New Haven Independent

posted by: anon on January 20, 2012  9:45am

Many issues are ignored by the inspectors. Unless a specific building and owner have a track record of good management over a 5 year period, nspections need to take place every year not every other year. The fee should be higher and there should be severe fines for repeat visits when problems are found. We are dealing with people’s well being here, not necessarily just their lives.  The city needs to take this much more seriously than it does.

posted by: anon on January 20, 2012  9:46am

talk about self-interest!

posted by: Edward_H on January 20, 2012  9:50am

“Landlords shouldn’t have to pay anything unless they are found to be violating housing code regulations, she said.”

Then don’t pay. Just roll the fee into the tenants rent and make them pay. And when you raise their rent tell them to thank the city for raising your expenses. No one likes to see their rent raised but rolling the fee into the rent is the logical thing to do.

posted by: SouthWest on January 20, 2012  9:57am

Great ideal LCI because most renters are afraid to complain. So it’s up to the city that they are safe. I think it’s called intervention.

posted by: cedarhillresident on January 20, 2012  9:59am

I love this program. I work in the rental industry. It is an extra fee and is a pain in the ass. But as a resident of this city in a lower income community. I really feel this is so needed.
I do not see it as a penalty but a small fee to keep the quality of the surrounding property’s up to standard. Which indirectly makes your property’s value better if the surrounding ones are in check.
If you have a two apartment building and can not afford the fee…raise the rent the $3.10 a month to cover it.

posted by: cedarhillresident on January 20, 2012  10:01am

side note to NHI:
what is going on with these slumlords
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/failed_housing_code_try_a_different_inspector/

posted by: SaveOurCity on January 20, 2012  10:01am

Let’s do a thought test here.  Do the landlords (who all agree are running a business with rental properties)  A) reach into their pockets to pay the inspection fees or B) pass the costs on to their tenants in the form of higher rent?

Anyone who has been involved with this inspection process first hand knows that it is poorly executed and inefficient.  The result is money flowing to more of the mayors friends with very little improvement for the underprivileged in our city. 

Sad that our all Democrat legislature can’t see the obvious problem here.

posted by: FairHavenRes on January 20, 2012  10:08am

Mr. Johnson, to follow your logic in that last paragraph, if I open a restaurant is the health department going to charge me to come and inspect my facilities?  Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the answer no?  Similarly, you should not be charging landlords to inspect their facilities. 

Regarding these inspections, I could go on a diatribe about the list of absurd items that supposedly needed to be “fixed” on my property, according to LCI, but I won’t.  Let’s just suffice it to say that not one of them was a safety or hazard issue.  If you want to inspect the smoke detectors and furnaces, fine, but your list of so-called necessities is absurd and arbitrarily applied.

posted by: Curious on January 20, 2012  10:10am

I don’t understand how people are allowed to operate as slumlords.  Can’t the city just seize properties like that and put them up for auction?

posted by: Threefifths on January 20, 2012  10:22am

Is this one of those alderwoman who want to have a holiday for the death of Bin Laden.

posted by: Pedro Soto on January 20, 2012  10:44am

Either the fee is going to be paid per unit, or the cost is going to be passed along to every property owner in the guise of higher property taxes.
I’m all for shifting services to fee-based vs. property tax-based collection.

That way, you tie the use and the charge closer to the actual service, vs. just having everyone pay a portion.

posted by: What? on January 20, 2012  10:49am

@Curious

... A bunch of folks in this area fought a war against that idea a couple hundred years ago.  If you don’t approve of a nation built on property rights, there are still a few places such as Cuba & N Korea where gov’t ownership of everything is the rule.  You’d better move fast though because the list of communist nations is shrinking every year.

Even if it was a good idea, this would result in more power in the hands of Johnny D and his henchmen.  Does anyone think that is a good idea?

posted by: Bruce on January 20, 2012  10:54am

The fee is one thing, but I would never let the inspectors onto our property.  Ever.  Sorry, you can’t come in. 

My home my own personal, sacred space.  This program has got to be the biggest invasion of privacy I’ve ever heard of. No offense, but I just don’t trust the government to vet their employees or contractors well enough to let them inspect the contents of my home, check out loose basement window where they can come in, let them know when I’ll be home or not.  This program is well-meaning but it’s ridiculous.

Just give every tenant a list of things to look for in their apartment and a phone number to call if anything seems out of place.  There is no need to pay all these full-time inspectors, except to have a few more city jobs to dole out as favors.

posted by: Scot on January 20, 2012  10:56am

Landlords should not be charged a fee if they don’t have any violations.  If there was a good system in place to handle complaints, the mandatory inspections would not be necessary. The fees simply raise the cost of living a little bit more for everyone.  Connecticut already has the highest cost of living in the nation.  Landlords will simply pass this cost on to the tenants, just as they will raise rents when property taxes go up, so this program squeezes both landlords and renters.  Why should a good landlord who is already spending money to keep their place fixed up and to code, have to pay an additional fee if they don’t have any violations?

posted by: Noteworthy on January 20, 2012  11:01am

Couple of little known facts:

1. LCI loses money on the inspections. They in fact pitched this idea saying the fees would cover the cost. It doesn’t and never has.

2. LCI does not inpsect, let alone properly inspect all the units it is supposed to inspect every year. It never has.

3. Since units under the Section 8 program must by law be inspected annually, any unit under this program should be automatically exempted unless it is complaint driven.

4. This entire program could be scrapped and its related employees eliminated. An ordinance could be drafted requiring landlords to place in their leases appropriate language regarding complaint proceducres - first to the landlord, then to LCI - and further, mandate the same notices in poster form in their building lobbies.

5. LCI should publish a list of what’s expected of these landlords - from working furnaces, no loose toilets, no water leaks, screens on windows etc. There should be a checklist.

6. Get rid of all the deputy directors in LCI. In this small department, you need one director running it and maybe an assistant.

posted by: Jones Gore on January 20, 2012  11:14am

Hey I’m a renter..I should not have to pay my rent then. And better yet, New Haven Residents should not have to pay car taxes.

Alderwoman Thorpe, you’re only paying every two years. ...

posted by: anon on January 20, 2012  11:15am

“I don’t understand how people are allowed to operate as slumlords.  Can’t the city just seize properties like that and put them up for auction?”

Yes, we need stricter laws and policies so that this is possible. Slumlords (like those the NHI has recently highlighted) should be run out of town and their property sold to the highest bidder. The conditions in many of these units are not fit for human habitation.

Ever wonder why we have high crime in some neighborhoods? Much of it has to do with how we treat the people who live here.

posted by: SaveOurCity on January 20, 2012  12:10pm

So we want to change the slumlord incentives?  Easy - change the property tax system.  As it stands, any property owner (landlord in this case)  is severely penalized for improving their property when re-assessments come.  I’ve seen this first hand….if you by a fixer-upper property and put money into making it better, you can easily see your property taxes go up 40%-50% in the next round.  If however, you only do enough to keep the building standing, you may actually see the assessed value (and your tax bill) go down.

posted by: westville man on January 20, 2012  12:15pm

@ Bruce

If you dont take government money for rent, you dont haev to let them in.
If you do- you play by the rules.  It’s not sacred if you are renting it out and taxpayers are footing the bill.

posted by: Unbelievable on January 20, 2012  12:17pm

Ms. Robinson-Thorpe amazes me with two statements she made…first “Me being a landlord, I don’t feel like I should be penalized,” ......you’re not being penalized, you’re paying a small fee for actually doing the right thing, a fee that should be paid annually. Small fee compared to the rental income I’m sure you’re taking in. Secondly,  “The program is not working anyway, said Robinson-Thorpe. Anyone can just take down a smoke detector after the inspector leaves.” ...

posted by: Very Petty on January 20, 2012  12:22pm

I am sure the alderman knows that you can wright off the fees when filing taxes…speaking of taxes, it sounds like she wants the tax payers to pick up the fee. Looking out for yourself instead of the interest of the people you represent.

posted by: Bruce on January 20, 2012  12:38pm

@ westville man

The inspections apply to ALL rental properties, with a few exceptions, whether taxpayer subsidized or not. 

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/LCI/ResidentialBuildingOwners/ReadMore.asp?ID={DFDFC8EE-4F9E-4B0E-AD66-C7A6528ABC34}

I just reconfirmed that we DO have an exception, since the building is owner occupied and has less than 4 units.  So for now I can just be a grumpy old codger without really having to worry about barricading the doors.  But theoretically I would.

posted by: Funky Chicken on January 20, 2012  1:14pm

This is so blindingly a conflict of interest I am speechless (well not really ;)).

This Alderperson is clearly stating that she wants to scrap a city program that has been proven to save lives (see the NHI story archive) just to save herself $150 every two years.

Ms. Thorpe, being a landlord comes with a number of costs associated with it. One of them is the inspection fee. This gives voice to those that wouldn’t have it otherwise. Keep the program!

Either you fight for your constituents or you fight for your wallet - in this case you can’t have both.

FC

posted by: westville man on January 20, 2012  1:35pm

Bruce,  Thanks for the clarification and information. Mea culpa on that one. Apologies.

posted by: Threefifths on January 20, 2012  1:48pm

This is what happens when you all keep voting them in.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 20, 2012  2:08pm

There needs to be some way to ensure that landlords are not taking advantage of renters by over charging for rent, providing substandard living conditions, and/or not adequately performing maintenance. There also needs to be a way to ensure that tenants aren’t taking advantage of landlords by destroying properties, creating building hazards, improperly occupying units, lying about who’s living in the unit and/or making unreliable payments.
One way to do this is through inspections, another might be some sort of checklist as Noteworthy explained, and there are probably many other effective means of ensuring that we do not return to the 19th century slum standard of housing for working families, nor do we allow bad tenants to go unnoticed.
One thing that shouldn’t happen for sure is to make the city foot the bill for this type of service because, while it may help Mrs. Robinson-Thorpe out, it will make every tax payer in the city subsidize out-of-town landlords who don’t live in the city and pay personal property taxes (yes, they pay taxes on their rental properties, but that money comes from the tenants’ monthly rent, unlike someone like Robinson-Thorpe who also pays personal property taxes on her home). So she, along with other local tax payers would be footing the bill for slumlords who live in other States.
Some type of incentives and penalty-based system may work a little better than the current flat fee-based system that is in place now. But that switch might also cause rents to rise on the people will the lowest quality housing situation.

posted by: Been Called Worse on January 20, 2012  2:20pm

What is so difficult to understand?  The fee paid is a LICENSE fee, not an INSPECTION fee.  Any resulting fees from the inspection are VIOLATION fees.

This program was enacted because of the fire at an apartment house which had an illegal 3rd floor apartment.  The inspection (which generates the license approval) was designed to ferret out illegal apartments.  The cost, divided by the number of apartments over the period of two years is quite trivial.

posted by: East Rock Independent on January 20, 2012  2:25pm

This headline is written like a NY Post story. Let’s tone down the personal attacks here. 

It seems to me that whether you agree with her or not, Robinson-Thorpe is expressing a legitimate perspective about how government pays for critical social services like housing inspections.

The big problem in the city is lack of revenue to pay for all of this. Fee-based social services can’t be the answer.

posted by: westville man on January 20, 2012  2:48pm

@ Jonathan Hopkins

Can you clarify the personal property tax someone pays on their home?

posted by: JD on January 20, 2012  3:20pm

This is beyond funny. First, you are benefiting from the section 8 programs as it pays the rent you are collecting. It is actually all of us (i.e., the tax payer) who pay the rent you collect. So, we should make sure that for the rent paid, an adequate service (i.e., housing) is provided. As section 8 tenants normally can’t just move out if the housing service is not up to par, we need to make sure we protect “our money” that pays for these services. Thus, the housing needs to be regularly inspected. I’d also say this should happen once per year and on a random basis, so the landlord cannot go and fix up things before the inspector comes. We need to get to a very different mindset in this country. As long as the government is paying for something, many rights should be disbanded. In this case, the government needs to have the right to inspect housing whenever it wants. If a landlord does not agree with this, they are free to either find non-section 8 tenants or sell their property and buy one somewhere else where one can rent to non-section 8 tenants. We need to stop behaving like money coming from the government is the same than money earned. ...

posted by: FairHavenRes on January 20, 2012  3:35pm

Been Called Worse:

It’s NOT trivial.  I pay a huge amount in property taxes and can’t even get my street properly snow plowed, to say the least.  The City has no business levying another tax on me when they can’t competently handle the THOUSANDS I send them every year.

posted by: nhteaparty on January 20, 2012  4:08pm

3/5 I’m gonna have to agree with you.  Without any real political competition it seems they are scrambling to see who can pull the most out of the coffer before it’s completely empty.

Definitely a conflict of interest to use your political position to help out your personal investments.  I don’t know if it constitutes corruption but definitely skirts the line.

I kind of feel like this would be a perfect opportunity for some community action.  Put together a group which will help tenants inspect their properties and file the complaints with the appropriate authorities.  I bet after a few months of that the landlords will be yearning for the good old days of $75 fees and state inspectors.

posted by: oops on January 20, 2012  4:39pm

@JD, The program/fee in question is not for Section 8 housing.

“The residential licensing program applies only to properties with two or more units that are neither owner-occupied nor 100 percent Section 8 housing. (Inspections already take place at Section 8 properties.)”

posted by: Bruce on January 20, 2012  4:49pm

@ JD etc.

There still seems to be some confusion here.  This licensing program is not specific to section 8 housing. It is for ALL rental properties with a few exceptions, including some Section 8 where they already have inspections.

If you’re interested you can read more details on the city website: http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/LCI/ResidentialBuildingOwners/ResidentialLicensingProgram.asp

posted by: ignoranceisbliss on January 20, 2012  7:40pm

Thorpe is one of the union backed candidates.  She was a forerunner beating Moti Sandman with union backing in the 2009 election cycle. She’s a progressive so long as someone else is picking up the tab.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 20, 2012  7:45pm

wv m,
There are many landlords who own rental properties in New Haven, yet the house they actually live is in in another town or another State. Then there are also landlords who own rental properties in New Haven and also live in a house in the city (that house may also have a first floor rental unit or something).
If the city started to fund the fee in question, rather than the individual landlords, the property tax payers who live in this city would be subsidizing the landlords who own New Haven rental properties, but do not themselves live in the city. So while every landlord who owns rental properties in the city does pay property taxes of those buildings, the people who don’t live in New Haven would be getting a subsidy because the cost to an owner for taxes on their rental property is paid for by the tenants through their monthly rent, whereas landlords who live in New Haven pay for the taxes on their own house out of pocket, which does not necessarily come directly from their tenants rents.
So by “personal” property tax I just mean the property taxes that you pay on the home you actually live in, which you personally pay for with income that you generate from work, or investments; as compared to the property taxes that you pay on the rental properties you may own, which is covered by the monthly rent from tenants.

posted by: Ora on January 20, 2012  8:38pm

Ask any inspector in private and they will tell you that their focus has been forced to be the licensing inspections and section 8 inspections because it is money driven. But the thing they also will tell you is that the taxpayers complaints that come in on a day to day basis is a very low priority and is made clear to them by their supervisor who was instructed by the director. LCI has really lost sight of the housing inspectors obligation to the everyday caller who many times is a taxpayer. Unfortunately this is not going to change but rather get worse as the fees possibly go up on these programs. I called in a complaint and could not get anything done for months upon months. When I finally asked the front desk for the inspector that is suppose to be handling my complaint and when I called him I was told that garbage and debris is not a priority that it will have to wait until he is done with all his scheduled licensing inspections. Meanwhile my neighbors property has become a nightmare. Wake up LCI. We the taxpayers keep you in business not these two programs.

posted by: HhE on January 20, 2012  8:49pm

Well said, SouthWest, cedarhillresident, Curious, Pedro Soto, SaveOurCity, Unbelievable, Very Petty, Funky Chicken, Jonathan Hopkins, Been Called Worse, JD, and nhteaparty.

posted by: letsgetwithit on January 21, 2012  2:51am

Joe presently pays 1.04 per month per unit on his three family “investment property” for the License and Inspection.

City proposes that Joe now pay 92 cent per unit a 12 cents saving whats the problem?

Saving one life priceless.

posted by: DDP on January 21, 2012  8:54am

As a one time renter who always found it difficult to get my landlord to help, i feel it is a necessary evil to have the presence of the city in these buildings. If not them, who will be there to keep these landlords honest? NO ONE! IF a tenant is to complain or call the city, the landlord is most likely going to evict for causing them the headache anyway. Dont like it, sell your property and invest other ways.

posted by: westville man on January 21, 2012  11:09am

@ Jonathan Hopkins

You mean “owner-occupied” then, not personal property tax, which is used to descibe something completely different. But thanks for telling me what you meant.

posted by: Lindy Lee Gold on January 21, 2012  11:40am

I introduced this legislation in New Haven, having discovered the effectiveness it had in Salt Lake City. Landlords are in business and should be responsible for costs associated with it just as other small businesses incur costs for licensing and are subject to revocation for failure to meet standards.

Lives have been saved as a result of these inspections. That was my intention. It was meant to be revenue neutral by hiring outside inspectors to perform the work and report to the City for code compliance or enforcement.

posted by: SteveOnAvon on January 22, 2012  2:57pm

Having never been a “landlord” I am way out of my area of expertise here, but I have rented many apartments in my day, and I think there are some fundamental distinctions that need to be made in the way cities deal with landlords.

The biggest one is the difference between landlords who keep up the properties they own and the slumlords that maintain their properties at the lowest possible standards. These inspection fees & the high property taxes on certain folks’ properties make zero distinction between the two. As a renter & resident, I think that we would all benefit from some kind of legislation that distinguishes between property owners who live in New Haven and have an interest in contributing to the community & the city, and those who are just trying to get whatever money they can out of their renters.

Currently, I live in a property that is the epitome of a neglected, slumlord-owned property, although I will not be living there for much longer. Everyone who rents in the building had their lives put at risk in November when there was a furnace leak that released carbon monoxide throughout the building. We all know that there are innumerable such properties throughout the city, yet the slumlords of the city are treated no different from responsible and responsive property owners.

I don’t really know how you change this legally, but it seems crazy to me that people who are kind of “micro-landlords” are treated the same as those who own scores of unmaintained properties throughout the city.

posted by: Jared on January 23, 2012  8:13am

Cities have a delicate balancing act in protecting the welfare of their citizens while promoting business. Coming from a city which accomplishes neither of these tasks, I appreciate the issue.

posted by: Joe on January 23, 2012  8:26am

This is another example of self described public servants who are in it only to improve situations for themselves, first.  They did not enter into public service to makie things better for everyone.  Why should the city pay for inspections?

posted by: jared gruber on January 23, 2012  9:33am

Valid point Joe. But remember, the issue isn’t so clear cut as saying the city shouldn’t pay or the tax payer shouldn’t pay. At the end of the day, the taxpayer and government was work together and find mutually beneficial solutions.