Originally Posted By: jbushart
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Article published Monday, August 1, 2005
mayor jack ford Home inspection bill draws loud opposition
By TAD VEZNER
BLADE STAFF WRITER
The Ford administration faces a battle over an effort to force some property owners to get building inspections on homes - and have any violations addressed before selling them.
The legislation is to be discussed by City Council at its agenda-setting meeting tomorrow, and council members both for and against it predict a long, drawn-out debate.
Mayor Jack Ford said the "point-of-sale" law was designed to prevent "quick-fix" landlords who make cosmetic changes to substandard properties that are then sold to unwitting buyers.
"We have a lot of responsible absent landlords, but we have many who are 'quick-fix'-kind of guys, who are not responsible," Mr. Ford said. "This is to stop the resale of poorly maintained rental property."
But the legislation, which would require a "nonoccupying seller" to obtain a certificate saying his property is compliant with the city's building codes before transferring the property's title if they have not lived on the property for the previous six months, is not a sure-fire winner with council.
"It'll be ? a tough fight," said Councilman Ellen Grachek, who supports the legislation.
"I'm ready to fight right now," said council member Rob Ludeman, who is solidly against it.
Inspections could be completed by the city for $50 - more for dwellings with additional living spaces - or by a private inspector authorized by the city.
The seller could apply for a temporary exemption, agreeing to repair any violations found by the inspection and placing money or bonds in escrow to cover it, or the buyer and seller could sign a written agreement saying one or both would pay to repair the violations. Either option would allow the sale to take place immediately, but would require repairs to be completed within six months.
Violating the ordinance would be a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $10,000. The city would have an enforceable lien against any violating buyer or seller, equal to either the value of the property or estimated value of the repairs, whichever is less.
The legislation is supported by the Greater Toledo Housing Coalition, an association of 15 housing groups whose officers say the city's existing legislation is ineffective.
"What's on the books now isn't working," said Terry Glazer, president of the GTHC. "The city's never going to have the resources to have the inspectors to inspect every property, so it becomes more complaint-driven."
Renters, Mr. Glazer said, are reticent to register a complaint, fearful of eviction.
But Patty Camacho, executive director of the Property Rights Coalition, a group representing the local real estate industry, pointed out that the law does not address rental properties unless the owner sells, and said existing housing and nuisance abatement laws would be adequate to solve such problems if they were properly enforced.
Both Ms. Camacho and Mr. Glazer believe the city's existing force of inspectors is not adequately enforcing current housing laws. Mr. Ford contested that point, calling such an observation "simplistic" and saying problems also lie in the housing court system.
City law director Barbara Herring said getting more inspectors in the form of private licensees is part of the legislation.
"It would be very, very expensive to have enough inspectors to enforce violations other than on a complaint-driven basis," she said. "This ordinance adds some assistance in enforcing standards, and requires participation of buyers and sellers of properties. It doesn't place the burden solely on the city and its taxpayers."
Of primary concern to Ms. Camacho is the possibility that the legislation would be seen by investors and developers as overbearing, and that they would look outside the city for potential properties.
"How much do you want government to intrude? You talk about regionalism, and an equal playing field. Here, it definitely puts the playing field at a disadvantage in terms of investing in the city of Toledo," she said. "In the city of Maumee, Oregon, they have a lot of substandard housing but don't have these overly burdensome regulations. We truly are going to overregulate the housing in Toledo."
That thought is mirrored by Mr. Ludeman, a licensed Realtor with Danberry Co., who is also running against Mr. Ford in the mayoral election.
"This administration just doesn't understand business ? This will be cumbersome to the point that you're really going to hurt the real estate market in the city of Toledo," Mr. Ludeman said. "We're fighting people going to suburbs now. This will be another reason for people to say, 'why buy or invest in Toledo?'●"
Mr. Ludeman pointed to the threat of a misdemeanor and heavy fine as intimidating enough to make many investors think twice.
Mr. Ford said Toledo should not base its housing laws on lax laws in adjacent cities. "We need to take care of Toledoans," he said. And Mr. Glazer said honest investors shouldn't worry.
"Anybody who gets into the real estate business ought to have a plan for making a property safe; otherwise, they shouldn't be in the business," he said. "We check everything else. If your automobile is checked, why shouldn't people's apartments be checked?"
City council member Wade Kapszukiewicz, in support of the ordinance, agreed.
"I don't think it is unreasonable for someone selling a home to be fair and make sure the property is ready to be sold," he said.
Contact Tad Vezner at:
tvezner@theblade.com
or 419-724-6050.
--
Home Inspection Services of Missouri
www.missourihomeinspection.com
"We're NACHI. Get over it."
www.monachi.org