Landlords oppose proposed rental ordinance

A feeling of deja vu was in the air of the Oxford Village Council chambers at the Sept. 13 meeting.

Just as it was in 2013, council was considering a proposed ordinance that would mandate the registration and inspection of all residential rental properties.

And just as they did back then, a group of local landlords and property owners showed up to protest it during a public hearing that lasted nearly an hour.

Landlord Tom Claycomb, of Oxford, told council members he thought they had “put (this issue) to rest” three years ago, but here it is again like everything else that government wants.

“This seems to be like swimming pools, blue turf, (a) community center – they keep ramming it out there until they get it,” he said. “Do the people ever matter? How many times do they have to turn something down?”

In 2013, council rejected a previous version of the proposed ordinance immediately following a public hearing during which it received an earful of opposition from property owners and citizens.

This time, rather than approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance, council voted to set it aside. Ordinances require a first and second reading prior to a vote on adoption.

Officials claim the goal of the proposed ordinance is to get a registration in place so public safety personnel know where all rental units are located when performing their duties and to ensure these properties are meeting “all applicable” codes and ordinances for the health, safety and welfare of occupants. For details about it, see “Summary of Oxford Village’s proposed residential rental registration/inspection ord.”

“There are some properties that have safety issues,” said village Manager Joe Young, who noted the village has received complaints from tenants. “That’s why our code officer and our fire chief are supporting this ordinance because they’ve experienced it (with) certain properties in town.”

“There is an issue with certain properties. Not all of them, there’s a few,” Young noted. “We have very good landlords here, but there are a few that are not.”

Some ordinance opponents questioned the necessity.

“Does anybody have any real evidence that there is a need for this ordinance? They’ve got so many ordinances now. They’ve covered everything,” Claycomb said.

“Is there a slum area in Oxford that I haven’t seen that requires all this intrusion? No fact-finding that I know of has preceded this (proposed ordinance),” said landlord Otis Underwood.

Landlords Chuck Schneider and Mark Young both asked village officials point-blank how many tenant complaints the municipality has received.

No specific number was given, but the manager said, “We’ve had a number of complaints over the years.”

Village Clerk Susan Nassar pointed out there is a court case going on right now involving a house on East St. that was turned into multiple rental units. The village made all the tenants leave for safety reasons, she said.

Councilwoman Maureen Helmuth defended the need for the proposed ordinance.

“There are properties in this village that need to be inspected,” she said. “This is the only mechanism we can (create) to get into homes and inspect (them).”

Helmuth claimed there are apartments in the village that derive their electricity from “extension cords.” She said the purpose of the proposed ordinance is not to transform rental units into “palaces,” but simply to make them safe.

“They need to be safe and our fire and police (personnel) need to be safe going into them,” she said.

“The problem is there are people who don’t comply,” Helmuth noted. “And the people that do comply, it’s like everything else, the good have to get punished with the bad because it’s the only way to get the bad to comply. And the word punish is not the correct word.”

“It is the correct word,” retorted Mark Young.

Of the proposed ordinance, Schneider said, “It’s discriminatory, it’s unconstitutional and it’s an invasion of privacy.”

He said it creates a special set of rules that applies only to residential rental properties, not to owner-occupied dwellings.

“We’re saying for some reason only rental houses have these safety issues,” he said. “What about the 2,000 other houses? They don’t have any safety issues? They’re all perfect?”

“You’re singling out rental houses as a unique category that’s unsafe,” Schneider continued. “I will kick your butt in court. You’re discriminating (against) one body of people . . . with absolutely no basis.”

Schneider suggested council members should make their homes subject to the same requirements being proposed for rentals.

“How about you people? Why don’t you register? Why don’t we inspect your house? How about that? Let’s start with you,” he said.

Schneider accused the village of being lax when it comes to its adherence to codes and ordinances. He cited the municipal complex on W. Burdick St. as an example.

“Are you up to snuff on all your buildings?” he asked.

He then proceeded to answer his own question.

“I can go through this place (and) I’ll have 15 violations in 25 minutes,” he said. “I’ve done it already today, just in case. I’ve got the list all ready.”

For example, Schneider pointed out the hallway just outside the council chambers lacks emergency lights.

“If there was a fire in this building, there’s not one frickin’ emergency light in that hallway out there,” he said. “I checked today. Not one.”

He also cited issues pertaining to handicap-accessibility and fire suppression.

“You are subject to the frickin’ code just like I am,” Schneider said.

Mark Young agreed and pointed out there are a number of “houses of horror” in the village where ordinances and codes are currently not being enforced and haven’t been for quite some time.

Concerns were expressed by opponents that this ordinance would make rental owners subject to overbearing officials who often try to make property owners do things not required by code.

“It is merely an invitation for arbitrary decision-making by the code enforcement officer,” Underwood said.

“We’re subject to some egotistical inspector who comes in and thinks he’s God,” Schneider said.

Based on his experiences owning rental properties in Pontiac, Claycomb said inspectors “find something wrong every time they go in there because that’s how they justify their existence.”

“Believe me, it can happen and in Oxford, it can happen,” he said.

If enacted, Mark Young said the proposed ordinance will result in tenants being kicked out because not every landlord is “going to be able to conform.”

“What is your contingency plan for those people that are going (to be put) out onto the street?” he said. “Do you have any empathy for these people?”

Claycomb noted tenant and landlord are not bad words.

“These rentals are necessary,” he said. “There’s a lot of people that (are) not as fortunate as you and I that can own a house. They have to rent.”

One gentleman who spoke pointed out that communities surrounding Oxford do not have a rental registration/inspection ordinance. He mentioned the cities of Auburn Hills, Clarkston and Rochester Hills, the townships of Oxford, Addison, Orion, Brandon, Independence and Oakland, and the villages of Lake Orion and Ortonville.

“Those are the communities against which we compete for investment dollars,” he said.

This individual also noted that when Pontiac enacted its rental ordinance “you couldn’t give away your rental properties” in that city ” because nobody wanted to deal with the heavy-handed bureaucracy that went with it.”

“That’s what’s going to happen here,” he said. “It will negatively impact property values. If it impacts investment property, it will impact your property as well. Keep that in mind.”

Schneider accused village officials of working on this proposed ordinance “in secret” and “behind closed doors” without any input from property owners and landlords.

“That is not the way to conduct business and it is not a way to treat the people who have made an investment in your community,” he said. “We provide a service. We have people who have no choice but to rent and you are complicating our life and their life.”

It should be noted the proposed ordinance was discussed during a regular council meeting on Aug. 9 that was open to the public. It was listed as an item on the posted agenda.

Also, at that meeting, council approved holding a public hearing on the issue at its Sept. 13 meeting. A public notice regarding this hearing was published in the Aug. 17 edition of the Leader.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *