Thursday, December 11, 2014
After a hearing on a draft registration-only rental ordinance and a work session on the same on 17 November, the City Council asked the city staff to prepare cost information and other data that would support an inspection component to a city ordinance on rental health and safety. Then on 24 November, the council made and passed several motions to amend the draft "registration only" proposal that had been proposed by Roxanne Murphy and approved earlier for further consideration by the full council. The first motion read "that all rental units subject to inspection be inspected once every three years provided that an exception be made for units that pass inspection or first re-inspection, whereby the inspection frequency shall be every five years." Staff was instructed to return to the council with an amended draft ordinance on 15 December. In addition, the council voted to eliminate the sunset provision (1 January 2019) in the draft before them and to add that "the rental unit associated with properties containing a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or carriage house be required to be inspected as provided for in the ordinance."
These are sea changes in the approach the council had been taking with respect to rental registration and inspection. Greatly boosting the chances for the passage of a registration and inspection ordinance was the announcement by Terry Bornemann that he would now support inspection of rental units.
The only problematic portion of the ordinance is that regarding inspectors. Washington state law allows landlords to choose a private inspector. This stemmed from the Washington Supreme Courtdecision on the rental inspection ordinance (Chapter 5.78) that Pasco, WA passed in the late 1990s. Our city attorney stated at the 14 November city council meeting that Bellingham may not be able to mandate that a landlord turn over to the city the private inspector's inspection report even though RCW 59.18.125 6.e states: "If a rental property owner chooses to hire a qualified inspector other than a municipal housing code enforcement officer, and a selected unit of the rental property fails the initial inspection, both the results of the initial inspection and any certificate of inspection must be provided to the local municipality." The city attorney argues that language in the Pasco Supreme Court decision overrides that portion of the RCW.
While this is being resolved, the reliance on private inspectors raises the specter of the privatization or semi-privatization of what should be an inherently governmental function, that of health and safety of its citizens. It is not yet clear if the City Council intends to emphasize private over municipal inspectors. The council will hear more on the draft ordinance and receive a report from the Bellingham Planning Department at its 15 December meeting.
[Note: This blog entry also appeared today on the site of NWCitizen.]
Thursday, November 13, 2014
At the 1pm meeting of the city council's Committee of the Whole this coming Monday (17 Nov), the members will have a work session on the draft ordinance that was the subject of a city council hearing on 27 October. That hearing lasted nearly three hours during which time dozens of citizens voiced their concern that the draft measure did not contain an inspection component. After the citizens' comment period, council member Terry Bornemann stated that he had changed his mind and that that he would be supportive of an inspection component.
Although there will be no comment period during the work session next Monday, I encourage all of you to attend the session as an indication of our support of a rental registration AND inspection ordinance. [Note that the Committee of the Whole will meet earlier at 11am to consider the city budget. They will reconvene after lunch at 1pm to consider the rental ordinance.]
My most recent letter to the city council follows:
Dear Council Members,
In advance of the work session on rental registration and inspection on 17 November, I would like to suggest the following while you consider development of a program for the city:
There seems to have been a morphing from a per unit fee to a per "property" fee. I am not sure what occasioned that but it is unnecessarily restrictive. It weighs favorably on the side of those with the largest properties (for what reason?) and it markedly reduces the potential income to finance the hiring of staff and the administration of a program. The program with all its facets should be developed and then costed out in order to define the fee structure. This is basic program management.
I ask also that you challenge the bloated estimates provided by staff months ago on the cost of hiring code enforcement personnel and running the program. We know that the local HUD inspector can do almost 2,000 unit inspections per year. This tracks also with Pasco, WA whose inspector also does the same number of inspections per year. That flies in the face of the estimate given to us by the Planning Director. Granted there will be some start-up lag but with proper planning, that lag can be minimized.
Any inspection program should be included in the fee structure so that landlords will be encouraged to participate with city inspectors rather than hire private firms. Relying primarily on private inspectors for periodic inspections means that the city neither gains nor retains any institutional knowledge of the city’s rental units. Paper reports from private inspectors are no substitute for the experience of a city inspector whose employment is, for all intents and purposes, long term. The Mayor and the Planning Director would have no group of in-house code enforcement officers to whom they can go for experiential knowledge. Furthermore, there is no indication that there are sufficient private sector home inspectors to fulfill the needs of the landlords who might want to hire one.
Granted, the use of private inspectors is allowed under law. In fact, this was one of the challenges to the Pasco licensing ordinance, that city inspectors would be the sole inspectors. The landlords there wanted the option to hire their own. They have that option now and is written into the state law passed a few years ago. I am not sure how that serves the landlords since a properly structured program with a revenue neutral fee system (the program fees will pay for the program) will spread the cost of inspections over all landlords and result in much lower per unit inspection costs.
I also suggest that you replace any sunset provision with a provision that mandates a program review after 4 or 5 years. At that point, the council can, based on the facts surfaced by the review, decide to maintain, modify or end the program. The review should be inclusive of city staff (based on data), landlord experience and renter experience that would be surface through a hearing and/or a professional random survey.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
At times, I find that another publication has presented such a succinct summary of the rental licensing and inspection issue here in Bellingham that it would serve little to write separately on the issue. The article below is from the 29 Oct 2014 of the Cascadia Weekly in the Gristle*, written by Tim Johnson. It was penned just after a three hour hearing at the city council wherein the public commented on a version of a registration-only rental health and safety ordinance that had been submitted by council member Roxanne Murphy.
Of note but not mentioned in the article was the announcement by council member Terry Bornemann that he would be supportive of rental registration with some form of inspection.
Of note but not mentioned in the article was the announcement by council member Terry Bornemann that he would be supportive of rental registration with some form of inspection.
See No Evil, Speak No Evil
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
SEE NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL: The end was in the beginning; and after a long, long and ambitious evening session filled with impassioned testimony on the issue of landlord licensing, Bellingham City Council appears ready to approve what was first set in front of them uncolored by the passion. They were determined not to kick the can down the road—though kick it they did, to another special work session in November to again consider testimony—and determined to resolve something on a rental housing registration concept that has boomeranged around the halls of city government for more than two decades. Beyond that, they’re determined not to do very much.
Bellingham City Council veteran Gene Knutson, who was feeling unwell, was excused from the meeting at 10:30pm, prompting council to continue their deliberations at a later date bolstered by additional information from staff. Council pressed on, completing city business at midnight. Gene also represents the very philosophic and historic heart of this ages-old issue—determined to do something, yes, about improving the health and safety of rentals; at a loss to know quite what to do, or to what extent to do it.
“If we’re going to do something,” Gene grumbled, “we need to do it. Either way, we need to move on. For God’s sake, let’s get this done before the end of the year.”
But moving on without achieving something meaningful only invites the issue back, and this issue has been bouncing back to Gene on council for 20 years.
On paper before them, City Council faces a mingy, bare bones licensing program that would place a little sticker somewhere in each of 6,000 rental units [Zonemaven note: There are actually 17,000+ rental units in Bellingham of which about 3,000 are under another inspection regime such as HUD. The 14,000 remaining units are found in 6,000 properties.] with a phone number renters can call when they perceive their health is in danger. This renters were already free to do. How might they know they’re in danger? Shrug. The proposed ordinance exempts entire classes of rental properties and provides little incentive for the classes that remain to comply. Scofflaws of the sort a rental inspection program was intended to bring into line can easily scoff off the passive requirements of this complaint-driven program.
Here’s the essential takeway: When a program is introduced to change the status quo and the beneficiaries of the status quo praise its final form and fall upon one another with fierce hugs of triumphant joy, you know the program you introduced hasn’t accomplished much to change the status quo. If it doesn’t change the status quo, what’s the point of the legislation?
Council’s current proposal does nothing to shift the power imbalance between those who hold all the rights of property owners versus those who hold few of those rights as tenants, yet who nevertheless form roughly half the city’s population. This is not democracy; this is rentier capitalism unchecked. The proposed ordinance does very little to improve health and safety beyond what’s already available in the legal toolkit.
“A complaint-based system does not work,” the York Neighborhood Association board asserted in comments to council. “It has failed in Bellingham and other cities. It puts the burden on the tenant to fight one-on-one with the landlord who has an unfair advantage and can retaliate by raising the rent, not giving a good reference, or just ignoring the complaint altogether, which does happen.”
A more robust proposal that included a modest audit of the interiors of Bellingham’s rental housing stock (currently obtainable only through warrant and judicial process) was driven off the rails earlier this year by Council member Roxanne Murphy, who proposed a model similar to one she was familiar with in the City of Tacoma: The exteriors of units provide sufficient evidence about the interiors of units; a trimmed lawn correlates with an IEEE-approved UL-compliant breaker box.
This is obviously an error in class and in kind: Bellingham does not have blighted or shabby boroughs that reveal themselves on pass-through. It does have a large number of rentals converted by builders of all skill ranges from aging housing stock in well-maintained neighborhoods. Nevertheless, Murphy’s passionate advocacy for a “see no evil, speak no evil” minimalist approach drew support from the target audience of landlords and property managers who in turn have knocked away the pins in support of a more robust program. Faced with division and aggressive counterfactuals, council policy has descended to the lowest common points upon which they might all agree.
“It’s not about loud parties, garbage, and unmowed lawns,” York board members commented. “Other enforcement tools exist to manage nuisances. No enforcement tools exist to evaluate the internal conditions of Bellingham’s rental housing. It’s about decent housing for all and thriving neighborhoods. Bellingham’s neighborhoods, particularly the older ones, are a patchwork quilt of decaying, neglected properties amongst well-maintained historic housing.”
Judging from the public testimony of landlords, tenants and property managers, 95 percent of Bellingham’s rental housing is in great shape, hurrah. From what data does this estimate arrive? Apparently (but by no means certainly) from complaints in the system about the remaining 5 percent of stock submitted by tenants who risk reprisal in the form of eviction and loss of referrals and deposits. It’s a spurious statistic—it might even be true—but the proposed ordinance does nothing to improve collection of this data, which in early years might just be the most important component of a licensing program: actual facts upon which to frame wise policy.
Imagine if the city monitored its restaurants in the same way, based on customer complaints of gagging and stomach pains. A list on the city’s website of eateries that do not induce gastric suffering.
Oy, no wonder Gene was feeling unwell! Get well.
* Reproduced with Permission of the author.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
The York Neighborhood has just sent (see below) a second letter this year to the City Council in support of a Rental Health and Safety Ordinance in Bellingham. York joins with other neighborhoods that have already gone on the record with the City Council in support of not only licensing but inspecting all rentals. You can read the letters of the other neighborhoods that have joined in this call for action by clicking on the name of the neighborhood: Samish, Fairhaven, Sehome, and WWU (Associated Students). The Roosevelt Neighborhood also voiced support of an ordinance in a statement to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission at its July meeting.
There will be a hearing on this proposal next Monday, evening, October 27th at the 7pm City Council meeting. You can sign up after 6:30pm to speak in support of adding an inspections component to the draft "registration-only" ordinance to be considered. Tell the council that a rental registration ordinance only perpetuates the current failed system and that regular inspections are required to protect the 40,000 or more Bellingham citizens who live in rentals. To view the hearing materials click here and then scroll to and click on Agenda item 20382.
Here is the York Neighborhood letter:
October 20, 2014
Dear City Council:
We are writing to urge you to support a Rental Health and Safety Ordinance that will include mandatory inspections of properties. On January 11, 2011, there were two fires in the York Neighborhood – both preventable and both related to poor maintenance by the property owners.
One fire at 1408 Grant St. happened in the middle of the night while the three tenants were sleeping. One of them got up to get something to eat and heard the fire in the attic as a piece of the ceiling fell into the second floor bathroom. Fortunately, all three escaped unharmed. The cause of the fire, as reported by the Fire Marshall Jason Napier,was “electrical failure” and “malfunction” in the electrical junction box in the attic. There were no working smoke alarms in the house.
The second fire happened earlier the same day at 1418 Ellis St. The cause of the fire was a fan that was part of the heating system was not properly bolted on; it fell to the floor and caught the rug on fire. Fire Marshall Jason Napier reported: “The building was rewired by the owner some years ago. None of it was ever inspected for code compliance.”
We do not think these failures in rental property maintenance are an anomaly. We
believe our city has numerous properties that would not pass a basic building safety inspection. Housing safety standards should be enforced through an inspection program, with expert guidance on how to fix problems. Enforcement should include penalties. An inspection “check-list,” such as the one used for Section 8 housing is 1½ pages and is a subset of the building code. It is a fair and reasonable list of basic safety expectations. A “registry” of rental properties does nothing to create better code enforcement.
A complaint-based system does not work. It has failed in Bellingham and other cities. It puts the burden on the tenant to fight one-on-one with the landlord who has an unfair advantage and can retaliate by raising the rent, not giving a good reference, or just ignoring the complaint all together which does happen.
We support “healthy homes” for our city. Half of our city’s housing is rentals and are an essential part of the community’s quality of life. Substandard housing creates hazards for the tenants, neighbors and deteriorates our neighborhoods.
We urge the City Council to proactively regulate the rental industry. Rentals are
businesses, and like other businesses they should be expected to comply with licensing, inspections and oversight. Treating rentals as businesses is a fair practice.
It’s not about loud parties, garbage, and unmowed lawns. Other enforcement tools exist to manage nuisances. No enforcement tools exist to evaluate the internal conditions of Bellingham’s rental housing. It’s about decent housing for all and thriving neighborhoods. Bellingham’s neighborhoods, particularly the older ones, are a patchwork quilt of decaying, neglected properties amongst well-maintained historic housing.
Please vote to support rental licensing with inspections.
Members of the York Neighborhood Association Board
Don Hilty-Jones - President
Mark Schofield - Vice President
Anne Mackie - Secretary
Lisa Anderson - Treasurer
At-Large Board Members: Cory Anderson, Kirsti Charlton, Robb Correll, Tom Scott