Council Considers Rental-Housing Inspection Proposal

This is a great idea. Am sort of shocked the city did not do this already, but then when I think about some of the places I haved lived…Go Sally!

No worries, I'll just add the cost to the rent I charge on my 2 units.

Farmer Ted has it; this extra inspection cost just gets passed down to the tenants anyways, so who exactly is this law assisting?

How about just making the request system more well known instead of blowing a bunch of money inspecting the vast majority of units which are fine?

OK farmer ted – yes, it is likely that landlords would the costs to tenants in the form of high rents. However, don't you think that the quality of housing rental housing (operable heating, doors that lock, water faucets that work, windows that you can exit, etc.) should be enforced. And yes, there are places that don't meet minimum standards. Sounds preachy, but it is the reality.

The city council are really lost and do not know what to do, since there
is NO MONEY to do anything. But of course, add more regulation to
“help” people which just drives up the cost back to the tenants.
Man, 2011 elections will be fun.

ASUW has also lobbied years for rental housing inspection. Undergrads especially are unlikely to know their rights and there are many substandard rentals in the U-District.

Solid Ground also just launched a comprehensive website with information on renters’ rights in Washington State:
http://solidgroundblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/05…

I'm not sure what is meant by “has been debating, without much action, for the past 25 years.” Seattle DID have a proactive (distinct from complaint-based) Rental Housing Inspection program for a few years in the 80s until the mid 90's when the City was sued and settled the lawsuit, eliminating the program AND the settlement include a legally binding requirement to *not* have a proactive inspection program until 2006. Find out more, read here:

http://www.seattle.gov/council/licata/up/241.htm

http://www.seattle.gov/council/licata/up/287.htm

And if your units are worth it, people will pay the extra rent.

If you're a slumlord, however, you'll be SOL, so quit your whining.

I guess we better get those bridges fixed as more low-income families are forced to move as rents increase.

Under the new law, those that can't afford a better place will be forced to move when their rent goes up.

Under existing law, those that can afford better rentals either move to a nicer place or exercise their freedom to live in squalor.

A study by the Cedar River Group done for City Council estimates that the cost to a landlord would be just $28 per unit per year. Even if you have a large building with 100 units, that's just $2,800 a year. Big whoop. They spend less fixing the washing machines.

So if they pass along the cost, that would increase rent by exactly $2.33 per month. I think that's worth it for tenants to live in decent housing without fear of being evicted or deported if they complain about abhorrent conditions.

I'd like to thank joshuadf for mentioning the U-District situation, and I wanted to expound on his comment. University students typically do not have either the resources or the sophistication to deal with substandard housing and are good prey for the slumlords in the U-District (not all landlords in the U-District are slumlords–many if not most of them desire to create good living arrangements for their tenants–but some are). It's interesting that it takes a state law to force Seattle to act.

I don't know enough about the details of this particular legislation to take a position, but I know that we need credible rental house inspection.

Building on the comments posted by Anna M., the Cedar River Group report also mentioned that the City should not pursue a mandatory inspections program. That's what's interesting here. The City's own $50k study told them to not pursue a mandatory inspections program.

What was the recommendation by Cedar River Group? The study actually said the City should actively pursue probable cause civil search warrants legislation as a means for the City to target the bad housing, while leaving good housing alone. Then, after a few years if the warrants weren't addressing the City's needs, the study says try an inspections program.

The State law that is being preempted here grants the City the right to pursue civil search warrants, something which the City has been lobbying for for the past 15 or so years.

Civil search warrants are the proper tool to seek out the lousy boarding-room housing in the U-District, or the notorious dumps owned by Sisley in Roosevelt. The people that own those properties are not going to voluntarily offer their units to be inspected and those properties are not necessarily identifiable as rental housing from the outside. How will an inspections program target properties that the City does not even know are being rented?

Beyond that though, Anna's cost estimate is grossly underestimated. First, the City has yet to publish what it would charge per unit for an inspection, if the City even chooses to offer their own inspectors up to do the job. They could just decide to force landlords to hire a third party inspector to do the job, which would likely be at a much higher per unit cost based on other programs I have seen.

Second, nobody here is mentioning the costs to actually fix any problems that might be discovered. We are talking about inspecting to the minimum housing code, which covers things as trivial as a cracked light switch plate or a snag in the carpet. The costs to actually fix such little nit-pick problems, which likely exist at any of our own homes, will add up quickly too and those costs will also be passed on to renters. So Anna, no, this is not just a $28 per unit cost.

Oh, and those costs are not to mention the cost of the business license that is also a component of Seattle's proposal.

The Cedar River Study did not support a mandatory inspection program. The study recommended the use of civil search warrants which is also granted in the State Legislation.

The inspection estimate of $28 per unit was if a landlord hired a city inspector. The proposed ordinance does not give this option. My estimate on the cost of inspections is approx. $125 per unit especially since they would be looking for the minimum Building and Maintenance Code.

I will be passing this fee on to my tenants by making a one year non-refundable inspection fee due at renewals. Tenants should know what they are paying for.

90% of rental housing in the City of Seattle is quality housing. That is why civil search warrant authority should be tried first.

As a homeowner in a neighborhood with a lot of rentals, I don't want anyone who chooses to “live in squalor” in my area. Move 'em out, and shut the slumlords down

the Seattle Housing and Building Maintenance Code does not require repair to 'a snag in the carpet'. It's the MINIMUM codes for health and safety purposes.

There ARE protections in place for tenants who want to complain about the condition of their rental housing. Under the city's Housing and Building Maintenance Code – Prohibited Acts prevents landlords from retaliation against tenants in response to complaints made to the Department of Planning and Development or any other agency. It's the SPD's job to enforce it and part of the problem is that they aren't aware of that themselves. Many people who do not know enough about rental housing in Seattle just assume that a mandatory inspection program cannot have any downsides but it isn't as straightforward as that and there's a much bigger picture. Additionally, a mandatory inspection program won't guarantee that every landlord will partake in it nor will it mean that landlords still won't attempt retaliation against tenants who formally complain about conditions in their units. It is inevitable that additional costs incurred by the landlord will be passed to the tenant and there aren't enough affordable units out there in Seattle as it is, especially for marginalized tenants who more than anything need a roof over their head. The existing complaints based system is by no means perfect but it does work well. There needs to be more action on the part of SPD in enforcing prohibited acts in response to retaliation.

Landlord Bob! The Seattle Housing and Building Maintenance Code does not concern itself with 'a snag in the carpet' nor a 'cracked light switch plate'. Unless either item is a health hazard, i.e. the switchplate is badly broken and exposes wiring or the carpet is no longer fuctional and presents a serious tripping hazard (it would have to be very decrepit carpet). It's the basic MINIMUM standards that are enforced for the health and safety of residents. Don't undermine your credibility by exaggeration.

Wrong. If we were only talking about “health and safety” then Seattle should be happy with using the State law, which clearly states that inpsections are done only to address health and safety hazards.

I have personally spoken with an attorney who has experience dealing with City inpsections and the minimum housing code. Stoppers for sinks and cracked light switch covers are most certainly things that the City would inspect for.

The other issue with going off of the minimum housing code is that the City is not enforcing any kind of heirarchy of problems. The cracked light switch cover is viewed as a violation the same as a toilet that does not flush.

How will the proposed inspection law address the problem of tenants whose housekeeping skills are next to non existent and whose piled up possessions represent a fire hazard and requests by the landlord that the tenant clean up his mess produce little improvement.