Property registration proposal draws opposition from landowners

By Michael D. Pitman, Staff Writer 10:50 PM Tuesday, May 15, 2012

    MIDDLETOWN — The city this week will begin to form a panel to develop a program to register rental and vacant properties, but opponents say the program is a bad idea.
    More than 100 people packed council chambers Tuesday night. Some were turned away as people dressed in red inside the room voiced opinions against the proposed registration program, which is designed to make property owners and landlords more accountable.
    As it stands now, the proposal is offensive to landlord Missy McCall.
    “It’s not us,” she told city officials. “We’re the investors, we’re your friends. We’re the ones that are going to improve the blighted properties.”
    The idea of registering vacant and rental properties was first presented to council in January, and a progress report was given early this month.
    Landlords and property owners say the program as discussed two weeks ago adds unnecessary bureaucracy and is a blanket that will address the core issue, but will also hurt those who follow city regulations.
     “I really don’t want you to punish the masses for the mistakes of the few, and that’s what this type of legislation would do,” McCall said. “We’re investors and we’re a financial benefit to your community. We are your largest small business.”
    But near the end of Tuesday’s meeting, and about 90 minutes after the red-clad group left, City Law Director Les Landen said, “One of the things that is important is the information we got tonight.”
    Landen plans to meet with Community Development Director Doug Adkins — who presented the registration program May 1 — to form the committee that will address a proposed rental and vacant property registration program and help develop legislation council will consider. Adkins said any proposed legislation could be presented to council in August and - if approved - implemented by Jan. 1.
    Landen said the input from the landlords, property owners and their supporters “will help that committee start to define both sides of the concern out there. Just because people initially respond to something negatively doesn’t mean there’s not a solution.”
    The program that has landlords and property owners so upset would require them to register — something they say they already do with the Butler County auditor — and pay a fee that could be as much as $25 per mailbox. Some said that fee would simply be passed on to the tenants, which Janie Quinn said she can’t afford.
    “I’m doing all I can to make it,” the tenant said. You have people that makes money; I’m retired. I’m broke down, so please don’t raise my rent.”
    Adkins said the city has various programs and ways to work with homeowners to get voluntary or forced compliance with the city’s regulations. However, he said gaining compliance with owners of vacant and rental properties has been an issue in recent years.
    There are 15 cities and one county in Ohio that have rental property registration and 25 cities that have vacant property registration, Adkins said. In those communities, penalties for rental property registration range from imposing a fine to making it a misdemeanor charge in municipal court. In addition, vacant properties not in compliance could have penalties and registration fees are assessed as a lien.
    “We want to have a process that gives us everything we need and be as minimally intrusive as we can to the business owners in the city,” Adkins said.
    Rachel Lewitt, a property owner and real estate agent, said this is not the time to impose such a program.
    “In this unstable economic climate, investors and property owners are either running at a loss or stabilizing and hoping for a brighter future,” she said. “Property values are down 30 to 50 percent, and tenants face similar issues and are on a limited income and are simply maxed out.”
    Lewitt said the city doesn’t maintain many downtown properties it has acquired in recent years.
    “I was told by a city staff person if you can’t maintain a property, don’t own a property. I repeat the same words to you,” Lewitt said. “As the city acquires more real estate and a land bank portfolio, you too should be on a budget and should maintain the same level of standards as you require all property owners.”
    McCall said if the city goes forward with the program that resembles any part of the May 1 presentation, she and possibly other landlords and property owners will simply leave the city and county.
    “I object to registration,” she said. “Sex offenders are registered. I’m a landlord. I’m a business person. I don’t need to be registered.”
    Contact this reporter at (513) 820-2175 or michael.pitman@coxinc.com. Follow at twitter.com/mdpitman.

Let me play devils advocate for a moment as I'm not convienced either way on this one.  If I had to read between the lines on this one I suspect this is one way that Adkins and the admin is trying to run off some of the section 8.  Whats one of the fastest ways to deter a business to leave or not come to your town...tax it.  Since Middletown can't just call up HUD and give back vouchers they have to show that the demand isn't there.  If landlords don't want to pay the $25 or be  have an aversion to being registered then take your business to another city.  I haven't talked to anyone with knowledge of the situation but that's my guess as to the real reason behind this plan.

Gentlemen

This has NOTHING to do with any HUD program or Section 8…and by the way Mr Adkins has NOT reduced the Section 8 vouchers program.

This is about charging to inspect each and every piece of rental property in Middletown no matter how large or small. This is about the City and Mr Adkins wanting control and power over privatey owned property. The City already has laws on the books to deal with any rental property problems.

Take a look around the City at all the property that the City now owns and tell me why they won’t clean up their own property before making demands on the citizens. Tell me again how well they used the millions of dollars in NSP and CDBG funds. I can tell you where it wasn’t used….It wasn’t used in the high poverty high crime areas.

This is all about money and power…..This is about feeding the BEAST called City Hall.

Tony,

Vivian,

You mention that there are already laws on the books to deal with any rental property problem. With that said, I have a question: "How does the city compel Badlandlord, LLC to comply with building code violations if the only contact information they have is an out of state PO box and the property owner refuses to accept any correspondence from the city"?
Well Greygoose
In order to discuss and or solve a problem I believe one must have all the facts and numbers before them to evaluate. So please provide me with the following information.
How many rental units or homes does Middletown have that are NOT Public Housing and or on the Section 8 program?
Out of this number how many rental units or homes are owned by an out of state Badlandlord LLC?  Are we talking about 1, 10, 100 or 1,000 rental units?
Does this number also include the ongoing legal problems at the trailer park? How many rental units are from trailer parks?   

The same is true of out of state banks. Let say that JPMorgan Chase makes a determination that the value of one of their properties in Middletown insn't worth the cost of needed repairs and ongoing maintenance. What do you think that they are going to do? What law on the books allows the city to compel their compliance?
Greygoose
I see this as a totally separate issue. These are not rental properties.

The registration process is the "tool" that they need to enforce the existing laws. I do think that there is some merit to the belief that money and control are a motivation, I just don't think that it the primary driver.

Ms. Moon
The most current numbers that I can find are two years old and are "approximate" because they were derived from percentages:

1. 3,600 subsidized rentals
2. 5,400 non-subsidized rentals
3. 2,100 non-subsidized rentals with out of town owners
Greygoose, that was not my question. We know that the majority of the rental property is owned by people that live in surrounding areas. My question was how many are out of state Badlandlord LLC that the City can not contact because they only have a PO Box number?
Then I have a few more questions.
How many homes are in Middletown?
What percentage of the total housing stock are rental properties?
What about the commercial properties?

I have no information concerning the trailer parks.

I do not see banks as a separate issue. They my not be rental properties but their abondoned properties are an eyesore to our community and they are related because the city has the same issue with them as they do with out of town landlords....."they can't be compelled to comply because they can't be served"
Are you sure you have been in Middletown over the past twenty years?
I just drove by the old library this morning. Has the owner been ordered to make repairs on that property? City now owns empty lots all over town with grass four foot high.
I believe you need to start with the problem property owners that you can serve and where improvements can be made before we impose more laws.

Vivian,

Vivian,

I appreciate your response to my post. It is now clear to me that you are very "tuned in" to the happenings within our city. I may be wrong, but your response leads me to believe that what I perceived as constant negativity is really a release of many years of frustration with our city's leaders and their poor decision making history. You've raised several interesting points that I would like to chime in on:
Greygoose
I don’t need to be patted on the head and told that you understand that I might be frustrated with the poor decision making of past leaders...I’m not impressed with the current leaders either.
It is evident from your post that you are NOT a resident, business owner or a landlord in the city of Middletown. However I do believe that you are part of the city’s spin machine.
I believe that I and others on this blog have voiced our opinions on all the subjects that you seem to be concerned about. Sooo let your fingers do the research.
Yep that’s what we need to give City Hall is more money and more power..
 
1. Because of the city's poor history, you and many others on this board are leary of the positive "spin" that city leaders put on projects that they support. It's understandable but, to be fair, isn't it to be expected. Would you follow a general into battle if he told you that that odds of survival were 1 in 100?

2. You mention Cincinnati State as an example of the city's manipulation of the facts. Can you tune me in on why you feal this way. I'm not disagreeing, I just don't know. To me, the third party feasability studies looked good and the risk to the city appears minimal.

3. There are approximately 9,000 rental units in the city but, according to the city's 2010 Section 8 Report, we should "strive" to reduce that number to around 3,600 (a 60% reduction!!!!!!). If the city approved the building of 216 rental units, it flys in the face of their own recommendation. Can you provide more info on these proposed new rentals?

4. I don't see $25.00 per mailbox putting any landlord out of business unless they are already headed that way. Don't get me wrong; I don't like the added expense, but will support it if it benefits the city as a whole. Quite frankly, much of my support for the registration program is the hope that it will help reduce the number of sustainable rental units toward the 3,600 goal. To date, my support for Mr. Adkins is due to his recognition that the city has too many rentals and reducing that number is a primary objective of his (that's why I would like more info on the proposed 216 new units).

5. Conceptually, I understand your concern over a single individual having too much power and control. However, the problems that Mr. Adkins is dealing with are monumental and if he needs additional "stroke" to get it done, I'll support it (as long as individual freedoms are not truly encroached upon).

6. In my prior post, I asked you questions about Mr. Adkins because I have, what I believe, to be the answers. You are absolutely right about HUD not permitting Mr. Adkins to reduce the number of Section 8 vouchers, but it was not due to a lack of effort. The 2010 Section 8 Report that he prepared was so full of spin, it made me dizzy reading it. However, HUD isn't going to allow it until poverty related numbers drop enough to justify it. I think that it is imperative that the number of rental units in this town be reduce to have any chance of economic recovery. If you can't reduce that number by taking away vouchers, the only choice that you have left is to take away the actual rental units. I believe that to be Mr. Adkins' strategy and support it. It's going to be painful but I feel that it must be done. This support is not coming from someone sitting on the sidelines with nothing to lose. I have many rental units in this town and this strategy will cost me much more than most residents.

7. I see that you mention the Duncan Oil deal. I happen to know the president of that company (unless he recently retired). What deal are you speaking of? I can probably get the inside skinny on it if I know what you are referring to.

8. I thought that Walter Leap did the best job of stating his position. I loved it when he pointed out a couple of city owned properties that were not be maintained. Rachel Lewitt lost some credibility with me when she stated something to the effect of "many landlords are opporating at a loss". This might be technically true, but anyone in the "landlord business" knows that demand is higher than normal and we all know what happens when demand is greater than supply.

I look forward to your reply. I am curious to see how much we do and don't have in common.