Apartment Inspections Ordinance
On June 30th the Ordinance Committee met and I went before them to express my thoughts on the ordinance about apartment inspections and why I don’t believe it would work.
These are my reasons:
- Why two- and three-family homes are exempt if the owner lives in one unit? Don’t these tenants have the same right to live in a decent, healthy environment?
- According to the system established by Mayor Dan Rivera when it comes to hiring municipal employees, all enforcers would be friends of the administration and their cronies. Seven inspectors will be hired for this.
- The city would not be consistent and neutral across the board. The friends of the mayor or other influential friends would not have violations or if the landlord slips some cash to the inspector. It has been done in the past. Who’s to say the new inspectors won’t do the same? Pat Ruiz, director of the Inspectional Service Department thought I was disrespectful toward his inspectors when I said it but, I strongly believe the potential for bribery is there and he cannot vouch for future inspectors.
- That ordinance will bankrupt those residents that are borderline in their finances. In an old house, they may find numerous violations costing the landlord thousands of dollars and if he or she doesn’t have the money to get it all fixed in 30 days, they will begin to assess $100 penalty each month that it remains in non-compliance. Those property owners will end up losing their homes and investors will buy properties in ‘fire sales’ to renovate and rent to middle class families.
- Tenants will misuse the ordinance to get back at the landlord for raising the rents, etc. Council President Kendrys Vasquez suggested that if a landlord raises rents because of the expenses associated with these inspections, they should just move out. He is totally detached from reality in the city!
- Inspectors will misuse their power. Is that far-fetched? The same favoritism on #3 will be used in reverse for political vendettas.
District F Councilor Laplante is always talking about maintaining the middle class in the city. Well, this way of keeping them from moving out is wrong. I was living in Chelsea in 1973 when the big fire occurred. The urban renewal project for that area would have taken 20 years. Their plan involved relocating families from that dilapidated area before razing the buildings. The fire happened on a very windy day and everyone watching from the sidelines commented that the fire department did not even try to extinguish it and they let it burn. The controversy continued for years after that day. In 48 hours, many blocks disappeared saving lots of time and money. Today, there are shopping centers, government buildings, a hospital and a hotel.
Do we need these inspections?
I don’t understand the need for this ordinance (besides producing revenue for the city) because all rental properties require an inspection before being granted an Occupancy Permit from Inspectional Services. Isn’t that repetitious? Also, landlords and renters using Section 8 have to go through a similar process of inspections before they are approved by the State.
It has come to my knowledge that a very large percentage of properties on the north side of this city are insured through The Property Insurance Underwriting Association (MPIUA) also known as the Massachusetts FAIR Plan (Fair Access to Insurance Requirements) which provides basic property insurance on eligible property for applicants who have been unable to gain insurance through the voluntary market.
When a dwelling is purchased the FAIR Plan comes to inspect the property within 30 days, recommendations for repairs are made and they usually have 45 days to complete them. Should they need an extension, it is commonly granted by the inspectors. If they fail to do the repairs because lack of money or not finding a contractor of their choice, the risk of cancellation of their policy is probable.
The FAIR Plan has a mandatory requirement to inspect properties every three years for all properties insured by them. Your failure to facilitate the inspection will result in rejection of your request for insurance coverage. If the insurance coverage has already been provided by the Association, your policy will be canceled. The inspection performed by the Field Underwriting Representative is a service provided by the Association at no cost to the applicant. They are very strict and if you or your assigned representative cannot be at the meeting for the inspection, you will risk getting a “Lock-out Letter” which is a notice of cancellation of your policy.
Their inspections are much more extensive than what the City of Lawrence is proposing. Inspections are designed to check things such as, construction/occupancy, overall condition/maintenance of the property; heating, wiring and any unrepaired damage, excessive rubbish, improper storage of inflammable materials; condition of walls inside and out, gutters and roof, walkways, lighting and handrails. They take measurements and photograph the property.
The FAIR Plan takes into consideration low branches on trees surrounding the property and even unregistered cars in the yard. Sometimes property owners complain that they have to go through inspections every three years and their friends and relatives don’t have to. They are welcome to find another insurance company willing to accept them.
Ordinance Committee Meeting results
What happened at the Ordinance Committee meeting of June 30th and where does it stand? The members are Jeovanny Rodríguez, Modesto Maldonado, Nilka Alvarez-Rodríguez and Estela Reyes (Chair). Nilka Alvarez-Rodriguez was absent and Jeovanny Rodriguez also did not attend that day so Council President Kendrys Vasquez took his place in order to have quorum.
When the time came, Modesto Maldonado made a motion to table it and it was seconded by Kendrys Vasquez.
Now, the Committee will have to vote to take it out of Table Items at a future meeting in order to discuss it again. The full city council can also request that a member makes a motion to take it out of Table Items but that requires six votes and they don’t seem to be there.
Although I do not believe this is equal to a tax increase because, as I told the councilors, a tax increase is even for all home owners and this is more like a selective charge with only a few targeted.
This is not the way to do economic development or urban renewal.
