Landlord licensing proposed

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Thursday, March 13, 2003 | Tom Barnes

[Willie Green]

In an effort to curb apartment overcrowding and improve the condition of rental buildings, City Councilman Alan Hertzberg is proposing a measure that would require landlords to be licensed by the city.

Before a license to occupy a rental unit could be issued, the city's Building Inspections Bureau would have to inspect the unit to make sure it complies with occupancy and building codes.

[Protagoras]

As a matter of fact, our system of agricultural subsidies and price supports has greatly benefitted the consumer,

The only thing missing from that post is a laugh track.

[learner]

Another stupid idea by City Council. These morons have a long history of ruining Pittsburgh.This is really just a disguised tax increase, just as the recent garbage fee for apartments (as opposed to all residential)was a tax increase.Apartments are currently tax as real estate and with a business privelage tax. Additionally they pay all sorts of"fees".

[Protagoras]

Sure beats the high volatility and market fluctuation of the natural feast or famine cycle that's inherent in crop production.

A "five year plan" ala Americano.

[dasboot]

BTW...

I used to own and rent an apartment building that I rescued from slumdom. I had a really nice place; but then the state got all unnecessary with lead paint regs; and, notwithstanding that I had taken reasonable, effective measures to take care of the problem, they determined, by ukase, that I hadn't gone far enough. They demanded, based upon the fact that I had a positive cash-flow (I didn't know it was unethical to profit from providing a human necessity) that I must undo a $75,000 investment to allow for state-approved de-leading (a method that has been determined, scientifically, to make things worse...I had it figured out before they did).

With friends from the government like those, I determined that the business just wasn't worth it. I sold to a company that stripped the place of its architectural nicities--remuddled it--clad it in vinyl, ripped out and replaced the Victorian interiors, and rented to government-subsidized tenents. It's a slum again. But there ain't no lead!

There'll always be well-connected developers who can profit under close regulation by providing "McHousing"; but there's no hope for the little guy. And the availability of nice, affordable housing suffers for it.

So ditch the half-measures: do the whole shebang.

[learner]

To suggest that this will effect "crowding" is silly. Are the inspectors going to inspect at midnight when the people are there?

[RightWhale]

I really didn't like how they moved that old lady out of her home to make way for the Interstate 30 years ago. They offered her fair market value, $12,000, but there is no way she could have moved for that amount, not at her age. Still grates on my nerves.

[Myrddin]

The standard procedure I observed in California was to:
1. Issue the eviction notice.
2. A day later, issue the illegal detainer notice.
3. Ask the Sheriff's department for a civil standby at the end of the first two weeks. If the tenant leaves at the two week mark, you're finished.
4. If the tenant did not leave, then call the Sheriff's deputies again at 45 days. At this point, you have the right to enter the property and remove all the possessions of the occupants who are now illegally present. If they object, the Sheriff's department carts them off.

[Domestic Church]

I bet the real reason is to set up a fee upon both the renter and the rentee...and fill the state coffers with more moola. This coming on the heels of the nursing home bed fee really stinks.

[dasboot]

Oh yeah:

$75,000 is just the investment in materials for the rehab. I spent eight years doing all the labor myself. The state wouldn't view that as an expense, though.

[Willie Green]

The only thing missing from that post is a laugh track.

The only thing that is funny is your inability to refute my statement based on principles of economics.

But since this thread deals with rental housing rather than agriculture issues, you can save that for a different thread.

[IMHO]

"As a matter of fact, our system of agricultural subsidies and price supports has greatly benefitted the consumer, providing a stable and reliable abundance of food. Sure beats the high volatility and market fluctuation of the natural feast or famine cycle that's inherent in crop production."

As a matter of fact, the consumer has been royally screwed through higher commodity prices due to this type of Gov't intervention. Taxpayers as well.

Gee Willie Green(Party), why don't you learn some economics before you ask people to refute your delusions on that basis?

[Willie Green]

As a matter of fact, the consumer has been royally screwed through higher commodity prices due to this type of Gov't intervention. Taxpayers as well.

The fact is that Americans enjoy the most abundant and stable food supply on the face of the planet.

[dasboot]

We have abundance in spite of and NOT because of the gubmint.

What cha got there, FreeWilly, is some of yer basic ad hoc proctor hoc weakness.

[shotspider]

why ditinya just burn da freekin house down and collect da insurenz cash man.ya know what i mean..badabing!!!!

[shotspider]

and you my friend should wake up and smell the coffee

[Doomonyou]

As long as the license fees cover the costs of inspections, it shouldn't be a burden on other taxpayers.

BS!!! This is just another attack on freedom, property rights and more damn govmint intrusion, period.

[Doomonyou]

[Heyworth]

The standard procedure I observed in California was to: 1. Issue the eviction notice. 2. A day later, issue the illegal detainer notice. 3. Ask the Sheriff's department for a civil standby at the end of the first two weeks. If the tenant leaves at the two week mark, you're finished. 4. If the tenant did not leave, then call the Sheriff's deputies again at 45 days. At this point, you have the right to enter the property and remove all the possessions of the occupants who are now illegally present. If they object, the Sheriff's department carts them off.

When I was running a building in L.A., it was a lot more complicated/ First, there's the 3-day notice to pay rent or quit. If that's ignored, then you have to get someone to serve the unlawful detainer, a 10 day notice. If that's ignored, then you file for a court date. Then, if you get the judgement in court, they've still got another two weeks, I think. Then the deputies come and boot them out, and you can change the locks. But they've still got 30 days to come and get their stuff. The landlord or manager (me) has to open the door to them one time. Only after that 30 has passed can you pull the stuff out, but I think you still have to store it for a while. If it remains unclaimed after some interval, then you get to keep it or sell it.

But there are all kinds of tricks the tenant can pull to delay the process. One of the best is to come up with someone whose credit is already trashed and have them sign a paper saying that they also live in the unit. That means that all the paperwork that didn't list them is now negated, and the landlord has to go back to square one again. Took us a year to get rid of one guy. He moved in, paid rent once, and never gave us another dime. At one point, he got a real roommate to move in and took money from him. When I slapped that guy with eviction papers a week after he moved in, he was stunned. He was also gone the next day.

[Willie Green]

BS!!! This is just another attack on freedom, property rights and more damn govmint intrusion, period.

In densely populated communities where such rental properties are commonplace, it is reasonable to impose community standards for health and safety purposes. I have no problem placing such regulations on slumlords whose neglect not only jeopardizes their tenants, but also detracts from the value of neighboring properties. As a conservative, I oppose rent controls, so the landlords should be able to recoup their costs by passing it along to their tenants.

IMHO, that's a reasonable approach to a real world problem. If you don't like it, tough bananas.

[Myrddin]

Your nightmare experience is yet another reason that I opted to sell my property in San Diego before moving to Idaho. I don't want to be a landlord.

I had a friend who was having problems similar to yours. He hired a couple Hell's Angels to pay a visit to his unit. It was miraculously vacated. I can't recommend that as a universal solution, but it worked for him.