Glad to hear of it. There are way too many people out there who seem to believe that renters are the lowest of the low and that they should be glad for anything they've got that approaches a roof over their heads. I understand that there are some bad renters, but I can't think they're the majority or people wouldn't bother becoming landlords. There's nothing wrong with making sure their housing meets the same minimal standards as those of us who live in houses we (or the mortgagor) own.

Obviously we do agree about decent housing. This coin has another side, however. People will arrange for their own housing so long as they can afford it. When they cannot, it is public housing or rent subsidy, both of which are paid from tax revenues. My friends in the rental housing business tell me that the quality of tenants right now is poorer than any time in recent history. There are more (government) programs than ever before that enable house purchase with no money down. Add to that the relatively recent low interest rates and many of those who previously rented are now homeowners. Wonderful, to be sure. Those who did not qualify to buy a house under those favorable conditions are now the majority of the pool of available renters. For non-payers, the eviction process often takes about 3 months. In my State, a landlord or repesentative thereof may enter a rented premises only with the permission of the tenant, even if the tenant is in arrears. Problems could be developing and the landlords have no legal means of even knowing about them. So forcing landlords to do everything within one month is rather punitive in some instances.

So forcing landlords to do everything within one month is rather punitive in some instances.

True. Unfortunately, apparently there were enough bad apples in that barrel to spoil it all. Maybe the good landlords can get together and lobby to change the law to permit a longer response time if 1) the problem is not major (i.e., handrails not the proper height from the floor); and 2) the landlord has not had a code violation in x amount of time. It seems "overreaction" is a common punitive mode in this country...

In my neighborhood it would be a joy to have even the exterior maintained to a minimum standard. This is a college town and we have seen lovely owner occupied homes turn into blighted rental properties with glass missing from windows and garbage scattered on unmowed lawns. These homes are next to homes worth $400,000, which is very expensive in our community.

We have great landlords in our neighborhood. They are the ones who would really take the inspections to heart. Interestingly enough, it is the attorney landlords and other more prominent citizens who have the most ill maintained buildings. They seem to be Teflon coated when it comes to enforcement.

As taxpayers, these unwilling landlords not only effect property values. They will force local governments to hire more employees to enforce the codes. We all will pay for that.

Okay, what are some good solutions to help solve the issue of rental properties?

These type of things often turn into a big legal fight.
What revision of the code is going to be enforced?
In most places a building is only required to meet the code in effect at construction, and any subsequent changes are under the code at teh time of the change.
Do the instpectors take pictures or have a way to prove that a change has occured?
Can they show the date of the change?
I would tie them in knots in court.
Blanket solutions to problems are seldom effective in the long run.

The point that I find most interesting is not the landlords but homeowners, which we commonly see on this forum who say they don't care about code, they just want a cheap and easy fix, and more often than not someone will oblige them with a scab solution to the problem. But now many of these people are getting caught as well when they sell their home and move up to there new mac mansion, only to find that there previous home was sold to a property manager who attempted to rent it out an got caught with a long list of code violations from the shabby DIY fixes.

I was discussing this with our local inspector and he told me of many instances where this ends up back in the housing court and the judge has awarded damages to the new owner for undisclosed problems in the structure. The inspector told me that in many instances the Judge has instructed the new owner to have the problem corrected and inspected at the expense of the previous owner, and in one instance a very nice high end home in an upscale neighborhood was found to have so many DIY related problems that the judge ordered the sale reversed and the previous owner had to refund the full selling price.

Many people have laughed at me over the past few months because when i offer a solution to a problem I generally provide the code references to show what is required. Well folks, laugh all you like, but sub standard work of any sort can come back to haunt you.

"Okay, what are some good solutions to help solve the issue of rental properties?"

Any and all code enforcement measures enacted are based upon published documents which are readily available to all homeowners.
Nothing prevents the homeowner from obtaining these documents, conducting their own inspection, and accomplishing the necessary repairs PRIOR to the inspection.
Nothing prevents property owners adjacent to a property being neglected and allowed to fall into disrepair from complaining to the appropriate authorities, who will, when forced to expend precious resources, act.

Lazypup, that's a harsh jurisdiction you live in! I haven't heard of such strongly pro-tenant housing laws since I lived in the ultra-liberal college town of Boulder, CO... I assume you're in a similar burgh...?

In the vast majority of the US, including my area, Ft. Lauderdale, the law is still strongly pro-landlord. I don't take advantage of this, and in fact find it to my advantage to go the extra yard and charge a premium in rent, thereby reducing riff-raff renters, and keeping the maintenance & upgrade account flush.

OTOH, with the skyrocketing home prices, and ALL THE CONDO-CONVERSIONS going on, it's really become a landlord's market down here, and some owners are really sticking it to the tenants, and letting the property slide. Code enforcement doesn't seem to have any teeth, and only the most egregious cases see the inside of a courtroom.

I did most of my refurbs before April 2004, so now I'm able to kick back and rake it in. ;') ... and paydown those equity loans... :(

Actually, the trend that lazypup describes is becoming more and more common today.

Since most states are now adopting the International Codes packages for their states, these include not only the International Residential Code that governs new construction, but also the International Existing Building Code that regulates renovations and repairs and the International Property Maintenance Code that governs the upkeep and maintenance of existing structures.

It is the IMPC that provides to most effective weapon by municipalities to crack down on decrepit rental propeties and primary residences.

In my region, it is now common practice for mandatory inspections of rental properties to occur for Code violations between tenants.

It is alos common for muncipalities to evoke the International Property Maintenance Codes to force owners to repair their own residences when safety issues are at stake.

Codes are there to provide for "minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare, through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stabilty, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and proprty from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment."

Those who oppose the codes, oppose the general welfare of the public good and even common sense in many cases.

The stated purposes of codes always sounds good. In my rural county, the regulations on some things have become absolutely silly. Here, if certain rental properties have unpaved driveways, the regulations forbid any grass growing in the graveled areas. The landlord is responsible for compliance. Exactly how does this fit with the typical stated reasons for codes? This most certainly does not improve "affordability". Incidentially, Roundup sales are booming.

"Those who oppose the codes, oppose the general welfare of the public good and even common sense in many cases."

What code are you going to use? The new code? The last revision?
Many codes are updated on a 3-5 year schedule.
Should we tear all the houses down every 5 years?
Re-wire and re-plumb then with every change?
Knob & tune wiring remains in the NEC. It generally cannot be altered, but it is still within the code in existing buldings.
Lead drain lines are not allowed for new work, but remain in the code for existing installations.

Most jurisdictions require buildings to meet the code in effect when the CO is issued, and continue to be held to this standard. Any upgrades are required to meet the code in effect when the upgrade is completed and inspected.

Maybe you want to tear houses apart with every code cycle?
Older stairs are often no in compliance with the newest codes. Priced a renovation? If your rise per step is to high the only solution would be to extend the run of the staircase to make it in compliance. Are you asking for this type of major structural work with each code cycle?
Should a 1930 house have all the joists replaced since they do not comply with modern span rules?

If an owner wants to let his house fall down around him, who the hell are you or the government to force then to make repairs. It is PRIVATE property. To do with as the owner wishes.

If a rental property is in gross violation of the codes it will be very difficult to rent. Of course there are that fraction of tenants who seem to take pleasure in destroying a place.
Should the owner be held responsible? How many times should they be held to a repair for damage caused by a tenant?

i am actually not saying what I wouyld really like to about the attitude you have shown. I doubt you have any signifiacnt experiencein owning rental properties.

"If an owner wants to let his house fall down around him, who the hell are you or the government to force then to make repairs. It is PRIVATE property. To do with as the owner wishes."

Until it becomes a public nuisance.

Busdriver, I usually agree with your comments. I don't think most of the renters here, college students, care one bit about health and safety. Those issues do not impact upon the rental market here. As for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord should repair that as many times as he has damage. Doesn't he retain a deposit? If a person does not enjoy the headaches of owning rental property, it can be sold. If they don't like the headache of owning rental property next to me, that can be sold also. I only concern myself with the exteriors for grass cutting, garbage and snow removal. Grass can be 8 inches long here. Garbage and recycling go out once a week and can be on the sidewalk 24 hours before and after. Snow needs to be shoveled within 48 hours of finish. Why is even this so difficult? I am not lowering my standards because they choose to.

I do not own rental property. I do live next door to a number of rental properties in old townhomes. These owners demonstrate blatant disrespect for codes and neighbors. We also live in an historic district near 2 colleges. None of them was forced to buy property in it. They do not want to abide by the guidelines because "it is only rental property". Well, that is just TDB. If you don't want to maintain it, don't buy it. If you don't like the district, buy somewhere else. Just mow your grass and shovel the snow.

There, now I feel better. That was good practice for the next uncaring landlord I see.

corgilvr wrote:
"I do not own rental property."

And that about says it all. Speaking from ignarance is always easy.

" Just mow your grass and shovel the snow."

Normally the tenants reponsability in a single family rental. All the other issues are the tenants reaponsability to abide by the local laws, not the landlords. If the trash is out early call the AHJ.
If you have historic district rules they can be enforced.

"As for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord should repair that as many times as he has damage."

It gets repaired. And the second time I usually start eviction proceedings for property damage.

Brickeye tried to put words in my mouth, then feigned shock at what I never said by absurdly suggesting:

"What code are you going to use? The new code? The last revision?
Many codes are updated on a 3-5 year schedule.
Should we tear all the houses down every 5 years?
Re-wire and re-plumb then with every change?
Knob & tune wiring remains in the NEC. It generally cannot be altered, but it is still within the code in existing buldings.
Lead drain lines are not allowed for new work, but remain in the code for existing installations.

Most jurisdictions require buildings to meet the code in effect when the CO is issued, and continue to be held to this standard. Any upgrades are required to meet the code in effect when the upgrade is completed and inspected.

Maybe you want to tear houses apart with every code cycle?
"

When a structure is built it is governed by the code in force at the time of construction.

When a structure is renovated or repaired, it is governed by the code in force at the time of it's inspection.

However, most jurisdications are also adopting codes like the International Property Maintenance Code which regulates health, safety and other issues relating to existing properties that develop health, safety, structural, egress, fire hazard, disease and other deficiencies due to owner neglect between permit applications.

Such neglect, despite its occurance in private property, becomes a public burden when fire departments, police, health departments, ambulance services, and others need to be respond to care for injured or maimed occupants because of owner malfeasance.

Such properties also become a public burden when damages are claimed against casualty insurers of such properties, but then the premiums of all policyholders go up to pay for the damages caused by the negligence of one minsanthrope.

Such properties also become a public burden when those who are injured in such structures cannot afford their own medical care and the taxpayers end up having to pay for it either through Medical Assistance or Catastrophic Health Funds.

Such properties also become a public burden when they must be razed at the public expense because of safety issues.

No private property, as is no private person, an island unto itself. All private property exists in a community that bears the burdens of whatever neglect an irresponsible owner wishes to place upon that community via his private property.

Bemoaning "If an owner wants to let his house fall down around him, who the hell are you or the government to force then to make repairs. It is PRIVATE property. To do with as the owner wishes." is no more a reasonable excuse to have a delapidated private home than is it to reasonably excuse someone from operating their 'private' automobile on public streets and highways when it won't pass a minimum vehicle safety inspection.

Lives, insurance monies, and publlic services and tax dollars are all at stake and affect everyone else when those who have private property don't properly care for it.

Property maintenance codes, and the governments that enforce them, protect the majority of us from the delinquent few...and even protect the delinquent few from themselves....

So YES, it is the public's concern when private owner's create public nuisances, and thankfully, we have governments to force owners to relieve the rest of us from such dangers.

How are you going to prove whwn a change was made?
I can see cartain major changes being pretty easy (a new bathroom), while plenty of others are going to be very hard to prove (an extra outlet for the computer).
the vehicle example is just ridiculous. I can own a 'farm use' vehicle and operate it on private property with no inspection, plates, or insurance.

"Lives, insurance monies, and publlic services and tax dollars are all at stake and affect everyone else when those who have private property don't properly care for it."

Maybe the government should own all the property and take care of it.
No... we tried that with public housing and it failed miserably. Maybe it will work next time.

I put those examples forward to show exactly how hard it can be to enforce codes. It is a real nightmare. I do know of jurisdictions that revoke COs at sale of the property and require a new inspection to grant a new CO each time ownership changes. Big brother is looking out for you. Hazards within a residence that do not affect the public at large are none of the governments business.
Protecting the water supply system , the sanitary system, and other shared items are one thing. The height of my banister rail is my problem.

Many localities have maintenance codes. Most enforce them as civil actions and cannot do a lot without going to court and getting a judgment. Some have changed the laws and allow the zoning enforcement office to issue violations that must be answered like a traffic ticket.

The I-maintenance code still has a ton of holes.
How much paint should be peeling to prompt action? A few chips? 20% of the surface? More?
To have valid enforceable codes these things all require definition or the entire thing can be tied in knots in court. They cannot be arbitrary. It must be clear from the statute when you are in violation, or it can be thrown out for being vague.

I maintain every one of my rental properties. They are long term investments.
The tenants can complain if the place fails to meet applicable codes. The government does not need to be shoving its nose into the properties at every chance.
We have enough government drones running around already.

"Such properties also become a public burden when damages are claimed against casualty insurers of such properties, but then the premiums of all policyholders go up to pay for the damages caused by the negligence of one minsanthrope."

Last time I looked insurance comanies are private enterprises and seem to look out for themselves pretty well.

"Such neglect, despite its occurance in private property, becomes a public burden when fire departments, police, health departments, ambulance services, and others need to be respond to care for injured or maimed occupants because of owner malfeasance."

I am sorry. This entire statement indicates you believe the government should be able to control anything and everything it wants since it may have an impact on the 'public'.
So far we have resisted this ultimate nanny state, except a few places.
I do not live in one.
This type of thing devolves to a political issue.
You want big brother (as long as he does what you think is correct), and many other folks do not.

"I am sorry. This entire statement indicates you believe the government should be able to control anything and everything it wants since it may have an impact on the 'public'."

I read it as saying, that unless the owner of a building allowed to fall into disrepair, with the eventuality of it being a fire hazard and/or vermin infested, cannot possibly guarantee that a fire or vermin infestation will not migrate beyond the property's boundaries.

Therefore, the property can be declared a public nuisance, and actionable.

So, in furtherance of your prostration,"If an owner wants to let his house fall down around him, who the hell are you or the government to force then to make repairs. It is PRIVATE property. To do with as the owner wishes." You'd be comfortable if your property were destroyed, due to the inaction of another?

Maybe I should have said that I don't choose to own rental property. Bus, aren't you the one who made the "how many times" comment. I was confused about who other than the owner was responsible for insuring repairs be made. It seemed you were saying that after a number of problem renters that someone else needs to attend to the problem.

As for mowing, these are rentals to college students. They aren't here during the summer. There are no renters to do the mowing. Silly me to think that the owner is responsible for hiring a service or doing it. Same with snow during winter break.

Most of these landlords live in the neighborhood. They know when grass is long and they see the snow. They can also see when gabage is out in front of their buildings. So, am I more responsible for notifying Big Brother than they are for speaking with their renters?

BTW, guess who gets cited if either of the two doesn't get done? Here is a clue: It isn't the renters. Here, as I tried to communicate earlier, there is a cycle of offense, citation, another offense, another citation, etc. That is the reality here. The renters here do not mow.

I'm sorry, bus, I just read that you are rural. I live in a high density neighborhood where these problems do abut neighboring properties. Again, the landlords live nearby. Many of us try to speak with them about the problem. They are not only blind to the offenses, they are deaf to the pleas for correction.

Again, Brickeye offers irrelevant straw man arguments to support his untenable positions.

He said: "I put those examples forward to show exactly how hard it can be to enforce codes."

The reality is that once a new construction or remodeling project has passed an existing code inspection, it does not need to be brought up to future code levels. Code compliance that was required at the time of the inspection is all that is required. No one is debating that. No one suggested otherwise. So your reasoning here is baseless.

Brickeye further stated: "I do know of jurisdictions that revoke COs at sale of the property and require a new inspection to grant a new CO each time ownership changes."

Then Brickeye does not understand the authority under construction and existing building codes that gives the code official just that power. In fact, it happens more often than you would think. It is VERY common for private home inspectors to spot code violations that were missed after the issuance of a CO on, for example, new construction homes, only to have the CO revoked when a code violation has been found that may have been missed in a previous inspection or when the CO was issued based on fradulent information provided by the owner.. In fact, the building codes require rescining a CO in such circumstances. The current owner is made aware of the problem and required to come into compliance. Happens more often that you think.

But all this completely irrelevant to the issue.

The issue is, that buildings with previously valid COs can fall into a state of disrepair to the point that they become a hazard to the public well being.

When that happens, maintenance codes apply, which can a do allow the government to force owners to take actions to correct them.

This can be done with or without the permission of the property owner or by getting an adminstrative "search" warrant to enter the property to make inspection when probable casue has been shown to a presiding judge. Properties can be permanently condemned, temporarily condemned until repairs are made, or civil judgements sought against the building's owner.

Commercial Builidng and Fire Codes do not require a warrant to search a privately owned commercial building if they are open to use by the public and are inspected during normal business hours, and Codes mandate that commercial building owners must make their buildings accessible for annual maintenance inspections. So maintenance inspections on private structures are not without precedent nor basis in law.

Brickeye further commented:

"Last time I looked insurance comanies are private enterprises and seem to look out for themselves pretty well."

Insurance companies DO look out for themselves when they insure a property or are made aware of existing maintenance problems....but insurers do not routinely make safety inspections of private homes nor are they made aware of hazardous conditions which violate the terms of the insurance agreement by fradulent homeowners, and that is where the problem lies.

If the insurer knows that a property is in a state of disrepair, they will insist that repairs be made or one's insurance coverage revoked. If the homeowner doesn't tell the insurance he is violating the terms of the insurance agreement, how does the insurer know? He doesn't, which is why insurance companies FULLY SUPPORT the use of routine maintenance inspections by Code Departments for private rental and other units. It saves them and their majority policy and stockholders money and protects them from paying out on fradulent claims.

Deliquent owners who have no mortgages also are likely not to carry insurance on their structures. This becomes a public problem when, for example, there is a fire or building collpase and it is up to the taxpayer to pay for the cleanup.

The cry and clamor that government has no business protecting it's citizens from irresponsible property owners is without merit.

Government inspections protect the public, protect insurers, and protect other private owners who properties can be devalued by delapidated and dangerous properties.

The anarchy that Brickeye suggests is pie-in-the sky and actually the most irresponsible and absurd position, and why Codes were developed in the first place: to protect the public from those who simply just don't care about anyone else but themselves.

The City of New York and certain cities in New Jersey have for a very long time been at the forefront of governmental control of rental properties. One of the results has been the abandonment of some properties when keeping them was no longer economically viable. Public housing then becomes an alternative. In my area, the major (actually medium sized) city has several public housing projects. About half of them have had to be demolished within 30 years due to deteriorated condition, unfit for human habitation. Well, gee! We can demand from citizens that which the government cannot accomplish themselves. For three administrators in succession of the housing projects, they have been indicted for embezzlement of funds, sweetheart deals for friends who pretended to be contractors, etc. One larger city now has ordinances for everyone that prohibit parking on the grass at your own home, $125 fine. Upholstered furniture on your porch is prohibited, subject to fine. One has $125.00 fine if poison ivy is found on your property. At some point, the effort to comply with laws will consume all of our time and financial resources.

manhattan42 wants to live in a socialist nirvana were big brother takes care of every little thing. Sounds about like New York city.

I put forward the point about what code to enforce since I have seen multiple cases at ownership change that allowed for inspections against the MOST RECENT CODE.
I do not care who gave the drones the power to do this, it is a pretty strong usurpation of private property rights. The owners are forced to continually meet a new code at every transfer of ownership.

If you want to live under these conditions you are welcome to. Many folks will not tolerate this level of intrusion.

New York (and some other large cities) is a prime example of the law of unintended consequences. The rental market is a disaster area with rent control and all the other c**p the city forces on owners.
I would NOT ever own rental property under the conditions present in many large cities.
A tenant can damage the property, create a code violation, refuse to pay rent since there is a violation, and cannot even be evicted. No wonder so many rental properties look like c**p.
Outside maintenance can be an issue for neighboring properties, but as I pointed out many of the regulations are very difficult to enforce if an owner decides to fight.
How much peeling paint is a problem?

If my tenants actively break something from their own negligence I fix it one time. If it happens again I start eviction proceedings.
I can actually evict tenants in Virginia.

I thought about this while I was priming my now safe and restored second floor porch. Bus and Brick, I don't think you are the guys I would be the least bit worried about as landlords in my neighborhood. If you take the time to participate in these forums, you certainly take time to insure safety in your buildings. If you came to my neighborhood, you would see lovely older homes being restored next to homes allowed to become dumps. Old homes are not inexpensive to maintain, yet the landlords act surprised at this. Homes in need of restoration are not expensive here. That attracts the buyer who wants to carve them up into apartments, no permit obtained, and maximize profit. Our codes office is responsive to concerns. One officer appeared before the magistrate last week to testify about a three time offender. She dismissed the case and said he should have "more time". This is a small town with small town politics.

The students return this week. Not much repair was done over the summer. No exterior work was executed. Garbage and grass are there from last semester's exams. I did manage to have one lawn mowed and one window's glass put back in. That small step required codes and council action. I was, at first, told the grass was not tall an there was no window missing. I think that is what put me over the edge. It took another call and pictures to finally have the problem taken care of, one month after action was initiated.

The lack of routine maintenance on the exterior is probably a good indication of what isn't happening on the inside.

Brick and Bus, my problems would be solved if you ran the codes office here.

These are the folks who write the rules the rest of us must abide by.