This article in the Wall Street Journal describes a scenario we’ve been seeing recently, owner occupied property in distant suburbs turning into rental neighborhoods. It’s entitled, In the Exurbs, the American Dream is Up for Rent. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123845433832571407.html
Local governments need to be ready for this change by adopting rental inspection programs that includes single family homes. By making sure that minimum standards are met from the beginning of this changeover, cities and towns can take steps to make sure that these rental properties don’t have an adverse effect on the quality of life in those communities.
At the airport in San Francisco yesterday while waiting for my flight, I read this in the San Francisco Chronicle:
The Bay Area reached a peak median sales price of $720,000 in spring 2007. In February, the median was $295,000. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/29/MN3K16M9RT.DTL&hw=median+house+values&sn=001&sc=1000
The article went on to discuss how buyers, especially investors are now moving in to purchase these “bargain” properties. Some are doing it to rent them and others are doing it to flip them. I wonder how many of these new buyers are getting the right permits for the work they are doing or properly registering the rentals in those jurisdictions where it’s mandatory? I suspect we’ll be seeing those kinds of issues crop up for a long time.
Too often political considerations interfere with the ability of building code officials to do their jobs in an appropriate manner. Most of the time this type of behavior goes unpunished. It often consists of not enforcing the code against “protected” person or companies or harshly enforcing the code against opponents. Sometimes, however, an aggrieved party files a lawsuit against the offenders. This happened in Dorr v. City of Ecorse, 2008 WL 5397760(C.A. 6 (Mich.))(2008) when a property owner sued the city and its mayor for the denial of a certificate of occupancy under the Civil Rights Acts. The plaintiff and the mayor were neighbors with a contentious history. The plaintiff passed all the necessary inspections and was entitled to a certificate of occupancy for a garage extension. He was trying to sell his house but couldn’t with the certificate. The city repeatedly refused to issue it and the plaintiff was unable to close on a house because of this inaction. The federal court of appeals agreed with the plaintiff that he had been denied substantive due process and upheld the award of $22,000 in damages, $55,000 in punitive damages against the mayor and $27,975.00 in attorney’s fees. (Punitive damages would come out of the mayor’s pocket). This case serves as a cautionary tale for those who would use the building code as a weapon.
While exploring the Safeguard website because of Kelly Anbach’s comments, I found that it had a list of contact information for lender’s servicers. I’m not sure how up to date it is but you can find it at: http://www.safeguardproperties.com/content/view/1133/233/ The list was developed by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Maybe it will give inspectors a way to make contact with a real person who can take action on a property. On the same page is an Excel file of contacts at local governments. It might be worthwhile to get on the list.
