Warning to all Lakewood Landlords

[David Anderson]

It looks as though Councilman Demro is floating the notion of passing a Lakewood ordinance that would make landlords responsible for the behavior of their tenants.

I think Demro is interested in focusing the ordinance on "absentee landlords" - whatever that means - but in all practicality, it would include all who rent-out Lakewood property, regardless of where they live.

An example that was provided to me last night by a Larchmont resident involves tenants who consistently throw loud parties. Neighbors respond by calling Lakewood police who come to the home. Music is turned down and party goers move inside until the police leave then 20-minutes later it's back to being loud and obnoxious.

The proposed ordinance would fine the landlord for repeated offenses and visits by Lakewood safety forces.

The question I have is doesn't Lakewood already have laws on the books for unruly, rowdy, loud and drunken behavior on private property?

Any thoughts out there?
[/b]

[Bill Call]

The question I have is doesn't Lakewood already have laws on the books for unruly, rowdy, loud and drunken behavior on private property?

Any thoughts out there?
[/b]

The City has a nuissance ordinance. If the police are called to the same property more than three times the property owner can be sited. The idea is that the owner will be put on notice that the property needs to be better managed. Some properties have had dozens of visits in one month.

The administration has not enforced this ordinance. I don't know why.

[ryan costa]

Is it legal for landlords to evict tenants for having the police called on them x amount of times?

[Shawn Juris]

will the city also speed along the eviction if the landlord choses to oust the tenant after the first citation? We're not talking about their children here these are tenants. I can understand if the problem was poorly maintained yards or property but maybe there simply needs to be a greater punishment for the behavior. How in this theory does the tenant get penalized when the landlord recieves a fine?

[ryan costa]

It sounds like an attempt to institutionalize Landlording. Rental Properties will become increasingly owned by corporations, or the management of them will be subcontracted to property management firms.

Some kind of certification system will be enacted: eventually a masters degree will be required to qualify for the licensure test to be a landlord. A large faceless corporation will be able to hire enough lawyers to draw up rental contracts making it easier to evict tenants who meet official criteria for eviction: When eviction becomes necessary a squad of certified Eviction Officers will arrive to carry out the procedure in an hygienically sound and unemotional manner. When profits are high enough the property management firms will be able to hire a marketing firm to design their faces, and an advertising firm to present this face.

It will work! Cities across America have become better places to live as laws have become more complex and numerous, as the training and certifications required to be a law enforcement officer have increased. Schools have become more effective and productive as the training required for teachers has increased: Kids are great today! Places with lots of kids have faster growing property values!

[David Anderson]

Shawn -

Good question. And if we already have laws on the books it doesn't seem to be an issue of not needing another law but rather enforcing the existing ones.

Is this analogous to fining the dealership that leased you a car for because you got speeding ticket in it?

Luckily, I've only had to enter the eviction process once and that was in 1997. I'm not sure what Lakewood can do when renter's rights are dictated by Ohio law. Any Lakewood ordinance that aims to strengthen the landlord's position would be trumped, no?

[Jim O'Bryan]

David

More good questions.

I would be happy if they just enforced housing violations right now.

If any of us listen to the police scanner we would know that the police are a tad busy with kids out of school and the like.

Also I had the pleasure to talk with an old friend Mike Flynn, who is now heading up housing enforcement I believe. He mentioned that he is flooded with cases and there is just not enough time in his day. I know that Pat Carroll has been trying to move the case load through quickly in a fair way.

All very interesting.


.

[Jeff Endress]

Two separate, but related points:

1) First you have the issue of rental housing maintenance. We have building codes, inspectors and ordinances which dictate standards and penalties. This relates to both owner and non-owner occupied premises. These codes and ordinances are only meaningful if there is enforcement as against the owner of the property. Providing more enforcement "tools" does not represent a reasonable solution if there is an inability or unwillingness to use the tools that presently exist.

2) The activities of the occupiers (tenants or owners) can, but usually are not, handled under the noise/nuisance ordinances which dictate penalties for "illegal" activities. The additional new ordinance deals with a landlord's liability for the actions of his tenants, presumably in the belief that a landlord will more closely monitor the activities on his leased property. That landlord basically stands in for police enforcement of the noise/nuisance ordinances, by forcing a landlord to evict persons who are already violating ordinances and laws which are otherwise not enforced.

There is a nexus between the two separate areas, in that a dilapidated rental, more likely is rented to an equally dilapidated tenant....if the owner doesn't care about the property condition, he more likely than not, doesn't care about the tenants (beyond the receipt of rents).

You address both issues in the same way. You require enforcement of the building codes and ordinances, issue citations and require repairs and upkeep. The tools exist, they need to be used. Frankly, the financial excuse of being undermanned rings hollow when you consider that the costs of enforcement can probably be paid for from the fines generated from violators.

As to behavior which is a violation of noise/nuisance ordinances, you again, enforce the laws as they exist. The default position of law enforcement is: "Its a civil matter". It's a cop out. I realize that the police are busy and don't want to get involved in rinky-dink issue of a house getting egged, or noisy kids, etc. but if its a violation of the ordinance, it is, by definition, a criminal matter.

Of course, you realize that this cuts both ways. Your party may be too loud. Your sidewalk may be cracked. Your garage may need painting. If you're going to expect strict enforcement to catch the real "bad apples", inevitably, you're going to nail someone who just hasn't had time to repair his gutters. You can't have meaningful, selective, enforcement.

So let's just go street by street (perhaps as they repave, they can do a thorough, in house, residence by residence inspection). Code violators get cited, necessary repairs are identified. Put in a point of sale inspection to boot. What we lose in a more regulated community we gain in housing stock improvements......perhaps.

Jeff