Why does city require a rental permit on any rental property?

[Alaska landlord]

My guess is that you feel that government legislation is the first place to look for answers on rental issues. I on the other hand feel that it drives up rental rates and produces little in the way of safety for the renter. Those that submit to the application process already know the condition of the property. City inspections are superficial and consist usually of checking fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, and the proximity of electrical outlets to sources of water. If you can provide any statistics that can prove that cities that require rental permits have a higher rate of success in protecting renters as apposed to cities that do not require permits I would be more than happy to review your data.

I also believe that the industry tends to police itself. Bad landlords have a reputation that can be easily looked up. Their neighborhoods can be easily identified, and the property will show definitive signs of deferred maintenance. Those that do live in poor housing are there because they elect to live there. They actually seek out that type of housing due to the low rents and no question asked policy from management. Ergo, the landlord is producing a service for the community.

 

[Mrs. D]

As wrong-headed as you claim my argument is, I strongly believe yours is more so. SELF-POLICING? Are you kidding me? The very first apartment I lived in in DC would probably have made it into some home and garden magazine for fabulous rentals, on the surface. The rent was NOT cheap, the paint, floors, windows, air conditioner, furnace, water heater, appliances, etc., were all new and well-designed. The house was fabulously landscaped. There was also a crack in the foundation that let water, insects, and rodents into the apartment, pipes that were probably illegal in the 1970's, and electrical wiring that hadn't been updated since Eisenhower took office. Fix what is cheap and obvious, leave what is expensive to fix and hard to find. Now, outside of hiring my own inspectors to check the electrical and plumbing systems and the structural integrity of the building, how was I supposed to see these things? The LL literally hid them by, for example, replacing outlets but not the underlying wiring so that it looked like he had updated the electrical and replacing the drywall near the foundation crack just before showing to hide the problem. Now, I was a kid then and didn't see the need to check their permits. Guess what happened when it finally got to the point where I was calling the city on code violations? No permits. Guess what that LL was trying to hide.

As for reputation, that might be all fine and dandy in a small city with a few landlords, but here in my urban world, landlords are almost as plentiful as renters. A majority of the rentals in my specific neighborhood (as well as many others in DC) are MIL suites in private homes (almost every home has one in my area). You may think that would help, as the owners have to live in the house, too. However, it doesn't stop them from installing cheap, old, used appliances (granted, easy to see in some cases), insufficient fixtures (hidden, of course), etc., and violating other codes like trying to rent out spaces that don't have 2 exits, even trying to rent spaces with no food preparation area (a minimum of a sink for food preparation is required...I can't tell you how many people try to rent spaces "no kitchen access," meaning there is no kitchen in the unit (just a bathroom sink, which does not meet code) and you can't use theirs, either). I went with a friend to look at an apartment, "all utilities included," yeah, because there were no heating or air conditioning vents in the converted basement storage room, so OF COURSE the LL didn't care if he had to "pay" for the utilities. These are the types of situations I think rental permits guard against. They are a bulwark against those who would rent whatever space they could find, legal or not, because they know they have to register it and, even if it's a maybe, be subject to inspections. If they don't register it, then, IMHO, they've got something to hide. It's not a panacea, but it's something, anything, to give a renter who's not willing to spend thousands on private inspectors (like a LL would rent to someone who insisted on inspections, anyway) some assurance that the apartment is up to code.

I suppose without permitting you could check to see how many complaints the property has in the code office. The reliability of this data depends on (a) how well the code office keeps records; (b) whether they record code violations by property or owner (lots of easy ways to have a new "owner"); (c) whether the LL actively tries to discourage or even intimidate tenants from calling the code office; on and on and on. I'm more than happy to pay a few dollars a month for my landlord to have a permit, as sort of a badge saying that she has told the city she is running a rental and isn't hiding anything.

Some places I have lived have tried to provide tenants with adequate information by creating online review systems for landlords and properties. As we all know, people are more likely to spend the time to complain than praise, and it's unclear whether there could be some fraud in some of these systems (for example, are these really the former tenants' reviews, or some office assistant instructed by the LL to go write glowing summaries?). Perhaps there is a better way than legal regulation...heck, I'm an economist, I like to see the free market work as well as anyone...but until the day I walk into an un-permitted apartment and it's immaculate and up to code, I'm going to doubt alternative, self controlling systems in this regard.

 

[Alaska landlord]

As wrong-headed as you claim my argument is, I strongly believe yours is more so. SELF-POLICING? Are you kidding me? The very first apartment I lived in in DC would probably have made it into some home and garden magazine for fabulous rentals, on the surface. The rent was NOT cheap, the paint, floors, windows, air conditioner, furnace, water heater, appliances, etc., were all new and well-designed. The house was fabulously landscaped. There was also a crack in the foundation that let water, insects, and rodents into the apartment, pipes that were probably illegal in the 1970's, and electrical wiring that hadn't been updated since Eisenhower took office. Fix what is cheap and obvious, leave what is expensive to fix and hard to find. Now, outside of hiring my own inspectors to check the electrical and plumbing systems and the structural integrity of the building, how was I supposed to see these things? The LL literally hid them by, for example, replacing outlets but not the underlying wiring so that it looked like he had updated the electrical and replacing the drywall near the foundation crack just before showing to hide the problem. Now, I was a kid then and didn't see the need to check their permits. Guess what happened when it finally got to the point where I was calling the city on code violations? No permits. Guess what that LL was trying to hide.

Which proves my point. Those that abide by the law will get the permits, those that don't will bypass the permit procedure and rent regardless. Now with regards to your complaints about the the building you were living in. Old wiring is not a code violation. It has to meet the criteria set at the time the building was made. Cracked foundations in itself is also not a violation unless it created a dangerous condition and affected the building itself. But I concede he should have filled in the cracks.

As for reputation, that might be all fine and dandy in a small city with a few landlords, but here in my urban world, landlords are almost as plentiful as renters. A majority of the rentals in my specific neighborhood (as well as many others in DC) are MIL suites in private homes (almost every home has one in my area). You may think that would help, as the owners have to live in the house, too. However, it doesn't stop them from installing cheap, old, used appliances (granted, easy to see in some cases), insufficient fixtures (hidden, of course), etc., and violating other codes like trying to rent out spaces that don't have 2 exits, even trying to rent spaces with no food preparation area (a minimum of a sink for food preparation is required...I can't tell you how many people try to rent spaces "no kitchen access," meaning there is no kitchen in the unit (just a bathroom sink, which does not meet code) and you can't use theirs, either).

I commend these landlords for installing used appliances. Appliances in general have a very short lifespan in rental units under the abuse of tenants. For example washers are often overloaded and left to run with uneven loads in them. Insufficient fixtures? I have no idea what that means.
As for renting units that should not be up for rent, well I bet they are not hurting for people clamoring to live under those conditions and for the requested rent. In many cases it's better than living under a bridge or out of a shopping cart.

As for your landlord, he probably had to pay are small fine, forced to get a permit and fill in the cracks in the foundation. I bet he is still in business with plenty of people grateful to have a roof over their head.

 

[Mrs. D]

Had I known well enough at the time I rented that first apartment, I would have checked to see if the LL had permits. When I found out he didn't, I wouldn't have rented from him.

The point is not that owners won't rent sub-standard places without a permit, but that there's some obvious tip that all may not be roses and sunshine. Trust me, people who would rent the apartments I speak of are not deciding between the street and a hole, but rather between Columbia Heights and DuPont (both rather fancy neighborhoods, the former a bit cheaper). The rents for un-documented places are commensurate with permitted rentals (depending on neighborhood, a nice 1 bed MIL runs anywhere from $1100-2000 a month), though for the truly atrocious, you'll probably be able to save $100-200 a month off other places in the area. Under these circumstances, is it really a bargain when a codes like fire safety, health, and sanitation aren't followed? The homeowners have heard stories of neighbors making a fortune on their MIL suites and want in on the action, regardless of whether they can follow the rules or not.

Trust me, I have no problem with people being thrifty, installing good used appliances...good for the environment, too! However, a few of the places I looked at in my most recent search (invariably homeowners renting their basement for the first time) had appliances that were clearly on their last legs. I'm sorry, but if I'm paying $1200 a month for my apartment, I shouldn't have to worry that much about whether my refrigerator is going to crap out and the landlord take days or weeks to fix it, thereby costing me hundreds in spoiled food and meals out.

Sure, that's not a code issue, but things like insufficient electrical wiring for a living space (face it, basements were not originally designed to be lived in, and the original wiring is generally commensurate with plugging in a light bulb, not a microwave), insufficient ventilation, and inadequate or non-existent fire escape routes are, and are quite common in the un-documented rentals I have viewed. Additionally, certain appliances in such bad shape that they either don't work properly or are a fire hazard may also be code violations.

As for insufficient fixtures, again, these may or may not be code violations, but I'm generally talking about A/C, heating, and water heating units inappropriate to the size of the unit (always too small, always), windows that don't open, plumbing fixtures that are, well, iffy, etc. Some of these things are obvious, some are obvious only to the seasoned renter (what does someone who's never had too small of a water heater know about the sizes of water heaters?), and some you'll never see unless you're a structural engineer, plumber, or electrician.

I think you and I are thinking about two different situations. You're thinking of the guy renting out his garage as a studio for a few hundred bucks a month to some poor person who'd otherwise be in a shelter. I'm talking about the people who rent the basement of their upscale home in an upscale neighborhood for THOUSANDS of dollars a month to an ignorant, fresh-out-of-law-school associate, and don't really care if the wiring shorts or the foundation leaks. They know they need a permit, they know their unit isn't up to code, but they feel like they can hide the flaws, shave a few dollars off the renovation budget, and pull in over a grand a month.

And, as for that first rental, the problems covered up were more serious than you write them off to be. The pipes contained lead...LEAD. Is that safe??? The electrical wiring was deemed not only a fire hazard, but not sufficient to handle modern loads (you know, like microwaves and blow dryers). The apartment should be capable of sealing out normal weather conditions, like rain, which the cracked foundation allowed right in, and infestations of pests and vermin should be mitigated, and were not. All of this in an "upscale" apartment. Outside of the very basic assurance that a permit offers or the much more expensive and intensive process of having documented, professional inspections, how do you propose that someone try and avoid ending up in a situation like that?

 

[Alaska landlord]

Too long to read, but I do agree I would label you a PETA tenant and refer you to the landlord down the street that doesn't mind dealing with a variety of difficult people. Me, I don't need the intrusion.

 

[Mrs. D]

So it's okay for you to check my credit, call my boss, call my MOM, call my best friend, dig through my criminal record, and ask for my bank account information, but not okay for me to ask if you are following the law by having a rental permit?

 

[FarmerJ]

Mrs D you wrote > pipes that were probably illegal in the 1970's, and electrical wiring that hadn't been updated since Eisenhower took office. < you do know there can be multiple codes that can cover rentals , In my area old code permits 1000 sq ft and less to be served by two 15 amp circuits, New code is different, Older codes do one thing they permit property owners to delay making changes until a time comes when something must be changed to meet code. It is like that all over, and cities can and do sometimes go do routine inspection sweeps that inform landlords of something that must be changed. More often than not when property is sold , just to get loans , many lenders require updates. You mention fire exits too, many places have older property that only has one door that leads to a hall or fire exit route , Many of those propertys fall under a older code that permits them to be as they are. Point of this KAB is to learn what the older codes are and at what point newer codes apply, Kab you would be surprised at how many newer city housing inspectors make mistakes. Even more experianced city housing inspectors sometimes do some rotten stuff. In my first home when the city had rotated housing inspectors to different neighborhoods, a more experianced city inspector came to my door one day wanting to come in, when asked why , was told that she was with the city housing inspections , she still wanted in . She was denied , she insisted , she also wanted to know who the LL was. I have no idea if she was being lazy and didnt bother to look up the current owner info at the property tax desk , Ill guess she just assumed it was rental I pointed to myself and let her know I was the owner and let her know she wasnt coming in. I learned she tried to push her way into another property that was a rental the same day. I knew that tenant , the tenant insisted there was no complaint and that she was not going to come in. The inspector used the same lines on that tenant too, insisting on coming in , refusing to offer a valid reason for entry other than being with city housing inspections. If your city has a current code book available consider buying it OR seeing if your local library has one so you can learn for your self what your local ords & housing codes are!

 

[Mrs. D]

I am, in fact, aware that multiple codes can exist in a city. My current apartment's electrical system was grandfathered under the newer codes. The wiring is safe, but the load levels are relatively low. All this means, for example, is that we can't run the dishwasher (portable) and the microwave or we'll trip a breaker. It's a bit of an inconvenience, but it's safe and legal. In the case of the other apartment, the electrical didn't even meet the basic safety requirements. The final verdict from the inspector was that the wiring was a fire hazard under minimal load conditions. As I also previously mentioned, some of the pipes were also lead, which was a code updated years ago with no grandfather clause that extended to 2001. Some things can be delayed (like ramping up electrical systems to accommodate a 2008 lifestyle), while other things must be changed, and that's fine. It's things that are not up to code in any way and also not obvious, like unsafe wiring and plumbing, that concern me with unregulated rentals.

Would a landlord take the risk of registering an apartment with these obvious code violations? I don't think so. Which is why I think permits are a good middle ground when it comes to tenants having some assurance that the place they're renting is minimally safe. If the level of inspections was so pitiful that even those landlords who know their apartments aren't up to code registered them, knowing they would never be inspected, then I would say that permits have no value. This is just anecdotal, but all the places I've seen with major and obvious code violations (and major and not obvious code violations) lacked a rental permit, so, anecdotally, more honest landlords are more likely to have a rental permit. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best solution we've come up with so far.

 

[Alaska landlord]

So it's okay for you to check my credit, call my boss, call my MOM, call my best friend, dig through my criminal record, and ask for my bank account information, but not okay for me to ask if you are following the law by having a rental permit?

Absolutely! I am risking thousands of dollars while all you offer is a minimal amount of cash as a security that does not even begin to cover all the damage you may cause.
You can ask if I have a permit and you can also walk away if I don’t have one. I in turn can trash your application if I get bad vibes.

so, anecdotally, more honest landlords are more likely to have a rental permit. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best solution we've come up with so far

This is what I have been pointing out. Good landlords that ARE in compliance pay needless fees while those that have homes that are out of code do not.

 

[Mrs. D]

This is what I have been pointing out. Good landlords that ARE in compliance pay needless fees while those that have homes that are out of code do not.

Fair enough, but if these fees are truly needless, what alternative system do you propose?

 

[Alaska landlord]

I propose what a good number of counties and other cities have done. Nothing.
Word of mouth coupled with the ovious disrepair of bad properties, the landlord tenant act and the court system usually does the trick.

 

[Cvillecpm]

2FER * Revenue Enhancement on the backs of GREEDY Landlords AND makes govn't appear to care about the less fortunate by insuring they have adequate housing when permits are tied to an inspection process.