We need point of sale inspects – Now

[Bill Trentel]

If there is one issue that seems to have found some universal agreement on this board it is the need to preserve and improve the quality of the housing stock though out the community.
Currently non owner occupied residential properties are the only ones required to get a point of sale inspection to complete a sale. In fact they are required to under go periodic inspections and the purchase of an annual license. I'm proposing that we institute a point of sale inspection for all properties prior to sale and that we require all violations to be corrected prior to sale. This is not a new concept and it is used by many communities in the area. And it is not a quick fix, but will go a long way towards addressing our housing stock issues over time. Politically it isn't always initially popular. The primary opposition comes from the real estate industry which lets face it is only concerned with their commissions not the long-term health of the community.
Another complaint levied at point of sale inspections is that they delay sales at the end of the process. I would propose that a Lakewood point of sale program would encourage home owners to acquire their point of sale permit early avoiding the last minute code corrections. Having this done could even make the property more attractive to potential buyers. Another issues is that it would be overly burdensome to the building department. Of course there would be a fee charged for the inspections. ($500) Which could cover the cost of additional staffing. One option might be to allow city licensed private inspection contractors to preform the inspections, with final approval by building department personnel.
This type of legislations is long past due. Now is the time.

Bill

[Jim O'Bryan]

If there is one issue that seems to have found some universal agreement on this board it is the need to preserve and improve the quality of the housing stock though out the community.

This type of legislations is long past due. Now is the time.

Bill

Bill

Housing is our single biggest issue, though we do have a couple not far behind, but if
housing goes so will the city. I have been hitting the streets and home with
LakewoodAlive's Housing Director Hilary Shickler, sitting through housing court watching
Judge Carroll deal very fair justice to those coming through the doors, and have spent
time talking with members of the building department, even gone on some foreclosures
with police and fire. It has been a real eye-opener it is a battle we are not winning and
cannot afford to lose.

Run down, foreclosed, unsafe property costs everyone money, and creates havoc in a
community. While many here have mentioned buying, tearing down and creating green
space I fear we are not talking a house here and there we are talking many, many, many
lots and creating enough green space to turn Lakewood into a farming community.

While point of sale is needed and a step in the right direction. Some of the worst property
is not on the market and may not be until it is too late. I have been visiting one home
north of Lake where the person has moved to Rocky River and refuses to even sell the
Lakewood house. Keeps it for sentimental reasons, and because it is paid for. Grass needs
cutting, gutters falling off, shutters loose, driveway falling apart, trees unsafe, refuse
all over the yard. And this is where the city has to stop. But if you go inside, plumbing
gone. Guy forgets how. Walls melting from water damage, basement, well never mind
you get the idea. This guy has been dancing with the courts and building departments
since 2008. I believe the city cannot go inside unless invited.

Meanwhile south of Lake, I am seeing divorces, lay offs, bad market, etc rough up the
outside of a home, while the inside becomes gutted literally. One home a double that
seemed like he wanted to convert it to a single has holes cut in the floors that are
downright deadly, big enough for my fat ass to fall through! Meanwhile a "friend helped
with the wiring and he should be back in a week or so to finish." When I asked when
he started the answer came back "Two years ago." When I asked when was the last time
he was there to work, the answer was "6 months ago." Bared wires that could start a fire,
that could affect the two homes 20' away, and a call that might never be answered by
a new regional fire department that wonders "Clifton? West Clifton? Clifton Prado? Clifton
Place? Can someone call them back..."

On my rental it is inspected yearly. A simple process where the building department comes
out walks through looks at the property and make sure it is safe. While it would outrage
many, maybe a walk through every 5 or 10 years on all property. Who knows? The issue
is many residents are just getting by, as we all are. Homes that were bought or built by a
grandfather handed down, now finds itself in the hands of an owner that simply cannot
afford the upkeep, but was told, "Keep this house in the family." Elderly that are now on
their own and always dreamed of living in this house till they die, now live in a home in
such disrepair it has a damn good chance at being what finally kills them by accident.

A tough question, a tougher problem.

With that said, their are some amazing programs available through community
development, the state, the banks, the schools, and even the courts. I fear this city
might have taken their eye off the ball to the true heart of the city, our housing, in
a chase for passing fads(art districts/entertainment districts) and shiny objects (our
never ending march to 200+ restaurants).

Time to focus, housing is the key.

Clean and safe, really all a city needs.

Thanks for the post.

.

[David Anderson]

Bill and Jim –

As someone who owns five homes in Lakewood – my own, two triples and two single homes on one lot – I could not agree more with what you both posted.

I, for one, would appreciate a strategy that took on the overall issue of housing stock in prioritized categories. The first work would be to tackle the issue of empty bank owned properties – single, double, whatever. Lakewood must find a way via incentives, public private partnerships, a CDC or other initiatives to get these properties into the hands of responsible owners/investors.


More to the points made, yes, we need PRE-point of sale inspections for the house as well as the water line. I bought a double on Riverside nine years ago (which my wife and I since sold) and I had to cough up just over $1,000 to replace the water line a month after I bought the house. I was told the water line is only inspected after the sale is complete. Ugh.

In most cases, a new owner of a multi family home signs an affidavit assuming responsibility for all repairs as opposed to losing the home. These items are nickel and dime items compared to any “hidden and latent” issues a potential new owner would uncover via a private inspector (usually around $400).

I offer this just to keep in mind that there are different levels of violations. There are gutters, smoke detectors, broken windows, etc. Then there are things, like Jim mentioned, that keep a house from being sold and are too expensive for the owner to deal with. Hence, owners walking away from homes altogether.


I appreciate that the city is in a tough position. They want to enforce codes but don’t want to make enemies out of the owners who, in most cases, are Lakewood residents.

[Bryan Schwegler]

The city could implement more inspections, but to me, the biggest problem is enforcement. Our housing inspectors and housing court process lacks teeth and most of the time even ability to get anything done. Not that they don't try, they just can only do so much with the current laws.

Adding additional inspection requirements I'm cool with as long as the city can actually do something to enforce and severely penalize those who don't comply.

What would be frustrating to me as a homeowner is that they fine me because a piece of sidewalk isn't exactly level and make me replace it while the rest of my property and home is in perfect shape, but down the street the peeling paint house with hanging gutters and grass taller than toddlers is allowed to sit that way for years on end?

Until the city and courts can have an effective punitive enforcement measure, more inspections won't help anything other than annoy good homeowners over nitpicky issues, because those who really need enforcement don't care and don't have to care right now.

[Jim O'Bryan]

The city could implement more inspections, but to me, the biggest problem is enforcement. Our housing inspectors and housing court process lacks teeth and most of the time even ability to get anything done. Not that they don't try, they just can only do so much with the current laws.

Adding additional inspection requirements I'm cool with as long as the city can actually do something to enforce and severely penalize those who don't comply.

What would be frustrating to me as a homeowner is that they fine me because a piece of sidewalk isn't exactly level and make me replace it while the rest of my property and home is in perfect shape, but down the street the peeling paint house with hanging gutters and grass taller than toddlers is allowed to sit that way for years on end?

Until the city and courts can have an effective punitive enforcement measure, more inspections won't help anything other than annoy good homeowners over nitpicky issues, because those who really need enforcement don't care and don't have to care right now.

Bryan

While I agree with the meat of your post the judge has and can give jail time. The biggest
problem would be the Housing Department was gutted recently in cost cutting measures, and
the fact that many of the people in court have not realized, they cannot keep it going. My
heart goes out to them, it reminds me of a heart to heart I had with Otto Lombardo during
that fiasco. While everyone was demonizing and attacking the man which only caused him
to dig in and fight. I sat and spoke with him about the actual cost and need for keeping that
house going. Finally after two hours he shrugged and admitted, he could not, and put it
on the market.

This is affecting every neighborhood, Birdtown to Clifton Park. Funny I once mentioned
a house in the Park where they had shut2/3rds of the house down with plastic to save on
heat and electricity. That afternoon 3 people asked why I picked on them or their family,
the fact was I was not talking of any of them, was talking of someone else.

And in the end, all but the grace of god go I. Last week I was at a house with a young
precocious college student. As I was amazed at the progress that had been made since
the owner was in court, she scoffed and said, "It still needs so much work..." I asked if
she owns, and the answer was "no!" I said well I do, right now I am saving for a roof on
one house, a paint job on another, trying to finish a hallway and a plaster job. I can easily
see how people get overwhelmed in the blink of an eye.

Pat Carroll who was featured in The National Enquirer for his tough stance with landlords,
has instituted some fair and solid programs. A house does not get fixed by fining or jail time.
More than once I have heard him beg the defendants to understand, the $800 would be
much better served going into the house, not the courts.

This is a growing nightmare in this city.

.

[Will Brown]

My question (not that I am opposed to inspections) is just how extensive the inspection would be, and what type of remediation would be required.

I suspect that many of the homes in Lakewood are old enough that lead paint and asbestos could be found. Many of us just accept this; in fact, a property sale allows you to sell, even if there is asbestos, if you don't know about it, or at least it did a few years ago when I was involved in some transfers. I think it is accurate to say that removal of lead paint or asbestos is a very expensive proposal. So a home you intend to sell for $150K could possibly turn into a net loss.

If we periodically inspect owner occupied houses, what would we do if lead or asbestos are found?

Also, I think the building department in the past has paid more attention to cosmetic issues, than to functional or safety issues. Face it, a home with peeling paint is not necessarily unsafe, so why should be treat that the same as defective wiring? Where do we draw the line on having the city hassle your neighbor because you object to his paint job, or the color of his house? If you are really sensitive on the issue, you should work it out with your neighbor.

Another problem with inspections is that the city apparently has cut some deal with contractors and sets time limits on remediation that preclude the owner from fixing his own problem, as it will take him too long. We recently remodeled a room in our house (an extensive remodel) and it took over six months; the city would not have allowed that much time. Apparently they don't read the instructions on plaster that say you should allow it to set for 30 days before painting. And I'm retired; the job would have taken even longer if I had had to do it on weekends and holidays.

Some solely cosmetic items, such as peeling interior paint, should be exempt from inspection, as they are not safety related, and affect no one but the owner and his buyer.

So before we rush into point of sale and periodic inspections, we should be certain of just how extensive we want these to be, and the extent of remediation we want to impose.

Incidentally, when I bought this house, the owner presented a certificate showing it had been inspected by the city of Lakewood. Having lived here quite a few years, I think that certificate was worthless, as many issues that should have been found were not.

[Jim O'Bryan]

My question (not that I am opposed to inspections) is just how extensive the inspection would be, and what type of remediation would be required.

I suspect that many of the homes in Lakewood are old enough that lead paint and asbestos could be found. Many of us just accept this; in fact, a property sale allows you to sell, even if there is asbestos, if you don't know about it, or at least it did a few years ago when I was involved in some transfers. I think it is accurate to say that removal of lead paint or asbestos is a very expensive proposal. So a home you intend to sell for $150K could possibly turn into a net loss.

Will

I am not aware of any mandate in removing withe Lead Paint or Asbestos. The current
thought is it is better to reseal asbestos with latex paint than remove it.

Another problem with inspections is that the city apparently has cut some deal with contractors and sets time limits on remediation that preclude the owner from fixing his own problem, as it will take him too long. We recently remodeled a room in our house (an extensive remodel) and it took over six months; the city would not have allowed that much time. Apparently they don't read the instructions on plaster that say you should allow it to set for 30 days before painting. And I'm retired; the job would have taken even longer if I had had to do it on weekends and holidays.

I have never seen or really heard of the building department or the courts to not be
sympathetic with a project that has slowed but still making progress. Recently they have
become more aware of this by not asking people to paint their homes in the middle
of winter.

I am sure there are exceptions, but everything I have seen shows a real willingness to
work with responsible homeowners.

So before we rush into point of sale and periodic inspections, we should be certain of just how extensive we want these to be, and the extent of remediation we want to impose.

Incidentally, when I bought this house, the owner presented a certificate showing it had been inspected by the city of Lakewood. Having lived here quite a few years, I think that certificate was worthless, as many issues that should have been found were not.

What I was alluding to is there are many programs the city has that no one knows about.
This would be one of Hilary's strengths is she is very familiar with state, national, and
even local home programs that can help a person. I was thinking if a person walked through a house and saw say bad wiring, they could suggest getting it fixed or....

FWIW


.