All Forum Posts by: John Lenhart

I second that, call Chris Scherff he will take care of you

Calling it class C is a bit generous. If you specialize in low income housing then it is fine, but if you prefer more workforce housing I would not buy in Fairmont

Why not start with just parking and see what it does first. If the neighboring competitors have covered parking, then maybe consider it but if not, why do to the expense unless you l ow the ROI will be there.

We have no trouble filling our lots with boats and RVs. Now could we get a premium if we covered the lot, yes, but it is not enough to justify the improvement. Most of the people in our area are storing their RV because they cannot do so in their driveways at home. To them, they need a gated lot to keep the vehicle and that is all they really want

I don't have any links to a residency requirement as I have not come across that anywhere in the past. I will do some digging on that, but here are some of my initial thoughts.
 1) Any law that would require landlords to reside in the same municipality as their rental property or properties would be unconstitutional because it would be an infringement on interstate commerce.

2) States certainly can place requirements on having an agent for process purposes that resides in the state. That is certainly reasonable. I don't know if cities can require an agent of the landlord live within the city where the rental is located, but I can see some major red flags with that type of ordinance, but now willing to say it is completely unconstitutional to do that (interstate commerce issues amongst other things stand out).

Do you have any links to such an ordinance that requires residency?

 Residency requirements have been shown to be unconstitutional almost across the board. If municipalities try and enforce them, they are playing with fire. I know there are cases dealing with such with city employees. The city would not win such a case.

As for the vacancy requirement. The issue is not settled but looking ahead and using the federal case in Ohio as a precedent, such requirement would still violate due process of the Landlord and would require the city to obtain a warrant first (yes the 4th amendment applies to landlords). If it is rented the tenants also have a fourth amendment claim. Just because the landlord does not live in the property does not mean they are not afforded 4th amendment rights.

The way the court would look at a statute like that is to see if there is a true compelling interest of the state that could not otherwise be administered without violating the individual rights of the landlord. It is an extremely high bar for the city to overcome in my opinion and based on the most recent case in Ohio

 Before having a public policy discussion on the merits of what’s beneficial for society or not beneficial, I think it’s important to understand the scope of the federal case that Anthony is citing.

 The judge in the federal case, never said that’s cities could not contact reasonable inspection programs on rental properties. What she did say was that a mandatory rental inspection program On rental properties was a violation of both the Landlord and tenants Right to due process under the fourth amendment and, could not be done Unless The city obtained a warrant.

Even acknowledging the Compelling interest that the city has and societal benefit, it could not override the landlords fourth amendment rights

 The ruling, still let the city conduct an inspection, but in order to have such a broad program where they inspected every property and every landlord, it would create such an administrative burden for the city in order to comply with the court order, that The ruling affectively made it impossible to have such a program.

Applying the ruling to Your proposal of mandatory inspections on lease renewal, that proposal would likely fail and due process grounds as well.

Where inspection programs typically would be upheld, is if the inspection process is tailored in such a way to inspect  properties that have previously been identified 2/have housing violations or nuisance properties. Then, it would be reasonable to enter those specific properties in an inspection program Until it is cleared up. This would avoid the due process problem that the cities face

I just found out about a new startup software called inNago.com

It is free and they charge only for online payments. Good for a small property owner who is looking to get their first property management system. Definitely worth looking into if you are considering your first property management system

Another tool that can be used to fight against rental inspections is the use of disparate impact.  In many communities, there is a majority-minority renter population, meaning the majority of renters are minorities.  The problem with rental inspections is that in theory, the city inspector is not just required to inspect the property for any defects by the landlord, but they are required to report any illegal activity on the property that they encounter. This means if the tenant has any drug or illegal paraphernalia the housing inspector is technically required to cite this individual for a criminal offense. 

From a renter standpoint, this is such an invasion of privacy. In addition, given that many communities have such a large minority rental community, these policies create a disparate impact against the minority population. 

I don't know about you, but if your town is debating such a proposal and is full of a bunch of SJW's who are looking at it as a way to stick it to greedy landlords, if you mention the disparate impact argument to them, especially in a public meeting setting, I would be willing to bet the rental inspection issue proposal to quickly go away

I know in Cincinnati a lot of the brokers have a very favorable impression of them and they have a very good reputation.