Comment Cards and emails from rental expansion public
meeting January 7, 2013
- “A flat fee for inspections on “units” is unfair. My
1-bed house should not have the same fee as a 6-8 bed. Boarding house.
Why the entire city at one time?”
- “Need more code enforcement people to enforce codes in
single family neighborhoods. How can you tell if a rental is license or
not?”
- “Boarding houses should pay a higher yearly fee. $15.00
is not enough. $15.00 /per B.R. for 6 to 8 BR=3,000 to 4,000 a month
income. *Very different than 1 sm. house w/ 3-4 individuals. Consider
more incentives for good inspections.”
- “Thanks for holding this meeting – I’ll send you an email
with my questions.”
- “The cost (% of revenue/income) information is terrific.
I recommend city solidify #’s for the following metrics
% #’s of small, med, large units
% of properties that owned by
non-resident owners”
- “You are not able to enforce the codes you have written
currently. If you can’t handle it now why do you think you’ll be able to
expand it & enforce it. See my email letters to S. McCullough
beginning in 8/2012 w/ responses & follow up after police involvement
in 800 block Mississippi on 12/12. Solve current problems first.”
- “Before spending hundreds of thousands of our $$ try
requiring a booklet of what conditions should or should not exist in their
units. Tenant/landlord can work together to correct w/in X days &
then tenant can call city. Landlords cannot keep tenant deposit B/C of
reporting problems so not sure why that was mentioned in argument of why
we can’t work this out w/o creating all these extra expenses. Pilot
programs? Why jump in w/ both feet when you are not even sure what kind
of problem you have & how easily this could be solved using a required
booklet w/ lease program. Start with less inclusive program to begin with
so you can evaluate situation better. *Program to invite/solicits tenants
to have their units inspected. That would take care of the worse
conditions quickly.”
- I will not be able to attend the
public forum January 7, 2013 concerning the expansion of
rental property licensing and inspection. However I would like to
formally voice my disapproval of said subject. I own several rental
properties in Lawrence and have been a property owner since 1980.
I feel that expansion of the current system is an expensive and taxing
solution to a problem that does not exist. The system as it currently
exists works well on an as needed basis. Perhaps more public education and
awareness would be a better way of improving any
perceived problem and at a much lower cost!
I do feel that the licensing of single family home rentals properly
addressed and solved a long term problem of occupancy code violations
that threatened single family neighborhoods. I applaud the city's efforts
at an inexpensive solution to a large problem that benefited many.
- If a rental unit is inspected by both the landlord and the
tenants before the tenants move in and the unit passes the inspection and
then damage occurs later and is detected in your inspection, then any
fines or re-inspection fees should be assessed to the tenants, not the
landlord. Also, units that are consistently found to be in
acceptable condition do not need to be inspected but every five
years. Every three years is too often.