Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 9 posts · 3 votes
Indianapolis is proposing registration for all Landlords in Marion County. Is this something that is common in your area? There will be a $5.00 fee and a $500.00 fine if you don't register. I can see issues with both sides. So I guess I haven't formed my opinion yet.
Investor · Northridge, CA · Member since 2012 · 249 posts · 73 votes
12y
It is, unfortunately :(
There's an ordinance in Palmdale (Los angeles county) that requires all rental houses to be registered and inspected by the Building and Safety department. Registration is $225 per unit, and houses are inspected every 1, 3 or 5 years according to conditions, compliance, complaints...etc
Investor · Northridge, CA · Member since 2012 · 249 posts · 73 votes
12y
It is, unfortunately :(
There's an ordinance in Palmdale (Los angeles county) that requires all rental houses to be registered and inspected by the Building and Safety department. Registration is $225 per unit, and houses are inspected every 1, 3 or 5 years according to conditions, compliance, complaints...etc
Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 9 posts · 3 votes
12y
See? That's what I see happening. They are pushing this as a one time only, one per landlord fee, with no inspections. They are even saying that by statute the fee can't be raised. (yeah right) I see this as a slippery slope. They already HAVE an accessible list of all property owners. If you own property, you have to pay property taxes.
I really don't see any need for this extra fee. To me it looks like someone is trying to justify their phony baloney job and to collect more revenue.
Its BAD NEWS any time the government wants you to register anything. In almost every case, it is the beginning of further taxation, regulation and the loss of liberty.
Registering landlords is unecessary. The name and address of all property owners, including local and absentee landlords, is in the Office of the Marion County Assessor. See http://cms.indygov.org/MyAssessedValue/ So why does the City/County need to register
"every single landlord in Marion County"?
In the article, Republican City-County Councilor Jeff Miller stated "the $5 is a one-time fee per landlord and it can't go higher, state law prohibits it. He also said there is no inspection program." Right? Remember this government promise: "If you like your insurance you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
If I owned property in Marion County, I would do everything I could to defeat this proposed local law or ordinance!
Real Estate Investor · Durham, NC · Member since 2014 · 89 posts · 32 votes
12y
To me it sounds like it's only a problem for landlords who aren't on the up and up. I feel as though I'd be happy to give my contact info as a landlord.
Real Estate Agent · Virginia Beach, VA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
12y
I believe it's just that localities need revenue, so they are instituting ridiculous new rules and fees just to generate cash. Raleigh instituted a registration of $15 per home 3-4 years ago, no inspection added yet, luckily. When I called the department, they actually said it's because rentals are not kept up as well as owner occupied, so landlords have to pay for extra code enforcement people required to check up on rental properties and code violations, which is ridiculous as most neighborhoods there are HOAs that police their neighborhoods better than the city could do. Annapolis is $100 permit fee and inspection per year, my worst yet.
@Dave Olverson it's not that we're not on the up-and-up, it's that each city already has our contact info on the property records that we already had to pay to officially record when we purchased the property. They are just looking for revenues from a group of taxpayers that won't get much sympathy from the public if we complain about it. If they charged actual tenants this additional "rental registration" fee, there would be outrage. Yet expenses are usually passed through to tenants in rent increases, so they are, in effect, charging tenants.
Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 9 posts · 3 votes
12y
@Dave Olverson, the city already has the contact information of the property owner, they have the property tax records.
There is already an ordinance in place that if the grass isn't cut and it gets above 12" high they will notify you and then will send a contractor out to cut the grass, then charge a HUGE amount to the property owner. If there is debris on the property, same thing, they will notify the property owner to correct the issue or they will send a contractor out and charge the property owner.
I'm seeing this as an unnecessary charge and a duplication of services.
I guess I'm trying to figure out why they want to justify this fee by using "having contact information of landlords" as the excuse. And none of this will address the issue of "unofficial" landlords or sublets. It still all goes back to the property owner being responsible for the condition of the property.
Lender · Greater LA/Orange County area, CA · Member since 2012 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
12y
For those of you who object to the cost, I doubt anyone will miss any meals as a result of a $5.00 fee.
For those who object (or resent) the intrusion and providing contact information, consider this part of doing business. After all, rental real estate is a business.
For those concerned with inspections, I agree that these can be frustrating. No landlord likes the intrusion and inconvenience of an inspector who rides them hard or is difficult to comply and satisfy.
However, there can be a positive side to all this. This can be used as a barrier to entry to discourage others from entering your market. It can be used to identify non-compliant amateur landlords who decide to exit the rental business and sell to you. It can be used as an opportunity to promote your rentals in all marketing and to discredit non-compliant landlords. I could go on, of course.
Since you will, presumably, agree to comply and move forward if subject to these requirements, consider this: what's bad is good.
"In every adversity contain the seed of an equal or greater benefit" -Napoleon Hill.