1306.43 HOUSING LICENSE -- Toothless?

[Rick Uldricks]

1306.43 HOUSING LICENSE.
(a) No person shall let, rent, lease, conduct, operate, occupy, maintain or own any building or portion of any building in which there is one or more rental dwelling units or in which a rooming house is operated, or own any interest therein, unless a housing license as provided in this chapter has been applied for, issued and is in force.

My guess is a lot of landlords in Lakewood do not have the HOUSING LICENSE described above. How is this enforced? Is this enforced?

[David Anderson]

Rick -

Man, I hope Lakewood enforces the license requirement.

I receive an application every December for my double ($150) and every summer for my triple ($90). (I may have the months switched.)

I'd hate to think I'm the only sucker paying these fees.

[Rick Uldricks]

Rick -

Man, I hope Lakewood enforces the license requirement.

I receive an application every December for my double ($150) and every summer for my triple ($90). (I may have the months switched.)

I'd hate to think I'm the only sucker paying these fees.

Is the license tied to an inspection requirement?
How does the city know where to send these applications? According to 1306.44, owner-occupied one and two-family structures are exempt.
Have you ever had to present this license to anyone for any reason?

[DougHuntingdon]

Maybe we can get Kucinich to write a new law. Then, let's just burn down all the rental property and throw all the renters in jail. Meanwhile give the slumlords some kind of landlord adjustment assistance.

[ryan costa]

How do we destroy this law?

[Rick Uldricks]

How do we destroy this law?

Which law are you referring to, Ryan?

[ryan costa]

1306.43

[Rick Uldricks]

1306.43

Ryan, are you a landlord? Why would you have a problem with this ordinance? I'm not sure it's even enforced, so what's your problem?

[David Anderson]

Rick -

I am required to post the license in each of my homes for renters to see.

My homes get inspected every few years. An inspection is not required to receive the yearly license - just a check that won't bounce.

It can't be that difficult for city housing department officials to know who owns the multi-family properties. An inspection is required every time a house of any kind is sold in Lakewood. Any and all infractions are noted and it's up to the buyer and seller to work out responsibility.

Regardless of who takes responsibility, the city requires that infractions be fixed in a timely manner and does schedule follow-up inspections to ensure that the proper repairs were made.

If I remember correctly, I've always had to have a license for my triple even when I lived in it. As far as an exemption for owner-occupied doubles, I think you are correct. I don't remember having to obtain a license for my double until Lakewood realized that I bought a single family home elsewhere in Lakewood and began renting both sides of my double.

Maybe requiring owner occupiers of doubles to: (1) prove they are indeed living there and not somewhere else and (2) obtain an annual license based on an inspection every two-three years or so would improve compliance and housing quality?

[Rick Uldricks]

Rick -


Maybe requiring owner occupiers of doubles to: (1) prove they are indeed living there and not somewhere else and (2) obtain an annual license based on an inspection every two-three years or so would improve compliance and housing quality?

Thanks, David. I like your suggestions, it sounds like you are one of the good Lakewood landlords. I was just wondering if there was an existing ordinance that could be used to help clean-up some of the problem rental units.

[David Anderson]

Thanks, Rick. However, my suggestion was the result of the loophole you found re. exemption for owner-occupiers of doubles. I'd forgotten all about that.

It would be interesting to know: (1) how many Lakewood doubles are registered to owner-occupiers and (2) whether there is verification that the owner actually lives there. (Are any council members reading this thread?)

As far as an existing ordinance that can be used to clean up problem rentals (and singles, I might add), I think the required legal tools are already in place. As far as I understand it, Lakewood inspectors can walk onto any Lakewood property at any time for a perimiter inspection of the exterior. (A co-worker of mine and fellow Lakewoodite received an ordinance violation in the mail for not having his address posted.)

Multi-family property owners/managers must schedule inspections if the housing department makes such a request.

I see a few possible issues here:

1) Enforcement costs money - Additional qualified employees may be required for stepped-up enforcement. Enforement/inspection revenue cannot be generated by fines because fines only prevent landlords from being able to afford repairs. I doubt that license fees alone could cover the cost of adding staff.
2) The city may be leery of a stepped-up inspection and enforcement of rental units owned by Lakewood residents/voters. Let's not make voters mad. I imagine this is why the housing license exemption for owner-occupiers of doubles is on the books.
3) Can the city stomach having the reputation of being "hard" on property owners? This is how a stepped-up effort would be interpreted.

I've opined in other threads that I believe that housing stock is Lakewood's #1 asset and that steps should be taken to identify strategies to protect and enhance ALL private properties - singles, doubles, triples, apt. buildings.

[David Anderson]

FYI -

According to U.S. Census Factfinder (based on 2000 Census)

Lakewood Total Housing Units – 28,416

1-unit, detached: 9,762 or 34.3%
1-unit, attached: 949 or 3.3%
2 units: 5,481 or 19.3%
3 or 4 units: 2,007 or 7.1%
5 to 9 units: 1,093 or 3.7%
10 to 19 units: 2,103 or 7.4%
20 or more units: 7,030 or 24.7%
(Single family, owner occupied – 8,781 or 82% of all 1-unit homes)

I wonder how many of the 2-unit homes are owner occupied and are exempt from the $90 annual housing license fee?

Year Structures Built
1999-2000: 37 or .1%
1995-1998: 36 or .1%
1990-1994: 37 or .1%
1980-1989: 433 or 1.5%
1970-1979: 1,591 or 5.6%
1960-1969: 3,658 or 12.9%
1940-1959: 5,410 or 19.0%
1939 or earlier: 17,214 or 60.6%

[ryan costa]

1306.43

Ryan, are you a landlord? Why would you have a problem with this ordinance? I'm not sure it's even enforced, so what's your problem?

It offends me hypothetically.