Wednesday, February 02, 2005
McS'town looks at rental unit inspections
McS'town looks at rental unit inspections
I viewed photos passed among council showing the mold infestation mentioned at the link above during the meeting, prompting my comments.
I vowed to look into what is possible for McSherrystown and here is an example of what Chambersburg has gone through with their regular rental unit inspections:
Meeting Minutes, Chambersburg Borough 1/16/2002:
http://www.borough.chambersburg.pa.us/minutes/2002/january_16__2002_meeting_minutes.html
And the resulting Chambersburg Borough Rental Unit Inspection Ordinance:
http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=182555&depth=3&hitsperheading=on&infobase=chambers.nfo&record={1FF578E}&softpage=Document42
What was left out of the Evening Sun article was that council quickly came to a general consensus that any proposed inspections would be on tenant turnover - that is, when someone moves out, the unit would need inspected between tenants.
This was thought to minimize the frequency, however even this as a rule could be faulty and cause too high a frequency in specific cases - such as tenants who leave after a month or two.
So thinking about it, as far as a remedy for the year to year problem, which was the "tenant turnover" intent, I'd propose:
"Rental Units are to be inspected before being made available for a new tenant unless said unit has passed it's previous inspection within the past (time period)"
There is, of course, the "inspection upon complaint" trigger as well.
What the inspection would entail, how much the inspection would cost and to who(m?) are further details...
On who pays, the Sun printed that I want to charge inspection fees to the landlords in the business of rental properties, and this is true.
I would not want the borough general fund to profit from the inspection fees, however at the same time, I do not want the general borough homeowner population to have to contribute significantly towards the inspections, as while they do benefit from the overall benefit to the community, the majority of the cost should be placed upon those who benefit - the renters, like myself. To reach the renters, you must charge the landlord, who will pass the cost on. If you take the cost of the proposed inspections and the expected frequency, I would expect it to amount to cents per month per unit.
To those who may say, "If the borough wants inspections, they should pay for them," remember, you are saying that it should come from the general fund, which is funded by property taxes, income taxes, and the emergency and municipal services tax, which we did not raise.
In closing, I believe the inspections will serve to protect the health and integrity of our growing urban community, as more and more buildings in the Borough are being converted to rental units, and others occasionally change hands.
I viewed photos passed among council showing the mold infestation mentioned at the link above during the meeting, prompting my comments.
I vowed to look into what is possible for McSherrystown and here is an example of what Chambersburg has gone through with their regular rental unit inspections:
Meeting Minutes, Chambersburg Borough 1/16/2002:
http://www.borough.chambersburg.pa.us/minutes/2002/january_16__2002_meeting_minutes.html
And the resulting Chambersburg Borough Rental Unit Inspection Ordinance:
http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=182555&depth=3&hitsperheading=on&infobase=chambers.nfo&record={1FF578E}&softpage=Document42
What was left out of the Evening Sun article was that council quickly came to a general consensus that any proposed inspections would be on tenant turnover - that is, when someone moves out, the unit would need inspected between tenants.
This was thought to minimize the frequency, however even this as a rule could be faulty and cause too high a frequency in specific cases - such as tenants who leave after a month or two.
So thinking about it, as far as a remedy for the year to year problem, which was the "tenant turnover" intent, I'd propose:
"Rental Units are to be inspected before being made available for a new tenant unless said unit has passed it's previous inspection within the past (time period)"
There is, of course, the "inspection upon complaint" trigger as well.
What the inspection would entail, how much the inspection would cost and to who(m?) are further details...
On who pays, the Sun printed that I want to charge inspection fees to the landlords in the business of rental properties, and this is true.
I would not want the borough general fund to profit from the inspection fees, however at the same time, I do not want the general borough homeowner population to have to contribute significantly towards the inspections, as while they do benefit from the overall benefit to the community, the majority of the cost should be placed upon those who benefit - the renters, like myself. To reach the renters, you must charge the landlord, who will pass the cost on. If you take the cost of the proposed inspections and the expected frequency, I would expect it to amount to cents per month per unit.
To those who may say, "If the borough wants inspections, they should pay for them," remember, you are saying that it should come from the general fund, which is funded by property taxes, income taxes, and the emergency and municipal services tax, which we did not raise.
In closing, I believe the inspections will serve to protect the health and integrity of our growing urban community, as more and more buildings in the Borough are being converted to rental units, and others occasionally change hands.
