On October 3rd, 2012, Hazleton passed ordinance 2012-25 for the purpose of inspecting rental properties and collecting inspection fees.
The Hazleton Standard Speaker discussed the Ordinance and the council session at which the measure passed.
Click here for details on an earlier version of this Ordinance that was tabled.
Showing posts with label rental inspection ordinances. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rental inspection ordinances. Show all posts
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Harrisburg passes Ordinances 13 and 14; Rental inspection program
Harrisburg City Council voted unanimously last night to adopt Bills 13 and 14. These bills have been pending in various forms for almost 4 years. They impose new registration requirements on landlords as well as vicarious liability on the landlord and property manager for the actions of tenants. Bill 13 also imposes a residency requirement (plus 50 miles) for owning investment property in the City.
Bill 13 expands the inspection period from three years to five years. The passage of Bill 14 shifts the city's emphasis from inspection upon purchases of residential properties to regular inspections purely of investment properties. Regular inspections have been required by law in Harrisburg since 1996. Proponents of Bills 13 and 14 have argued that the inspection program was not previously enforced because City manpower focused on inspection of residential purchases. City officials have previously stated that this program will increase revenue for the City.
These bills passed on the same night that the City voted to proceed with a bankruptcy filing and voted to increase parking fees.
---------------------------------
update - Breitbart confirms today that Harrisburg has filed its bankruptcy petition.
Bill 13 expands the inspection period from three years to five years. The passage of Bill 14 shifts the city's emphasis from inspection upon purchases of residential properties to regular inspections purely of investment properties. Regular inspections have been required by law in Harrisburg since 1996. Proponents of Bills 13 and 14 have argued that the inspection program was not previously enforced because City manpower focused on inspection of residential purchases. City officials have previously stated that this program will increase revenue for the City.
These bills passed on the same night that the City voted to proceed with a bankruptcy filing and voted to increase parking fees.
---------------------------------
update - Breitbart confirms today that Harrisburg has filed its bankruptcy petition.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Carlisle Rental Housing Task Force recommendations; Rental inspection ordinance shot down.
Last month, I wrote about the Carlisle Rental Housing Task Force and its efforts to advise Carlisle Borough Council regarding a potential rental inspection ordinance.
Yesterday evening, the task force finalized its recommendations. Those recommendations did not include a rental inspection ordinance:
The Task Force recommendations did include a number of items that have failed in other jurisdictions or are illegal, including mandatory lease amendments (such matters are governed solely by state law), mandatory registration (which requirements are usually ignored by a substantial percentage of landlords) and a residency requirement. The recommendations also include a voluntary inspection program.
These recommendations will not be considered by Carlisle Borough Council until at least September.
Yesterday evening, the task force finalized its recommendations. Those recommendations did not include a rental inspection ordinance:
But the audience was only interested in one of the 19 bullet points put forward: "rental units need to be inspected (interior and exterior) on a regular basis."Carlisle Sentinel
The task force's two-hour meeting at Borough Hall concluded with a vote on the most controversial aspect of the group's work. But both sides had said all they had to say at previous meetings and there was no discussion on the issue, which failed by a 5-5 vote.
The audience was heavily populated by landlords and spontaneous applause broke out after the inspection motion failed.
The Task Force recommendations did include a number of items that have failed in other jurisdictions or are illegal, including mandatory lease amendments (such matters are governed solely by state law), mandatory registration (which requirements are usually ignored by a substantial percentage of landlords) and a residency requirement. The recommendations also include a voluntary inspection program.
These recommendations will not be considered by Carlisle Borough Council until at least September.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Palmyra tables rental registration ordinance.
On Monday (July 25th), Palmyra Borough tabled a proposed rental registration ordinance:
Council President Keith Costello made the motion to table advertising the ordinance, saying he had learned about a study of such laws by the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs.H/T Lebanon Daily News
"We've had a lot of good input from landlords regarding the regulation," he said. "We haven't had any input from tenants. It would be interesting to see what other boroughs are doing in this area, and if there are some good ideas out there that are applicable to our borough we should use them."
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Hazleton Inspection Ordinance tabled; Ordinance 2011-13; Hazleton Area Landlords Association
On Wednesday, July 20, 2011, the Hazleton City Council considered a rental inspection ordinance. The ordinance would have required city inspections of every rental property in the City. The Ordinance was tabled by a unanimous vote of Council after numerous landlords, including the Hazleton Area Landlords Association, brought various facts to the attention of council.
A fair amount of discussion focused on the legal principle that the City could not use a measure like this as an income generator. I believe that Council lost much of their enthusiasm for this proposal when it became apparent that the fees imposed on landlords could not be used to close budget gaps or fund other projects.
Equally disturbing to Council was the news that prior ordinances had not worked. City employees reported to Council during the meeting that the 2006 rental registration ordinance had not been successful in obtaining addresses and registrations from every landlord with property in the city. Hundreds of property owners remain out of compliance with that measure. Council has not found the answer to the question of how the City would be able to conduct inspections of every unit when it could not ensure compliance with a simple registration ordinance.
More information was reported in the Hazleton Standard Speaker.
The following clip is from WYLN.
A fair amount of discussion focused on the legal principle that the City could not use a measure like this as an income generator. I believe that Council lost much of their enthusiasm for this proposal when it became apparent that the fees imposed on landlords could not be used to close budget gaps or fund other projects.
Equally disturbing to Council was the news that prior ordinances had not worked. City employees reported to Council during the meeting that the 2006 rental registration ordinance had not been successful in obtaining addresses and registrations from every landlord with property in the city. Hundreds of property owners remain out of compliance with that measure. Council has not found the answer to the question of how the City would be able to conduct inspections of every unit when it could not ensure compliance with a simple registration ordinance.
More information was reported in the Hazleton Standard Speaker.
The following clip is from WYLN.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Carlisle proposed rental property inspection; Carlisle Rental Housing Task Force meeting.
In Carlisle on July 18, 2011, the Carlisle Task Force on Rental Housing convened a panel discussion on proposed rental housing legislation. The Task Force invited panelists to address questions related to the operation of rental inspection ordinances in various parts of Pennsylvania. The panel consisted of myself (speaking on behalf of landlords), a representative of PAR and representatives of numerous municipalities, including Lancaster, West Chester, Bellefonte, Gettysburg, Shippensburg and Chambersburg.
The general purpose of the meeting seemed to be for the municipal representatives to explain how well their inspection ordinances worked for those municipalities. Despite their conclusions, they provided very few specifics regarding why an inspection ordinance is needed to address particular problems. The representative from Bellefonte stated that 95% of problems with rental properties related to the exterior of the buildings, thus indicating that 95% of problems can be observed and addressed without an inspection ordinance. Similar conclusions can be drawn from their conclusions and comments regarding police activity at rental units.
Lancaster's representative acknowledged that Lancaster's inspection program is partially funded by grants from the federal government.
The West Chester representative acknowledged the prior litigation whereby the Chester County Court forced the borough to refund more than one million dollars in inspection fees to the landlords several years ago.
The Task Force is set to vote on its recommendations at its August meeting.
The general purpose of the meeting seemed to be for the municipal representatives to explain how well their inspection ordinances worked for those municipalities. Despite their conclusions, they provided very few specifics regarding why an inspection ordinance is needed to address particular problems. The representative from Bellefonte stated that 95% of problems with rental properties related to the exterior of the buildings, thus indicating that 95% of problems can be observed and addressed without an inspection ordinance. Similar conclusions can be drawn from their conclusions and comments regarding police activity at rental units.
Lancaster's representative acknowledged that Lancaster's inspection program is partially funded by grants from the federal government.
The West Chester representative acknowledged the prior litigation whereby the Chester County Court forced the borough to refund more than one million dollars in inspection fees to the landlords several years ago.
The Task Force is set to vote on its recommendations at its August meeting.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Middletown Borough considering a voluntary rental inspection program.
The Middletown Borough Council President wants to initiate a voluntary rental inspection program for investors:
While a voluntary program would eliminate most of the legal problems associated with the inspection programs of other municipalities, such a program would create new legal challenges while probably leading to a mandatory program in the future. I am not sure that the Borough wants to be in the business of recommending particular properties to the general public as the "star list" proposal seems to imply.
Middletown Borough Council President Diana McGlone wants to establish a voluntary apartment inspection program.
Her idea, which is in its infancy, is to encourage landlords to have their properties inspected and, in return, those that pass would be placed on a star list of rentals on the borough’s website. Listed properties would be more attractive to renters, said McGlone, who is one of a few council members who owns rental properties in the borough.
While a voluntary program would eliminate most of the legal problems associated with the inspection programs of other municipalities, such a program would create new legal challenges while probably leading to a mandatory program in the future. I am not sure that the Borough wants to be in the business of recommending particular properties to the general public as the "star list" proposal seems to imply.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Carlisle Borough proposed rental inspection ordinance; Joint task force; SOSO
Click here for the previous post on a proposed rental inspection ordinance in Carlisle.
Yesterday evening, an organization known as "SOSO" presented its proposal for rental inspections, licensing and related costs. As I wrote earlier this week:
The "SOSO" advocates presented a list of municipalities in Pennsylvania that have adopted similar ordinances. The list included municipalities that have lost lawsuits related to their ordinances and were forced to provide refunds to landlords. SOSO did not mention this litigation, despite including these municipalities on their list.
More importantly, the list presented to Borough Council excluded certain municipalities where litigation remains pending currently. SOSO's list made no reference to Berwick Borough, Penbrook Borough and Pittsburgh. All of these municipalities are embroiled to one degree or another in litigation. Berwick and Pittsburgh have been expensive for all parties, while Penbrook has involved numerous smaller actions over individual instances of enforcement (the expense of which is just beginning to be felt). I and others brought some of this litigation to Council's attention during the public speak-out session.
If you are a municipal official, be careful about proposals for landlord regulation. These ordinances have often resulted in litigation, with varying results and costs. Without getting into the details of every legal challenge over the years, my own opinion of the legality of these ordinances is that an ordinance can survive a legal challenge, but only if it is watered down to the point where the municipality will not receive the desired benefit (revenue). Even then, actual enforcement of the ordinance will result in a greater than anticipated burden to the municipality, to the point where enforcement will eventually (or sooner) be abandoned (or will be inconsistent), thus creating a new basis for legal challenge.
Borough Council took no action, but announced the creation of a new joint task force to examine this issue and report to the Council. The composition of the task force has yet to be determined. Proponents of the ordinance immediately attempted to exclude from the task force (under the guise of limiting the task force to Carlisle residents) those of us that had pointed out litigation in other municipalities.
There will undoubtedly be more news to follow in the coming months.
Yesterday evening, an organization known as "SOSO" presented its proposal for rental inspections, licensing and related costs. As I wrote earlier this week:
The measure would require municipal inspections of every unit every time a new tenant moves in or out. The proposal would create a licensing system for landlords.
The proposal would also create a point system by which private complainants could, by virtue of filing complaints with the Borough, cause landlords to accumulate enough "points" that the Borough would revoke their license. These complaints would not have to be adjudicated in order for points to accumulate. This proposal would violate due process.
The "SOSO" advocates presented a list of municipalities in Pennsylvania that have adopted similar ordinances. The list included municipalities that have lost lawsuits related to their ordinances and were forced to provide refunds to landlords. SOSO did not mention this litigation, despite including these municipalities on their list.
More importantly, the list presented to Borough Council excluded certain municipalities where litigation remains pending currently. SOSO's list made no reference to Berwick Borough, Penbrook Borough and Pittsburgh. All of these municipalities are embroiled to one degree or another in litigation. Berwick and Pittsburgh have been expensive for all parties, while Penbrook has involved numerous smaller actions over individual instances of enforcement (the expense of which is just beginning to be felt). I and others brought some of this litigation to Council's attention during the public speak-out session.
If you are a municipal official, be careful about proposals for landlord regulation. These ordinances have often resulted in litigation, with varying results and costs. Without getting into the details of every legal challenge over the years, my own opinion of the legality of these ordinances is that an ordinance can survive a legal challenge, but only if it is watered down to the point where the municipality will not receive the desired benefit (revenue). Even then, actual enforcement of the ordinance will result in a greater than anticipated burden to the municipality, to the point where enforcement will eventually (or sooner) be abandoned (or will be inconsistent), thus creating a new basis for legal challenge.
Borough Council took no action, but announced the creation of a new joint task force to examine this issue and report to the Council. The composition of the task force has yet to be determined. Proponents of the ordinance immediately attempted to exclude from the task force (under the guise of limiting the task force to Carlisle residents) those of us that had pointed out litigation in other municipalities.
There will undoubtedly be more news to follow in the coming months.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Carlisle Borough rental inspection ordinance proposal.
Carlisle Borough in Cumberland County may shortly consider a rental inspection ordinance containing many controversial features. A community group plans to propose such a measure tomorrow evening at the Borough Council meeting.
The measure would require municipal inspections of every unit every time a new tenant moves in or out. The proposal would create a licensing system for landlords.
The proposal would also create a point system by which private complainants could, by virtue of filing complaints with the Borough, cause landlords to accumulate enough "points" that the Borough would revoke their license. These complaints would not have to be adjudicated in order for points to accumulate. This proposal would violate due process.
The meeting takes place tomorrow at 7:00 P.M. at the Carlisle Borough offices at 53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA. The public will be afforded the opportunity to speak against this proposal.
The measure would require municipal inspections of every unit every time a new tenant moves in or out. The proposal would create a licensing system for landlords.
The proposal would also create a point system by which private complainants could, by virtue of filing complaints with the Borough, cause landlords to accumulate enough "points" that the Borough would revoke their license. These complaints would not have to be adjudicated in order for points to accumulate. This proposal would violate due process.
The meeting takes place tomorrow at 7:00 P.M. at the Carlisle Borough offices at 53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA. The public will be afforded the opportunity to speak against this proposal.
Berwick Borough rental inspection ordinance; Berwick Area Landlord Association
The Columbia County Court of Common Pleas will shortly hear oral arguments in the case of Berwick Area Landlord Associaton v. Borough of Berwick. Berwick landlords are challenging Berwick Borough's rental inspection ordinance largely on the basis that the ordinance would impose liability on the landlords for the actions of their tenants.
Recent court cases in Pennsylvania and elsewhere have struck down local ordinances that are inconsistent with existing state law (on a variety of issues). This principle can now be applied to landlord-tenant law to prevent municipalities from changing existing state law as it relates to landlords and their tenants. (I am briefly summarizing arguments that have been made by the Berwick Landlord Association in court.)
The oral arguments will provide the last input before the Court decides a "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by the landlords. Whoever loses in this Motion will file an appeal to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court's decision (expected later in 2011 or 2012) will profoundly affect rental ordinances throughout Pennsylvania.
This case is docketed at 2008 - CV - 1873 in Columbia County.
A victory in this case would not invalidate all of the rental inspection ordinances across Pennsylvania, but it would limit many of those ordinances. Many municipalities now consider similar ordinances without knowing that these ordinances (such as Berwick's) are often tied up in court. A victory in this case would cause other municipalities to consider future legislation more thoroughly rather than simply copy the ordinances from Berwick (and others) verbatim.
Recent court cases in Pennsylvania and elsewhere have struck down local ordinances that are inconsistent with existing state law (on a variety of issues). This principle can now be applied to landlord-tenant law to prevent municipalities from changing existing state law as it relates to landlords and their tenants. (I am briefly summarizing arguments that have been made by the Berwick Landlord Association in court.)
The oral arguments will provide the last input before the Court decides a "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by the landlords. Whoever loses in this Motion will file an appeal to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court's decision (expected later in 2011 or 2012) will profoundly affect rental ordinances throughout Pennsylvania.
This case is docketed at 2008 - CV - 1873 in Columbia County.
A victory in this case would not invalidate all of the rental inspection ordinances across Pennsylvania, but it would limit many of those ordinances. Many municipalities now consider similar ordinances without knowing that these ordinances (such as Berwick's) are often tied up in court. A victory in this case would cause other municipalities to consider future legislation more thoroughly rather than simply copy the ordinances from Berwick (and others) verbatim.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Harrisburg Ordinance 13-2010
Harrisburg Ordinance 13 is up for amendment tonight before the vote on final passage. The City Council agenda does not say what the amendments will be.
Click here for details on the Ordinance.
------------------------------------------
Update
8:25 PM
Harrisburg City Council did not vote on Ordinances 13 or 14 this evening. Council did not discuss the Ordinances or the reasons for the delay.
Prior to the announcement of the delay, I spoke in opposition to the ordinances on behalf of CARPOA and AACP. I spoke briefly of lawsuits filed in other jurisdictions resulting from public comments from city officials. City officials in Pittsburgh had stated publicly that inspection ordinances and rental licensure would serve to raise revenue for the city. Such a revenue raising purpose is illegal and those statements resulted in legal action against Pittsburgh. I pointed out similar statements made by Harrisburg officials in support of Ordinances 13 and 14 in recent weeks. (Click here for a fuller discussion of those statements.)
There was no response to my comments.
In addition to prior statements stressing the need to raise revenue from Ordinances 13 and 14, it is significant that tonight's council meeting was devoted almost exclusively to the City's financial problems. Council's final act tonight was to adopt Resolution 72-2010, which reads as follows:
Click here for details on the Ordinance.
------------------------------------------
Update
8:25 PM
Harrisburg City Council did not vote on Ordinances 13 or 14 this evening. Council did not discuss the Ordinances or the reasons for the delay.
Prior to the announcement of the delay, I spoke in opposition to the ordinances on behalf of CARPOA and AACP. I spoke briefly of lawsuits filed in other jurisdictions resulting from public comments from city officials. City officials in Pittsburgh had stated publicly that inspection ordinances and rental licensure would serve to raise revenue for the city. Such a revenue raising purpose is illegal and those statements resulted in legal action against Pittsburgh. I pointed out similar statements made by Harrisburg officials in support of Ordinances 13 and 14 in recent weeks. (Click here for a fuller discussion of those statements.)
There was no response to my comments.
In addition to prior statements stressing the need to raise revenue from Ordinances 13 and 14, it is significant that tonight's council meeting was devoted almost exclusively to the City's financial problems. Council's final act tonight was to adopt Resolution 72-2010, which reads as follows:
A Resolution authorizing the engagement of professionals to study the advisability of authorizing the filing of a petition under either the Municipalities Financial Recovery Act (Act 47) or Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Harrisburg to raise revenue through inspection ordinance.
Harrisburg City council members press on in their attempts to pass Ordinances 13 and 14.
On September 7, 2010, Council member Brad Koplinski and codes officer David Patton spoke at the Boys and Girls club on Berryhill avenue in support of the ordinances. They estimate that the City will raise roughly $200,000.00 per year from enforcement of these ordinances and the resulting inspection fees.
Koplinski and Patton admitted that the prior inspection ordinance was not enforced.
On September 1, Councilman Koplinski stated that the ordinances would raise "upwards of $100,000" for the City.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania's Governor has pledged 4.3 million dollars to help the City meet payroll and other obligations.
On September 7, 2010, Council member Brad Koplinski and codes officer David Patton spoke at the Boys and Girls club on Berryhill avenue in support of the ordinances. They estimate that the City will raise roughly $200,000.00 per year from enforcement of these ordinances and the resulting inspection fees.
Koplinski and Patton admitted that the prior inspection ordinance was not enforced.
On September 1, Councilman Koplinski stated that the ordinances would raise "upwards of $100,000" for the City.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania's Governor has pledged 4.3 million dollars to help the City meet payroll and other obligations.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Harrisburg rental inspection ordinance revisions; residency requirement; Ordinances ## 13 and 14 of 2010.
The City of Harrisburg is proposing to revise its rental inspection ordinance. This is the same ordinance that was passed in 1996. The proposed revision is the same ordinance that denounced the quality of rental properties within the City, despite 15 years of City inspections.
The new revisions will impose residency requirements on investors or require investors to hire resident property managers.
City officials will hear public comment on September 7, 2010 at 6:00 P.M. at the Harrisburg Boys & Girls Club, 1227 Berryhill Street.
The new revisions will impose residency requirements on investors or require investors to hire resident property managers.
City officials will hear public comment on September 7, 2010 at 6:00 P.M. at the Harrisburg Boys & Girls Club, 1227 Berryhill Street.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Highspire enacts rental inspection ordinance;
Last week, on August 17th, Highspire Borough enacted its rental inspection ordinance, requiring investors to pay for inspections of their properties once every three years and pay $75.00 per inspection per unit.
I and a representative of GHAR attended the meeting and raised many of the concerns that I have featured on this blog.
In particular, I pointed out that section 1 of the ordinance contained factual findings regarding the condition of rental properties in the Borough. I asked that the public be told the factual basis for these findings prior to any vote. I argued that the basis for any factual finding should be provided to Council before the Council actually votes. There was no answer to this inquiry.
I pointed out also the potential for reducing real estate values as a result of increased costs imposed by this ordinance.
I reminded the Council of the failure of Harrisburg's inspection ordinance over the past 15 years. In the only response of the evening (aside from the unanimous vote in favor of the ordinance), councilwoman Dorothy Matesevac stated that Highspire was not Harrisburg. As John Wayne pointed out in Rio Bravo, "I'm gonna remember you said that."
The very differences between urban and suburban areas are what require municipalities to document any factual findings regarding the condition of rental properties before adopting an ordinance of this sort. Stay tuned for further developments.
I and a representative of GHAR attended the meeting and raised many of the concerns that I have featured on this blog.
In particular, I pointed out that section 1 of the ordinance contained factual findings regarding the condition of rental properties in the Borough. I asked that the public be told the factual basis for these findings prior to any vote. I argued that the basis for any factual finding should be provided to Council before the Council actually votes. There was no answer to this inquiry.
I pointed out also the potential for reducing real estate values as a result of increased costs imposed by this ordinance.
I reminded the Council of the failure of Harrisburg's inspection ordinance over the past 15 years. In the only response of the evening (aside from the unanimous vote in favor of the ordinance), councilwoman Dorothy Matesevac stated that Highspire was not Harrisburg. As John Wayne pointed out in Rio Bravo, "I'm gonna remember you said that."
The very differences between urban and suburban areas are what require municipalities to document any factual findings regarding the condition of rental properties before adopting an ordinance of this sort. Stay tuned for further developments.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Harrisburg rental property inspection program; Harrisburg Bill # 13 of 2010
In the mid-1990's, Harrisburg City adopted its first rental inspection ordinance. The ordinance required owners of rental units to have those units inspected every three years and to pay a regular inspection fee. In the 15 years since that ordinance was adopted, the overall condition of rental properties in Harrisburg has not improved.
Early in 2010, Bill # 13 was introduced in City Council, which bill would create permits for rental owners and establish a residency requirement. (The Bill has not yet passed.) While I will explore this Bill in more detail in the future, the following language from the 2010 Bill is significant:
If the language of the new proposed Ordinance is to be believed, the original ordinance has not worked. Despite 15 years of inspections, the City considers the stock of rental properties in Harrisburg to be of declining quality.
-----
previous - Reading's failed inspection ordinance.
Early in 2010, Bill # 13 was introduced in City Council, which bill would create permits for rental owners and establish a residency requirement. (The Bill has not yet passed.) While I will explore this Bill in more detail in the future, the following language from the 2010 Bill is significant:
A growing concern exists in the City regarding the general lack of maintenance, upkeep and resultant decline in the physical condition of residential rental units. The City has experienced a greater incidence and severity of violations of City Codes at residential rental properties, as compared to owner-occupied properties. . . .Section 8-511.2(a)
If the language of the new proposed Ordinance is to be believed, the original ordinance has not worked. Despite 15 years of inspections, the City considers the stock of rental properties in Harrisburg to be of declining quality.
-----
previous - Reading's failed inspection ordinance.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Highspire Borough rental inspection ordinance 582; Real estate values threatened.
As I wrote earlier, Highspire Borough has scheduled a vote on a rental inspection ordinance that will require the payment of annual fees to the Borough and the inspection of each rental unit every three years.
As of 2000, roughly 44% of the properties in Highspire were rental units. If the Borough enacts this ordinance, they will decrease the value of 44% of the real estate in the Borough. Real estate, especially investment real estate, derives its value from the net income it produces. As costs increase, value decreases. It is fair to say that if those 44% of properties targetted by the ordinance decrease in value, the other 56% will not exactly increase.
Ordinances such as Highspire's became widespread across Pennsylvania during the past decade and a half because municipal officials bought into the myth that real estate values "always go up" no matter how much that real estate is hampered by municipal interference and regulations. We are slowly finding out how much of a mistake those officials have made as real estate values stagnate while inspection ordinances fail to achieve their stated purpose.
----------------------------
previous - The failure of Reading's inspection ordinance.
--------------------
update - Harrisburg's failed inspection program.
As of 2000, roughly 44% of the properties in Highspire were rental units. If the Borough enacts this ordinance, they will decrease the value of 44% of the real estate in the Borough. Real estate, especially investment real estate, derives its value from the net income it produces. As costs increase, value decreases. It is fair to say that if those 44% of properties targetted by the ordinance decrease in value, the other 56% will not exactly increase.
Ordinances such as Highspire's became widespread across Pennsylvania during the past decade and a half because municipal officials bought into the myth that real estate values "always go up" no matter how much that real estate is hampered by municipal interference and regulations. We are slowly finding out how much of a mistake those officials have made as real estate values stagnate while inspection ordinances fail to achieve their stated purpose.
----------------------------
previous - The failure of Reading's inspection ordinance.
--------------------
update - Harrisburg's failed inspection program.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Reading Pa "Wall of Shame"; Mayor McMahon; an ineffective solution to the problem of "blight."
The City of Reading has announced a new program to fight "blight" and force property owners to clean up their properties:
The Wall of Shame is featured here - (otherwise known as "Mayor McMahon's Wall of Shame.")
This "Wall" brings to mind several points.
Reading (RED-ing') Mayor Tom McMahon on Monday [August 2] announced a new online "Wall of Shame" featuring blighted properties.H/T AP
McMahon says the property owners' names will be posted along with pictures and addresses. He says he's serving notice to property owners who fail to take action on eyesore properties.
The Wall of Shame is featured here - (otherwise known as "Mayor McMahon's Wall of Shame.")
This "Wall" brings to mind several points.
- Reading enacted its own rental inspection ordinance a number of years ago. Obviously, the ordinance has not rid the city of "blight."
- Many of the properties pictured on the website probably have a tax sale or two in their title history, thus making it impossible for the owner to undertake expensive repairs without first obtaining clear title through litigation.
- The local PROA chapter has identified many "blighted" properties as being owned by the City itself (much like Harrisburg). It will be interesting to see if the "Wall" ever pictures any of those properties.
The second item on the above list helps to explain the first and third items. No matter how many ordinances the City enacts or how many fees the City imposes, the City cannot legislate "blight" out of existence. Once a property has been sold at a tax sale, it becomes nearly impossible to obtain financing without litigation or a payoff to the prior owner. These properties often end up being owned by the City when no buyers can be found at subsequent tax sales.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Highspire Borough proposes rental inspection ordinance; Ordinance 582
The Borough of Highspire in Dauphin County is poised to enact a rental inspection ordinance (Ordinance 582 of 2010).
It appears that under the ordinance investors would be billed "Tri-annually" for "the total program costs." (Section 9. A.).
Owners could hire their own inspectors from a list of qualified inspectors maintained by the Borough. The cost of these inspectors would be in addition to the amounts billed by the Borough. Otherwise, the investors would have to use Borough inspectors.
This Ordinance is set for a vote on August 17, 2010.
update - Ordinance 582 and real estate values.
It appears that under the ordinance investors would be billed "Tri-annually" for "the total program costs." (Section 9. A.).
Owners could hire their own inspectors from a list of qualified inspectors maintained by the Borough. The cost of these inspectors would be in addition to the amounts billed by the Borough. Otherwise, the investors would have to use Borough inspectors.
This Ordinance is set for a vote on August 17, 2010.
update - Ordinance 582 and real estate values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
