From Harford Property Owners Association:
Come to the Property Owner and Manager meeting:
Tuesday, February 7 at 11AM at the Bel Air Library.
Ordinance 12-02 from the Harford County Council includes a mandated Rental Registration which gives the County government the authority to inspect and mandate repairs to ANY residential rental property. See the Ordinance at this link.
We can stop it. We need to contact the Council AND have a visible presence at the Public Hearing at the County Council on February 14, 2012 at 7PM.
The County released all of the livability code complaints from 2011, and they are available at this link: This is a large PDF document (75MB). If you would like to see our copies of them, email me.
Here is a link to a flyer to post in your workplace.
Please attend the meeting on Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 11AM at the Bel Air Library.
LEARN MORE AT: www.HarfordProperty.org
Why would anyone stop a measure that would help prevent rental properties from becoming slums? It seems that it is only absentee landlords who are opposed to this common sense measure. Slums destroy communities and they are caused, in large part, by slum landlords who refuse to keep their properties wholesome and safe. Support this measure and keep our communities safe.
You forgot the cavalcade of people who are just anti-government-everything no matter what it is or if it makes any sense.
“Slum” landlords aside … do YOU have any rental properties? Do you even have any idea of how hard it is to find tenants that give a DAMN about keeping MY properties in liveable shape? It is a break even proposition, AT BEST!! It’s all happy, happy, joy, joy for the first few months/years. Then someone loses a job or gets arrested, or dies of an overdose (all have happened to me AT LEAST ONCE!) or just doesn’t give a SH*T anymore. BANG! The place gets trashed, I have to go to court for a judgement, then file eviction papers, then schedule the eviction, then sue for back rent and property damages (they almost ALWAYS trash the place before leaving), then try to collect, then see them declare bankruptcy.
You’re right. That’s the inherent nature of a renter, in most cases. Sounds like you’re tired of being a landlord. It’s a tough job.
Mr. Noske, you need to screen your tenants a little more carefully.
Close friends of mine own three rental properties in Baltimore County. They bought these properties and renovated them and they maintain them meticulously. They have rented them out for about seven years now.
Prospective tenants must be employed, must consent to a credit check, and must have a normal credit score. My friends also screen prospective tenants through Maryland Case Search to check their criminal backgrounds. Shady characters, or applicants with weird stories (“I can’t tell you where I work” or “I’ll pay you in cash”) are not considered. No pets are allowed. Tenants must sign a one-year lease.
My friends have never had to evict anybody, and have rarely had anyone even pay their rent late.
If you have tenants getting arrested or dying of overdoses, you need to be more selective in choosing your tenants.
All very good points.
But in his defense, there are still times when you take all due diligence as a landlord and the tenant’s issues still go undetected or develope after they take occupancy. It’s hard to screen out everything.
In general I agree, with proper screening you will solve most of your problems.
Yes but that should be the exception not the rule. He seems to indicate that happens regularly which means he needs to up his criteria or get out of the buisness. Let us not forget he choses to do this. I doubt he would do this if he is simply breaking even on the property.
Yes, all potential tenants should be screened. There is a balance to this fine art. Criteria that are too strict, no tenants, no income, no rental properties. Criteria too loose, “undesirable” tenants. Landlords who do not rent to “undesirable” tenants are accused of discrimination, and must pay for their defense. Landlords with loose criteria are accused of being slumlords, and must pay for the damage to their property and reputation. It is a no win situation in your court of condemnation on any issue or person that you disagree with.
If it is a break even thing then why are you renting? If what you say is true, then it is all heahache and no reward. Only a fool would rent their property then. The truth is you are doing it to make money, and you just don’t want anything to cut into your profit.
Frankly, in reading this article I was surprised to learn that county oversight of rental properties is not already in place.
Technically it is. Code violations can be reported to the County. But the County’s ability to actually enforce the code is were the problems start, and much of that problem comes from landlords who don’t want to be bothered.
Proud,
I can count on one hand the times you and I agree on something. But this is one. Up the street from me is a rental property that even the HCSO doesn’t know who owns it. And they should know because they are out there about every other week. People who live there say they mail their rental check to a PO Box in Virginia and it is a company name that no one ever heard of. The place is a dump. Grass grows to the sky but the county says they can;t do anything about it because they are sure of 2 thing. First, the people who live there do not own it. Second, they can’t really find out who does. I suppose if someone got murdered there they might try harder. I have come to the conclusion that we need to know who is renting the property and there needs to be some accountability that is enforced.
ALEX R: Well, I guess I’m glad I’m sitting down! 🙂
One thing I’m wondering is how much this issue is a upper vs. lower County issue, and not as much a left/right issue– and your comments seems to suggest that.
I haven’t seen a heat map, but I’m guess most rentals are lower County, and even more of the violations are lower County, and the people who live in that area support this– the people who do not either don’t care, or might be owners and are opposed.
The last shred of evidence will be the Council votes.
Is this a single family home??
If answer is yes, then the present code stipulates that the tenant is responsible for lawn maintenance.
If the answer is no then
Why can’t the owner be located? All property in the state of Maryland is listed on the SDAT database that the state has established. The county uses the database to send out property tax bills. If those bills are not paid, the county very quickly sells the property at tax sale. Additionally, all businesses are listed on the SDAT business data base. Seems that if nobody can find the owner of a fixed property, then somebody is doing a less than adequate job. Rental property registration will not help this situation. If the owner fails to register, how will the county housing agency be able to find the owner any better than they can now?
Mr./Mrs./Ms
re your comment why would any one objec>
Do you have an exact location of the slums that are rampant in Harford County or are you merely speaking hypothetically? Do you have the names of the absentee slumlords, or is this another hypothetical comment. It seems that the larger problem here is not rental properties or their condition or their owner’s intentions, it is people who remain anonymous, hide in the shadows, take cover behind their couches and expect me to come to their rescue whenever they are dissatisfied with somebody or some action. If you care as much about your community as you would portray then you would be better served to get up and confront the problem individually or as part of a group.
I believe there is a fee? My mother is concern about here area becoming section 8, but the tea party wants her to protest this.
Kevin,
Yes under the proposed bill there is a nominal fee for a property owner to register a rental property with the County.
No, this legislation, nor any other legislation, will not have any impact on your mother’s neighborhood “becoming” Section 8. The only thing that determines that is the number of properties for rent, the owners who rent them, and the property values as they relate to market rents. It is completely beyond her control, or the County’s, or anyone else.
For example, a neighborhood with all owner-occupied properties and no rentals, would have zero Section 8. If it had a few rentals, and the rents are very high because of the location or nearby property values, it would probably exceed Section 8 rent criteria. If, however, the rents are low enough, the landlord could decide to rent the property with the Section 8 program.
If that is her primary concern, she should not listen to the Tea Party.
If she has other concerns about property rights or the rental code in Harford County, or other aligned interests with the Tea Party, then she should do what she see’s fit.
Anyone can use SDAT’s real property search to find the owner and their current mailing address for any property in the state. Why is a second registration required other than to stigmatize landlords?
The obvious reason is because it hasn’t worked so far.
Kharn: Why are you pro-slums?
I’m not “pro slums”, but nice attempt at trying to frame the discussion to your advantage. If SDAT isn’t perfect, the state should be more diligent in the data entry (the check for the property taxes has to come from someone, they’re not mailing cash in an envelope). If the County can’t locate the owners, post a notice in the paper and put a lein on the house for the cost of the required maintenance. Tenants can stand up for themselves as well, they’re allowed to escrow the rent and go to small claims court if the property is not in an acceptable condition, eventually either having the owner repair it and paying the rent current, or paying for the repair themselves and deducting it from the rent owed.
I’m guessing most renters aren’t in a position to pay for the repairs as otherwise most of them wouldn’t be renters, but you are correct in that there is some court procedure for reddress already available to renters.
And your suggestion for the County to put a lien and have the repairs done is a good one, and is in fact part of the proposed bill.
That is why they are able to pay for the repair and deduct the expense from their rent.
A records registration is required because SDAT doesn’t always show all the owners of a property, or sometimes even the real owners.
It would be interesting to hear what the Maryland department of assessments and taxation, county treasurer thinks about this situation. The county mails its property tax bill out based on SDAT information. If taxes are not being paid, they sell the property at tax sale. If SDAT data base does not show real owner, then the owner is not paying transfer or recordation fees/taxes. This is a loss of revenue to the county and to the state. I have great faith in ability of the treasurer and the assessment and taxation to locate lawful taxpayers and collect taxes/fees. Interestingly enough, the only significant crime the notorious al Capone was convicted of was tax evasion. Never underestimate the reach of an accountant
Kharn, Been there. Tried that. Doesn’t work.
It would be interesting to hear what the Maryland department of assessments and taxation, county treasurer thinks about this situation. The county mails its property tax bill out based on SDAT information. If taxes are not being paid, they sell the property at tax sale. If SDAT data base does not show real owner, then the owner is not paying transfer or recordation fees/taxes. This is a loss of revenue to the county and to the state. I have great faith in ability of the treasurer and the assessment and taxation to locate lawful taxpayers and collect taxes/fees. Interestingly enough, the only significant crime the notorious al Capone was convicted of was tax evasion. Never underestimate the reach of an accountant
This is a wonderful resource for anyone interested in exploring our agrarian past. There is a ton of material in the queue.
Read the bill I beg, you it violates the constitution. Neighborhood targeted(unequal) enforcement, entering a property without a warrant.
This is not about stopping slums, this is about control.
This will eliminate privately run low income housing, and force people to suck off the teat of the government to survive.
The next thing the county will try is to make a livability code on private owner owned residences.
Stop this law, stop trashing the U.S. Constitution and our rights!
Pissed must be a federal judge since he is such an expert on the constitution. Please explain how this bill will “…eliminate privately run low income housing, and force people to suck off the teat of the government to survive….” You are engaging in your usual histrionic thin entering wedge arguments. Making absentee landlords responsible to their renters for decent, safe housing is a far cry “…to make a livability code on private owner owned residences….” BTW that is not a bad idea if you’ve ever lived next to someone who lets his house run down, raises goats and has cars on blocks. Oh wait, that is already on the books.
Right On!!!
You and the article above are wrong.
First of all, plenty of other places have rental registrations and I don’t believe any of them have seen a Supreme Court challenge. Ever.
Second, the bit about being able to inspect all rental properties and enter property without a warrant is pure propganda exaggeration. Any dwelling, ANY, can be cited for code violations and inspected. Rental properties are reported to have code violations all the time and are subject to inspection, like any other building designed to safely contain human beings. That’s all under the current County code, or any code for that matter.
The changes to the livability code, aside from the rental registration, are needed updates to an old and outdated code.
Whether you support the registration or not, and what the real benefits of it would be, please provide real arguments rather than thrashing widly about your keyboard to come up with some scary sounding rhetoric.
Noble:
This bill is about more than just registration. This bill addresses only residential rental property, not all residential property.
It requires that some property owners register, the “some” are owners of individual residences, or those that do not meet the narrow definition of apartments in the bill. All property owners required to register must renew their registration periodically. The director of the housing agency may withhold registration to any property owner who refuses to allow a search of a residential rental property.
Contrary to your claim, this bill addresses only residential rental property. Therefore not any dwelling may be searched, without a warrant, as stipulated in this bill, just residential rental properties. The difference between the current code and the code in the proposed legislation is contained in the discussion of the basis for withholding registration renewal. Refusal to allow a search without a warrant is grounds for withholding registration renewal.
If there are changes that are required, then perhaps you could identify them for everybody to review and discuss. This bill does not clearly identify the changes that must be made to update an old outdated code.
I find it very hard to believe that Harford County, of all places, with David Craig at the helm, is interested in trashing the Constitution and imposing government control over private property.
Oh you don’t know? Craig isn’t REALLY a Republican. He’s as liberal as they come and he loves, LOVES massive overbearing government programs.
Stick around, you’ll learn a lot.
Agree. But he looks good if you compare him to O’Malley. As an old mentor of mine said “Life is the chiuce of the lesser of evils.”
Haha, well I was trying to dial in a little sarcasm with that comment, but I understand your point.
Craig is behaving as a moderate because he has higher aspirations beyond Harford County.
Who comprises the Harford Property Owners Association?
I don’t know. What I DO know is that “Community Associations” are generally comprised of a very few people who want to tell you what type of fence you can put up, what color siding you are allowed to have, etc. A bunch of “little Hitlers” who want to make sure that they can determin what you can and can’t do with YOUR property choices!
Landlords do not turn neighborhoods into slums, it’s the people who live there. Balto. Co. has had a registration program for several years and it has not made any improvement in housing conditions. It has made the rent increase for the renter due to the costs involved. Want to inprove neighborhoods? Stop government programs like Move to Opportunity, Section 8,etc.
You are 100% completely wrong. Some landlords and some tenants are responsible for poor housing conditions. In some cases, it’s both of them.
BaltCo’s rental registration fee is MUCH MUCH higher than the proposed fee in the proposed bill. I believe it is $100 per unit every 2 years, someone might want to check that for me. That’s a bit high. But even if you spread out $100/24 months and the landlord hit the tenant with the entire fee, you’re talking about $4.16 per month in higher rent. Are you seriously saying that’s raising rents and creating affordability problems?
The proposed bill, the last I heard, was something like $25 every two years, which would be about $1 extra dollar a month in rent. Oh the horror! It’s a good thing you are here to protect the purchasing power of the very poor.
But wait, you say you want to “stop government programs” like Section 8? Oh I see. Maybe you aren’t concerned about poor people, Mitt.
Your plan is to not have poor people I guess? Great plan. Genius. When do we start?
HYDESMANN: What you are doing is blaming the victim for the crime – and it is a crime how SOME landlords abuse tenants. So you want to stop Move to Opportunity, Section 8? I guess you expect them to live under a bridge like they do in India? You are a real Christian.
If it is only some landlords who are abusing tenants, then why is it that all landlords must suffer under the proposed legislation? Why don’t you do us all a favor and identify the “SOME” landlords so that the county can properly deal with them? This legislation will cost the County money to enforce and administer and cost landlords money to comply.
Good landlords already provide decent, safe and sanitary housing without complaints to the housing agency. Registering won’t be an issue for them. Requiring registration allows the county to know how many rentals are available in the county as right now only a best guess is the most that planning and zoning, transportation and other services such as police and fire can use to plan, pre-plan and develop contingencies in case of an emergency. Having landlords register would also give police another tool to inform them if criminal activity, ie drugs or prostitution are being used in their property. The problem is that leaving it up to individuals to register if they wish would leave the law without recourse. Apartment complexes already follow all laws and tenants are given information regarding their rights. Private landlords however don’t always tell tenants their rights and this law would even out the playing field. The cost of registering is minor and not a significant increase to their cost and ignoring livability code violations would now be felt in their pocketbook.
Roman: You are missing the point of the registration. There are already rules and regulations in place with the present Livability Code. They just do not enforce them. You talk about large apartments and they were on the list of complaints; however, they are exempt from the registration. Your whole argument is bogus. Look deep into the legislation and you will see it is to give the House Authority power and it will become the most powerful at whose expense? Maybe you don’t own real estate so this really doesn’t affect you; however, if you do, you should not want your private property rights stomped on with searches without a warrant and the tenants probably don’t want their rights stomped on by having to have a search of their household without a warrant.
@ Noble, the fee you speak of is just the county’s cut to run the scam. The landlord has to pay a private company for the inspection. Someone has to be there to let the inspectors in & wait until they finish. That’s gas, possible tolls and the landlord’s time. Thus the rent increase. Also if there are so many recourses for unsafe/unhealthy living conditions as you mention( county code, etc) why do we have to duplicate them w/ rental registration? Just because you are poor doesn’t mean you get a free house, a free car or anything else at my expense.
I was under the impression the inspections are performed by county code inspectors– if you are correct, that is a reasonable complaint.
However, I am also under the impression the inspections only need to be performed if there is a reported violation– and if the unit is occupied, there is no reason the tenant can’t be the person present for the inspection. I don’t rate the other complaints all that highly.
The main differece in the bill lies in the registration requirement, and the reason behind it is that it will help the County enforce the code, which it often finds difficult to do now, as some troublesome landlords are unresponsive and deadbeat.
Granted, this would more often punish the good landlords because of the actions of a few bad ones, but this is how we run everything and why we have permits and registrations for so many things.
I happen to think the registration will help with enforcement. You may wish to disagree. That’s really the only major issue here. The updated codes, the fees, this is trivial stuff. The fees are even going to be waived if there are no complaints against the landlord for 2 years, I believe.
I just don’t think it’s asking a lot of the property owners. That said if it’s implemented and turns out it doesn’t help with enforcement, then scrap it.
As a realtor protecting property rights, I am against this legislation because:
It discriminates against small residential rental property owners.
It Engenders discrimination against present and future tenants.
It requires selected residential property owners to register – not everyone.
It requires renewal every 2 years at the sole discretion of the Housing Agency Director.
Fines of $1,000 per day for NOT registering.
Fines of $500 for code violation.
It authorizes any agency to search residential rental properties without a WARRANT!
It establishes landlord liability to control mode, even when caused by tenants.
It empowers the Housing Agency Director to CONDEMN properties. (Ever heard of eminent domain?)
It subjects tenants to be directly affected by searches without a WARRANT!
READ THE BILL 12-02 before you speak out!
JOAN: Basically you’re against ANY accountability or responsibility for landlords. !
In the interests of being thorough, I decided to read the bill again as you suggested. So here you go:
“It discriminates against small residential rental property owners.”
You mean it exempts apartment complexes owned by management companies and other housing already under the oversight of other State or Federal requirements? Yeah that makes sense to me, why do double work?
“It Engenders discrimination against present and future tenants.”
I don’t even understand this, please explain.
“It requires selected residential property owners to register – not everyone.”
Everyone that is considered a private or residental property owner, rather than companies and government owned or subsidized housing, which already has oversight.
“It requires renewal every 2 years at the sole discretion of the Housing Agency Director.”
And? What’s the problem?
“Fines of $1,000 per day for NOT registering.”
My word, YOU TRY READING THE BILL. The $100 fine is contained on page 28 line 17 which says there will be a fine for not registering– it says nothing about “per day”. It’s your JOB to know this stuff and know what you’re talking about?
“Fines of $500 for code violation.”
As a criminal penalty NOT A FINE, AFTER conviction in a court of law. Why don’t you tell the whole story?
“It authorizes any agency to search residential rental properties without a WARRANT!”
Wow, they are not being “searched” they are being inspected. The ROE (right of entry) guidelines are discussed on page 20 and 21, where it clearly says “reasonable notice” is required, and IF the tenant or owner refuses entry, it would take a court order to force entry– this is not being done Soviet style. Again, tell the whole story.
“It establishes landlord liability to control mode, even when caused by tenants.”
Page 49 discusses mold, and it clearly says the tenant is responsible for removing moisture, spills, etc, in a timely and thorough manner. But yes, a landlord would be responsible for correcting the problem, as any DECENT landlord wouldn’t want a tenant doing unprofessional work on their property unless their an idiot. A responsible landlord would have the repairs done professionaly and charge the tenant (in court if necessary) for the work, or otherwise evict them for lease violations. This not new stuff.
“It empowers the Housing Agency Director to CONDEMN properties. (Ever heard of eminent domain?)”
I have, and that’s something completely different. You don’t want buildings that are unsafe for humans to live in to be condemned? Are you actually saying that? If not, I’d ask you for your alternative suggestion.
“It subjects tenants to be directly affected by searches without a WARRANT!”
Again, it’s not a search, it doesn’t require a warrant, it’s an inspection with reasonable notice and the tenant can refuse it if they wish, but can be compelled by a court order.
Typos, sorry, not $100 it’s $1000, and replace “their” with “they’re”.
NOBLE: Thanks for lifting the veil of obscuration thrown over this simple legislation thrown by the forces of profit over conscience.
Discrimination is very loosely defined as any act that treats people or entities unequally. Why would it be OK to require one group to register and not another, regardless of who owns or manages or has oversight? Obviously a specific group is being targeted in this effort. That would pretty much fit the definition of discrimination. Indeed why do double work, as much of the information required for registration is already available on the SDAT data base. Better question is why do this work at all.
Renewal every two years is at the sole discretion of the housing agency director. One of the criteria for withholding renewal is a property owner’s refusal to allow a search of the dwelling without a proper search warrant. The authority to search stipulated in this bill is extended to the housing agency director, or designee. This includes all agencies within the county. Even more offensive is that the code official, or duly authorized designee, may unilaterally decide to just drive through an area and decide to search a dwelling.
You seem to have corrected yourself in another post. The fine is correctly stated as $1000 per day. The proposed legislation further states that each day of violation is a separate offense, ergo $1000 per day.
Read the section regarding fines for codes very carefully. It clearly states that any willful code violation is misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $500 dollars a day, or imprisonment of not more than 90 days or both. The proposed legislation also clearly states that the housing agency director has the authority to conduct the administrative hearing necessary to enforce the code. No discussion of referring violators to a court of law or conviction in a court by a law. Perhaps we could agree that this section requires additional definition to clarify that guilt must be determined in a court of law before conviction.
The code official or duly authorized designee claims a right of entry under this legislation. Duly authorized designee is any one the housing agency director identifies. The occupant is required to allow entry. If the occupant is so intimidated that he/she agrees, no warrant is required, and a search may be conducted. The official was allowed entrance. If the occupant does not agree, then the official must go to court to get an order that authorizes entry. Extend this situation to the sheriff’s office. If the deputy claims right of entry under this legislation, then the deputy may enter and conduct a legal search since the occupant allowed the search. Occupant denies entry; the deputy must get a search warrant. Rules of evidence are clearly involved. Most important in this legislation is intent. The intent of the drafter is to provide a legislative cure to a specific problem that involves blight resulting from neglect and criminal activity.
The intent is not to inspect for livability. Regardless of the language the discussion is not about inspections it is about searches.
Mold is ubiquitous. Building materials are excellent growth media, and Harford County is a great incubator. This legislation does not discuss any measurable acceptable standards for mold, or residual mold or which strains are not acceptable. Without objective standards, the issue is open ended.
How to cure mold? When you determine the answer, patent it. You will be an instant millionaire.
To the case of eminent domain and condemnation. This is not a very simple issue. It requires an understanding of eminent domain, a determination of blight, and condemnation. First order would be to review Kelo v New London and all of the other cases with similar issues. Recall a similar situation in Bowely’s quarter area with Congressman Ruppersberger. And see Councilman Guthrie’s 8 Sep 2011 discussion of crimson tree way, in the Inside Harford publication. Then look at the proposed legislation regarding targeted neighborhoods. Couple all of these together even very loosely and there is clearly an opportunity for an abuse of power.
Refusing entry to a code official, or dully authorized designee, is a basis for withholding registration renewal. If a court order would be required to gain entry when the occupant refuses the request for entry, then perhaps the court order should be obtained before the code official decided to enter the premises. Again look carefully at the intent.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to provide a more thoughtful analysis and response.
I’ve already addressed where SDAT is not a solution, and as far as singling out private landlords, yes, that’s exactly what the bill is doing, because all other property owners, and it is very well defined in the bill who is who, are subject to additional oversight. What the bill does is actually treat everyone equally, bringing all rental properties under the same inspection standards. I see your point in that this bill alone singles out a group– but the group in question would not constitute the legal definition of discrimination. If you want to the bill to further specify who and who is not subject to the registration and why, then by all means list those complaints and ask for those changes, rather than throwing out the whole bill.
You keep saying everything is at the sole discretion of the Director– except that you’re not mentioning that every action under the code can be appealed. Also, if you aren’t happy with that provision, then make a suggested change, such as the establishment of a rental code advisory board that would periodically review the decisions fo the Director.
Regarding fines and penalties, I disagree with the assertion that the fine is $1000 PER DAY. As I mentioned, if you have a concern with how the bill reads, specifically Part D, then ask for it to be ammended rathe than tossing out the whole thing. I can see where there is room for intepretation in that section of the bill, but I do not read it the way you do. I find it hard to believe the intentino is to fine 1000 per day. There are two places where the bill specifically mentioned court actions are required, so I cannot agree that these powers reside solely with the Director.
Overall, I will say that I find the bill to be a little bit sloppy in some sections, and I won’t argue with the point that it could be tightened up to remove some confusion.
Regarding ROE, mold, and condemnation, I simply disagree with you. I find those sections of the bill to be entirely appropriate and reasonable.
You have elluded to an “agenda” and some mysterious “intent” of the bill and I’d challenge you to be forthright about that statement.
Not mode — MOLD! Sorry
Not true but the contract or lease is between the landlord and the tenant and I don’t want a third party interjecting themselves into the mix. The lease is clear on what the landlord and the tenant’s responsibilities are.
So what mechanism do you supose the tennant has to get the landlord to follow his responsibilities in the lease. Should not the landlord be responsible for maintaining a nusiance to the community if they refuse to take care of the dwelling?
JOAN: The whole point is that many landlords are PO Boxes somewhere that makes them difficult, if not impossible, to locate. Why would any responsible and decent person be against this?
If most landlords were out of the state, why were only about 75 complaints made w/n the last year,(2011). And why were all complaints resolved w/ a phone call if the problems were so devastating and dramatic- these facts were stated by Sean Kingston and Dion Guthrie to the property managers at a meeting this past January, 2012.
The issue is what purpose does this new code serve? Why do we need it? What is the the problem that this bill, 12-02 is to solve? How many infractions of the current bill have been prosecuted under the existing code?
When did the problems become so great that this code had to be overhauled to this extent,( if a phone call fixed the problems, why a $1000.00 fines for not registering as a landlord, or the $500.00 fines for failure to fix a problem fast enough?).
You probably use clear and professional leases, but there are plenty of vague, nearly useless, leases being used by private residential owners. It’s dumb for both parties to sign one, but it happens all the time. That’s not to mention all the other arrangements that are made without a written lease– even dumber.
Everyone has got to be at the same standard.
There is already in place a mechanism for the tenant. The Housing Agency as it exists. Interesting enough, last year there were 68 complaints for the entire year to the Housing Agency. 3 were neighbor vs neighbor. 24 were made by tenants against a category of apartments. 38 by tenants against a category of individual homes. No citations for any violations of the present code were issed and no fines were assessed or collected. All compaints were resolved with a simple phone call to landlords or property managers. The large number of complaints against apartment complexes could be exempt from the registration process. I think there is a hidden agenda behind this entire legislation!
I received a copy of all the complaints and most of the complaints were in Bel Air!!
That’s interesting info, thanks. I wonder if it’s because renters in Bel Air have more belief that their government will help them, and/or have a less “helpless” outlook on life?
Where can one obtain this info?
If she doesn’t answer, I’m assuming you could get it from the Harford County Housing office– assuming that’s where people make their complaints.
If not there, you might try the court house.
Can I know in what way they grievances where redressed?
Sir,Ma’am
Please consult the Housing Agency Director or the County Attorney
CDEV,
The Housing authority under the current direction of Mr. Sean Kingston. The HA according to the county website is in control now of over 7 million dollars of housing funds w/n the county. It states more details and facts on the county web site.
That dept. would be control of the livability code enforcement. The authority this bill gives to the director of housing is a lot! The director will have full authority to “adopt and promulgate rules and regulations to interpret provisions of the code to further its intent”. (Sec. 162-12).
It’s not that this is a “Northern Harford” or “Southern Harford” issue, it is a “do nothing (liberty)” issue vs a “government intervention” issue.
And the problem isn’t necessarily the tennant vs the landlord, it’s the future of a neighborhood that is at stake here. Most individuals involved in law enforcement will tell you about the Broken Windows theory. When one window on a block is broken and left unfixed, it spreads because the neighborhood seems to stop caring. The gutters fall off your neighbor’s rented townhouse and instead of them fixing it, they let the water runoff and flood not only their basement (because they don’t care) but yours as well. Or the grass in your neighbor’s rented townhouse gets so high that a dead possum is lying there for weeks, and they don’t do anything about it because they don’t care but the maggots and flies are a health issue.
So you complain to the housing department that currently has no enforcement power because there is no code prohibiting this type of stuff. And since there is no rental registration required, what is the penalty for continual violations of a building or a lease. I would argue that the registration should be free, but required, and if it is revoked then you can’t rent your properties in Harford County unless you prove that they are up to code.
But this still stands in contrast with what the “do nothings” want because it is government getting involved in your life. Of course, next they will seek to abolish the Department of Planning and Zoning since zoning is the most fundamental violation of your liberty, telling you what you can and cannot do with your property.
Oh and Joan, condeming is a lot different than Eminent Domain, and no conservatives should have a problem with eminent domain since it is clearly in the U.S. Constitution as acceptable by government, what conservatives have a problem with eminent domain being used for private developers. Condeming a property because it is unsafe for human occupation after following a due process is completely within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.
Ms.or Mr. Fact Check,
The housing authority DOES have the power and ability to enforce the current code, which does address the issues that you mention, grass growing too high, the broken windows, the water spouts, these issues are already included w/n the county property/ housing codes. The owners of the property are easily identified by going to SDAT and/or talking to the tenants.
You assert the county needs a owner/ landlord registration to identify the owner. Not true.
The tenants have rights that this new bill, 12-02 will violate by allowing the county agents, appointed by the housing authority under this bill, to enter and inspect their rented units. (Sec. 162-12).
As far as the neighborhood effect that you state, the bill is not applicable to owner occupied property. So if I live in a “substandard” home, under this bill, the county may not enter. But under different county bills, under the Harford housing authority, the county may fine, me as owner.
“The owners of the property are easily identified by going to SDAT and/or talking to the tenants.”
In most cases this is true, but you are making an absolute statement that is NOT absolutely true, and it is SHOCKING to me if you have any knowledge of the rental industry that you could honestly believe that statement to be entirely true. You are either purposefully misleading people or woefully uninformed.
Noble,
Property Taxes, SDAT and the county court house does keep records of who owns which property. Why do you think it doesn’t?
I haven’t disputed that there are records of that information.
I have disputed the suggestion that 100% of it is accurate or useable information whereby the owners are “easily identified”, because that is not true in all cases.
I have first hand knowledge of many instances in which the information in those records is absolutely useless in actually contacting a landlord. The registration intends to collect more pertinent information to make it much more certain an actual living human can be reached to deal with property issues.
Despite what has been said, this is a real problem.
Hey Noble,
“I have disputed the suggestion that 100% of it is accurate or useable information whereby the owners are “easily identified”, because that is not true in all cases.” – As stated on the SDAT website, under online services, the function of SDAT is to ‘Obtain ownership and value information about every parcel of real property in the State of Maryland (approximately 2,500,000 accounts) from this database, as well as sales of real property occurring within 3 years of the current date.’
“I have first hand knowledge of many instances in which the information in those records is absolutely useless in actually contacting a landlord. The registration intends to collect more pertinent information to make it much more certain an actual living human can be reached to deal with property issues.” – Ok, assuming what you stated here is correct, what makes you think another government agency will be able to accurately obtain and keep the information that SDAT is designed to do? To me, it seems a bit redundant. There is an agency already there to keep track of the ownership information for each parcel of land in Maryland. Does it work 100% of the time? According to some, no; but does anything really ever work 100% of the time. I think you are focusing on the needle, as opposed to the haystack. If you want to find a mistake, you will.
“Despite what has been said, this is a real problem.” – I, like you, have used SDAT a number of times. In fact, I use it on a near daily basis. I have never found a problem with SDAT, aside from the ‘user error’ problems that I encounter. So, is it really a problem? I guess for some, things will always be a problem.
Anyways, have a nice day.
You will have to take my word for it. In a large majority of cases in my experience, as yours, yes SDAT works just fine.
But there are the small number of cases where is has not worked at all, and there is no remedy available to local government, a tenant, another owner in the vicinity, etc, to actually locate and contact the property owner in question.
The registration is not simply duplicating the work of SDAT, as it also gathers additional information to help further ensure an owner is able to be contacted.
I know this is a problem and this is one way to address it. If anyone has another suggestion, I’m all ears.
Actually, the county does not have the authority to really enforce any of these code violations. The Health Department (which is state funded) currently has that authority, but due to lack of funding from Annapolis they essentially can’t do anything about any violations which is one of the reasons this bill is being proposed finally. The inspections and permits people have been trying to get something like this at least introduced for a long time, but haven’t been successful in even getting it that far because of a few wealthy property owners.
As far as the HCSO going into a residence for an “inspection” under this bill they can’t. Deputies aren’t qualified to do housing inspections. They also can’t ask an inspector to go to a particular house and do an “inspection” because they believe there is criminal activity going on. That would then make the inspector acting as an agent of law and then bring into play all sorts of 4th Amendment issues. There’s nothing preventing a deputy from contacting the county and notifying them that there are possible violations at a residence (and why the deputy believes there are violations) or an inspector reporting to the HCSO that while doing an inspection he saw CDS, paraphernalia, lots of high dollar electronics that might be stolen, etc in the residence. The HCSO would still be required to get a search warrant to enter the residence and do a search (just like if they respond to a residence for some other purpose and see evidence of illegal activity in plain view they have to then get a search warrant to before they can start looking in bags, drawers, closets, etc.)
I happen to be a landlord and have absolutely no problem with this bill and having to register my property as a rental. I keep it well maintained, screen potential tenants, and quickly fix any problems that my tenants bring to my attention. If the county wants to come in and inspect it to make sure everything is up to code, then be my guest.
I can see why some landlords, especially ones who own a lot of properties in the Brookside Dr area in Edgewood, North Deen/Center Deen area in Aberdeen, Battery Dr in Havre De Grace, etc wouldn’t like this bill. I’ve been in a lot of houses in those areas and most of the ones that were rentals were in terrible shape. The few that the owners actually lived in were generally in decent shape, but most of them want to get out because the surrounding area is a toilet.
George,
Your comments about the county enforcing the bill are not completely accurate. If a home is in violation of any county housing bill, the county has powers to fine,condemn and basically take the home if it is not meeting county standards. This applies now, to both rental and owner occupied or vacant homes. The laws, enforcement opportunities and correction measures exist now.
With this new livablity code, 12-02, Aberdeen, Havre de Grace and Bel Air, are not affected unless all three cities adopt this faulty bill.
The registration of the property and landlord/owner is not needed. It creates more paperwork and layers of government interference w/ no apparent or valid purpose.
REIN: You stated, “The registration of the property and landlord/owner is not needed.” I would agree if some landlords weren’t anything but a post office box, ignored their property and created slums. Have you ever heard of the broken window theory? Sadly, we need government to protect us from businesses that ONLY care for profit. If landlords policed their own, THEN this bill would not be needed, but they don’t.
The new code is not helpful and does much to allow county govt. to interfere w/ the tenant and landlord. The bill if passed, will fine landlord/owners $1000.00/day for each day not registered w/ the housing authority. The registration fee is supposed to be $20.00. I understand that Balt. county started at $20.00, too, but is now up to $150.00. (Sec. 162-5)
The bill will fine landlords/owners $500.00 each day, for not ‘fixing’ the violations…ie. not hiring a licensed electrician/plumber or ac/furnace person to repair any issues w/n the unit. For example, if the circuit breaker is off w/n a unit, the landlord must send a licensed electrician to fix. it. This impact on the landlord will cause many small prop. owners/landlords to not rent the units, due to the high costs involved. I refer you to farms, to family homes that are rented while families are in other sites. The numerous homes that are rented for under $500.00 throughout the county is high. The houses that are rented by mom and dad to family members will also be included w/n the bill, unless owner occupied. The dad that fixes stuff now, will have to be licensed and have permits to fix all issues. Think toilets, clogged drains, smoke detectors, and even windows and screens may need to be inspected. The bill is too invasive into three areas.
The owners property, the tenants rights of usage and the contracts between the owner/landlord. (Sect.162-16)
One other issue, the bill does use the term “targeted neighborhoods” to define areas that will be the focus of inspections and enforcement. Sounds a lot like eminent domain groundwork. (Sect. 162-13)
This bill is not good for Harford county. Please read it and contact the council and tell them to vote no for bill #12-02 (Harford county council-410-638-3000).
“The bill if passed, will fine landlord/owners $1000.00/day for each day not registered w/ the housing authority.”
This is simply not true. Please go ahead and quote where this is stated in the bill, I dare you. I invite everyone to open the bill and go to page 28, where you will clearly see it says if you rent without registering there will be a $1000 fine– it says nothing about “per day”. If you are concerned about Part D of that section which states that each day a violation occurs is a separate offense, then get the bill ammended.
“The bill will fine landlords/owners $500.00 each day, for not ‘fixing’ the violations…ie. not hiring a licensed electrician/plumber or ac/furnace person to repair any issues w/n the unit.”
That’s only partially true, because what you’re not saying is that it is “up to $500” per day for an owner who “willfully violates” the code and ONLY AFTER a criminal conviction of those violations. This is the criminal penalty. If you want to argue over the amounts of these fines and penalties, by all means do so.
Here is the bottom line as far as I’m concerned:
1. Everyone who has voiced opposition to this has said they want the entire bill thrown out– no allowance for ammendments and no productive discussion towards solutions.
2. Almost everyone who argues against the bill on specific points repeats the same incorrect information, AND they fail to ever provide any response when called out on it. I’d suggest more people need to actually read the bill and understand what it says, instead of taking the cliff notes from whatever “association” you are a part of. This is the same sort of work being done by people in Congress who never read bills and vote on them using the information they get from lobbyists.
Noble,
The bill sect. 162-16- addresses the violations and penalties. Section B Civil Penalty, – that is the section that addresses $1000.00 per day, and each day of the violation constitutes a separate offense. Registration of landlords, prop. owners is not necessary to find owners, just check prop. tax bills, SDAT and the deeds are in the courthouse, too. This bill, 12-02, is a solution for noproblem. The gov’t must stay out of businesses.
Yeah I know, I’ve read it a few times. And there is NO WHERE in Section B that says the fine would be per day.
Section A discusses criminal penalties, Section B civil, and so on.
It is Section D that states that each day a violation occurs would be a separate offense.
My reading of the bill is that Section D refers to code violations, not the rental registration. As I said earlier, if you think it’s unclear, ask for an ammendment.
Hey Noble,
“Yeah I know, I’ve read it a few times. And there is NO WHERE in Section B that says the fine would be per day.” – the section as a whole falls under 162-16. Violation and penalties. As such, unless it is otherwise specified in a sub-part, section D would apply to the section as a whole.
“Section A discusses criminal penalties, Section B civil, and so on.
It is Section D that states that each day a violation occurs would be a separate offense.” – That is correct.
“My reading of the bill is that Section D refers to code violations, not the rental registration. As I said earlier, if you think it’s unclear, ask for an ammendment.” – Section D refers to the sections above it, though the language is a bit messy.
Anyways, have a nice day.
As I said, I don’t think it states that, but I will grant it could be a matter of interpretation. (due to the somewhat questionable language)
I can see the reason for the difference, and we can agree the language and organization leaves something to be desired.
Ask for a change to the bill’s language.
If there is a refusal to do so because the intent actually IS to levy a $1000 fine per day, then you would have my vote not to pass it.
I just don’t think that’s the case here, and I think all the scary talk about it is unwarranted.
Noble,
I oppose the whole new Livability Code, 12-02 due to its overwhelming intrusion into the small businesses w/n Harford county. The laws to protect the health and safety of rental property already exist. The reasons for the changes w/n the bill have not been defined by the Mr. Guthrie or his task force. The bill is is too invasive into small business w/n the county. If the needs for the bill existed, wouldn’t there be at least one case in the last year that was not addressed by the landlord/owner after one phone call from the housing authority? Wouldn’t there be a fine or charges levied on those that had complaints not addressed? According to Mr.Guthrie, the areas affected most by problems/complaints were Bel Air and Abingdon.
I have no problem with you having that opinion, and I have little interest in changing your opinion about it.
I just happen to disagree.
My primary concern is when I see people not discussing the issue in good faith or in a forthright manner in an attempt to persuade others. I’m going to speak up.
If I rent an apartment and it develops problems during the tenancy, I can file a rent escrow action in the District Court. I don’t have to pay rent to the landlord until the problem is rectified. This is the law in Maryland. Why do we need this new county law? Most tenants in a rent escrow qualify for a free legal aid attorney or a volunteer attorney. Sometimes the Court waives the filing fee. Who is out there to help the widow who rented out her townhouse and now can’t make her mortgage payment because the tenant claims there is something wrong with the apartment?
According to what you just wrote, this bill would actually make it better for the widow renting out her townhouse because now she wouldn’t have to hire a lawyer to defend herself in court and would only have to deal with a housing inspector. Oh wait, you’re a lawyer, that’s right, I’m sure for the $400 an hour you’d be willing to step up and help out the little old widow, you’re such a caring guy.
Don’t you love how lawyers/politicians are always looking out for themselves.
Hey Fact Check,
“According to what you just wrote, this bill would actually make it better for the widow renting out her townhouse because now she wouldn’t have to hire a lawyer to defend herself in court and would only have to deal with a housing inspector.” – She wouldn’t need a lawyer to defend herself in court. She can proceed pro se. However, just like in court, she might want to get a lawyer to deal with the inspector/agency.
“Oh wait, you’re a lawyer, that’s right, I’m sure for the $400 an hour you’d be willing to step up and help out the little old widow, you’re such a caring guy.” – Not too many lawyers bill at $400/hour.
“Don’t you love how lawyers/politicians are always looking out for themselves.” – Doesn’t everyone look out for themselves? The owner of a bakery tries to get people to come eat their goods. The owner of an ad agency tries to get people to use them. Why shouldn’t lawyers do the same?
Anyways, have a nice day.
Could your concerns have anything to do with the fact that you rent out a condo in Moores Mill Manor? are you concerned this will impact you personally?
NOBLE: You stated, “Almost everyone who argues against the bill on specific points repeats the same incorrect information, AND they fail to ever provide any response when called out on it.” Now you can see why I get so frustrated with the GOP/Tea Party. All they “read” is FOX “news”. They listen to uninformed and pandering politicians like “The Situation” and just go from there. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said about FOX: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
I can’t agree with you there, because it’s not exclusively a left/right, Rep/Dem, or Tea Party problem.
It’s a problem at large in our society, where particularly with the internet, we are master of our domain and can easily choose where we get all of our information, and by nature, all of us are prone to seek out information that validates the opinions we already have.
In combination with the fact that most of us are so busy we don’t have the will, ability or enough time to sift through all the misinformation.
This is what people trying to influence us feed on, and unfortunately, the only way to stop it is to take the time to do the sifting.
Really, PTBL? That’s really what he said about ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, M$NBC, the NY Times, the Washington Post,…
Of course OBSERVER ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, M$NBC, the NY Times, the Washington Post are all wrong and FOX is correct.
This code if it passes, will have to be enforced in the local jurisdictions also, as they are mandated by HCG to follow the county charter. Some of you are really oblivious to the inner workings of law and govt function.
Mr./Mrs. /Ms. Noble
Your specific knowledge and insight into to this area are too deep to discount that you are either employed in the Housing Agency or very close to someone who is. From this perspective it is obvious that nothing anyone says will change your mind on the subject. For the sake of others who may be interested in a different view of this issue, here are some thoughts for consideration.
SDAT does list all properties in the State of Maryland. That is how both the State and County collect property taxes. All properties are also registered in court records. Transfer and Registration taxes/fees are collected every time properties change hands. Additionally, the land records recorded with deeds that show surveyed areas are kept in each County of record. If property taxes are not paid, then the County will sell the property at tax sale. You are alleging that either someone is breaking the law by not recording the transfer of property, not paying taxes, or that there are phantom properties in Harford County that are unrecorded. Please convey that information to the County Treasurer to pursue further. Most Accountants and Treasurers will expend great effort to uncover fraud or theft or lost revenue.
As a taxpayer, I fund the SDAT data base. I require and demand that it be accurate so that the County and State may get all revenues they are due, and because I resent funding broken systems. If it is broken then I require and demand that it be fixed so that no revenue is lost, and tax dollars are not wasted. I find it to be very disturbing that, you who use the SDAT, and who know of many instances where it does not work are not insisting/demanding that this tool be fixed. It is equally disturbing that you, as a steward of public funds, accept that it is broken, so we must all pay for another system to address your issue. To you I say quite loudly, demand that the tools available be fixed.
Renters must pay rent. If they do not, then they are evicted. If renters must pay rent, they must pay it to someone or to somewhere. If you really want to find the property owner, advise the renter to escrow the rent. The owner or his agent will eventually appear. If not, then the renter lives in the dwelling free.
I believe that your booklet discusses escrow.
Section 162-7 Notices and order; transfers of the current livability code addresses the situation you site. Wherein a property owner cannot be found. It very clearly lays out the procedure for notifying the owner, and what to do in the event that the owner does not respond. With these procedures already in place it is quite difficult to understand why any more would be required.
Thank you for your time.
By the way, does the County Executive agree with and encourage your posting in support of this Bill?
I do not work at housing, nor am I close to anyone there, nor do I work for County government. I am only a concerned and informed citizen of Harford who happens to have some experience in the rental world. I dont care what Craig thinks.
But thats very classy of you to make the isinuation in an effort to discredit my opinions. You must be frustrated.
If you want to discuss any of the several issues and topics I happen to know a lot about such as astronomy or building computers I will have to freshen up my references at NASA and Microsoft.
Joan I am interested in differing opinions and information so I can formulate my own opinion. That would include your opinion and Noble’s opinion. PLease do not attempt to stop the free flow of information or stiffle intelligent debate by insinuating someones information is moot because it is different then yours. IF you do that I will be forced to conclude you will say anything to advance your agenda!