CITY OF MILWAUKEE'S REVISED RENTAL CERTIFICATE PROGRAM ORDINANCE RELEASED
As I mentioned in a prior post, the City of Milwaukee's Common Council agreed to hold off on voting on the city's proposed mandatory rental inspection ordinance (Residential Rental Certificate Program) for 1 month. The reason for the postponement was to allow the drafters of the proposed ordinance time to go back and make some revisions and clarifications.
The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW) retained the services of a law firm who met with the drafters and sponsors of the proposed ordinance and offerred suggested changes. During that 2 hour meeting the AASEW attorneys also pointed out the myriad of legal problems with the proposed program and how it was drafted. It appears as if the revised ordinance was completed this past Friday, however I first received a copy of the ordinance today, only after our attorneys called one of the sponsors to check on the status.
You can read the proposed ordinance with its revisions here.
While the city appears to have included some of our suggested changes for the most part they ignored our comments.
One concern that the AASEW has that was ignored was the fact that the ordinance still does not contain an objective definition of a "disqualifying violation." The AASEW has been told that a rental certificate will only be withheld if the current conditions in the unit are so bad that there are safety concerns for the tenant. To me that would mean such things as an improperly secured porch, a bedroom in the attic, or something similar. Our attorneys were even presented with a list of such qualifying conditions at the meeting after they pressed this issue. However, those listed conditions still have not been included in the definition of a "disqualifying violation." Why not?
The ordinance as written reads as follows - A disqualifying violation "means . . . or other conditions that violates the provision of the building code . . . " So in essence, a rental unit could be denied a rental certificate for any building code violation -- such as not having the address number posted on the garage in the alley. This does not seem to me to qualify as safety issue that would warrant the denial of a certificate. Nontheless, the city could argue that the lack of an address number on the garage of a rental unit is a safety issue becasue if there is a fire or similar hazard the paramedics or fire department's response might be delayed if they drive through the alley and can't determine which property to go to. Maybe that is a safety issues - I don't know - but my point is why don't we put all of the cards on the table so that everyone is clear. Do I think it is the city's intent to deny a certificate for something like missing address numbers in the alley? I certainly hope not --- but I don't know, nor do you, nor does the inspector that is going to inspect the unit. What I do know however is that as the ordinance is currently written a landlord could be denied a rental certificate becasue of missing address numbers on a garage.
I don't want this ordinance to become a tool for an inspector who wants to make life miserable for a landlord that he doesn't particular care for. If the city truly only means to withold a rental certifcate in certain situations which place the tenant safety at issue then why don't we specifically include what those conditions are so that everyone -- including the inspectors themselves -- have clear direction.
This proposed program is to be voted on by the Common Council on Tuesday, December 1st. Have you told your alderperson how you should think they should vote. If not, please do.
