better than that!
There's no doubt that there are responsible landlords in Emporia. That's not what this ordinance is about. It's about fixing this problem with slum lords. They have profited far too long at the expense of the poor and the rest of the community.
There is a meeting on the 22nd at 7PM. Those of us who want change need to be there to express our views.
October 11, 2007 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mickey66839 (anonymous) says...
If anyone that cares about what they pay for rent, then they will try to penny pinch. I have a friend that rented from farm and home, and they lived in the country, on the outskirts of emporia, they paid almost 900 per month, and every time i went there, i could smell backed up sewage. There roof leaked into buckets, and had mold growing in the basement that was so bad his kids were getting sick numerous times, i stopped going over there do to the smell in the basement, from sewage, and from the mold. They approached farm n home, and after 7 years in the residence, the problem still exists, so they finally moved into town. So whats complaining going to do to solve the SLUM lords fixing things .They said they couldnt live like that anymore. NOT FOR 900 monthly
October 11, 2007 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Mickey66839
There's no doubt that the problem is pervasive and it hasn't been dealt with for years and years. But we have an opportunity to change things. We've got to make our feelings known. At the meeting yesterday about the only people present were a large group of landlords. They're making their feelings known and they are a powerful lobby here. But we can change that if we become a larger, more vocal lobby. We've got to let the commission know where we stand and what we expect of them. If we don't do that there is absolutely no chance that things will change for the better. I understand the discouragement people have felt, but we can't lose heart. This is a battle we need to win and can win if we let our collective voices be heard.
October 11, 2007 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
techie (anonymous) says...
I hear the landlord keep talking about damages left by renters.. I thougt that is what security deposits were for. I know form many freinds that if there is damage above the cost they will quickly take the tenant to court if they can not get their money.
October 11, 2007 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
I lived in a few rental properties in Emporia from 1983-1989. It's like anything else, you get what you pay for, and it's your choice to make. My first apartment was in a basement on Market St. It was small, had one bedroom, livingroom, very small kitchen, even smaller bathroom and you had to duck underneath large vent pipes to walk around the place. I paid $150 a month and the landlord fixed any problems I reported to him. The place was a joke, but it was cheap and close to the bars. The next place I shared with two friends, we paid $275 month for a three bedroom apartment that had a washer and dryer and a dishwasher. The landlord took good care of us, she said we were the first renters she had that paid on time, took care of the place, and mowed the grass. The next two places were the same way, the landlords were so happy to not have a dead beat dirtbag living in their place, they too went out of their way to accomodate us. My last landlord allowed me to do the work that was needed on the house in lieu of rent(he offered this arrangement), and he was very generous in how much he took off. My new wife and I paid $300 a month for his little house in a nice neighborhood for a year. When we went to move to a home we had bought outside of E-town, he offered to drop the rent to keep us there. There are good landlords and good opportunities for all budgets in Emporia. As I stated in another forum, you get what you pay for, and you can only be taken advantage of if you allow it. If you don't like the place you rent, move on and or take civil action. We do not need more government regulation that will only raise rental prices and create more headaches for the honest landlords. Licensing rental properties, what business will be next in line?
October 12, 2007 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yes, I agree with netloafer that the only people present at the meeting were landlords. Those who rent from these slumlords can't or won't show up because they actually believe that their voices have no credence. Wrong of course.
Listening to landlords trade stories about how to get away with not fixing this or that made me sick. I wish I knew names.
I have one apartment that I rent out, and even though I've had a few problems with tenants over the years, I am still going to take care of the place because it is one of my assets. The longer you let something go, the more expensive it is to repair. Besides, that apartment is also a very nice tax shelter. I'll admit it.
Mickey, I wish your friends could have taken Farm and Home to court. One good lawsuit might be all it takes to set a precedent because it sounds like there were health issues involved. I'm trying to convince friends of mine who rent a downtown building to do that because their basement has been flooded with water for YEARS. What is that all about? That has to be a health department concern too.
Finally, while it may be true that the people who rent from slumlords must stand up for themselves, there are others of us who should have a keen interest in this too. We are the owners of nearby properties who are directly affected by the run-down condition of these slums. We must be the voices for those who don't believe theirs is powerful enough to be heard. Agree?
October 12, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Create
I agree
There are a some slumlords in our neighborhood and while the rest of us fix our properties they don't. We moved my wife's mother down here last October, we bought the house next door to us for her. We added a deck, painted the inside, did some remodeling in the kitchen and dining room. Her tax bill in October when we first bought the house was $900 per year. When the new valuations came out her tax bill went up to $1400. One of the slumlords, at the corner of 10th and Neosho, has done nothing to the property since we've lived here (8 years). We see him every winter putting plastic on the windows for the renters and that's it. His tax bill for 2006 was about $300. For 2007 his tax bill was about $310. Furthermore, while our taxes go up, our real values in the homes don't go up that much. People looking to buy homes in our area see the conditions of some of the slumlord properties and either won't buy or expect sellers to come way down on price because of the neighborhood conditions.
This has to be fixed and I would like to think that responsible landlords would support the proposed ordinance. It's in their interest as well.
October 12, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jackslap (anonymous) says...
I think that these responsible landlords need to live a small amount of time in some of there fine establishments. After they do that I think the have a right to complain about the fees.
October 12, 2007 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Tre:
That is the best idea I've heard so far. It's a great carrot and stick approach. You fix your property, you get a tax break. You don't fix, you pay more. YES!!!
Netloafer:
Like you, I live in Central Emporia and have invested in my own property only to get shot down because other property owners in the neighborhood don't do anything at all. It does indeed affect our property values. I remember how much my property taxes shot up when I had a privacy fence installed along the back of my property. I couldn't believe that one fence @ $1500 could represent that much of a rise in taxes. Yet, if I were to try to sell today, every buyer would call attention to the two homes on the block that are in such poor condition that they wouldn't want to pay my asking price.
And what about the gas and electric bills for those who must pay their own utilities in these shacks? Something is wrong, wrong, wrong, and we need to keep this pressure on, on, on.
October 12, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
KStrebuchet,
Actually, there are tax breaks available to individuals that fix up there properties in certain areas. The program is called the Neighborhood Revitalization Act. As for the meeting comments, I agree that we need to take the ambiguity out of the minimum maintanence language, if not you are asking for an extension of the status quo (you can't enforce what you don't understand).
I do find it slightly humorous that some landlords are using the poor as a defense not to fix up their property. For any business, maintenance of property should be a budget line item. If you want to invest your money in something that doesn't require any up-keep, try stocks or bonds, but when you are deriving an income off of someones dwelling you have a responsibility to provide safe and clean accomodations. Furthermore, when property owners allow thier buildings to deteriorate, all of us pay for it in increased property taxes, declining asthetics and a further erosion of community pride.
While I sympathize with property owners with tennants that damage appartments, those property owners have a recourse (court, witholding deposits, etc.). Until minimum maintenance standards are enforced, the rest of us have had no recourse in regards to an ever present slumlord situation. The good landlords that make an honest attempt to keep properties presentable have nothing to fear. Those that have taken advantage of a system that lacked an enforcement mechanism far too long are frightened. If our city council has the courage, their fear should be justified.
October 12, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
You hit the nail on the head, momus. Those slumlords are indeed frightened, that's why they are attending the meetings and standing around mumbling and grumbling. Ironically, all the while, they are still exchanging hints about how to get around ordinances. I'm hoping that the city commissioners have the courage to release the dogs. By not keeping their properties in good condition all these many, many years, these slumlords have asked for this.
October 12, 2007 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Tre, lol. You're quite the top banana. What a great cartoon that would make too. Wish I could do caricatures. I'd feature the commish restraining a bunch of dogs in the back of a pickup.
October 13, 2007 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stickerbush (anonymous) says...
I hope all of you who feel that this would be a time to take the bull by the horns and do something about the poor care some landlords have taken of our city will show up on Oct 22 and really let the City Commissioners know that you support the rental housing registration and licensing proposal.
October 13, 2007 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Count me there.
October 13, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporian (anonymous) says...
I moved out of the city but still work in Emporia for the City of Emporia does my opinion count to the commissioners? I cant believe that your commissioners dont already see it. Wait it is because they all live in NW emporia and slumlords dont affect them. Emporia needs to be districted to that their is equal respresentation from all parts of the city.
October 13, 2007 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )