Forums Home › East Contra Costa › Brentwood

Brentwood gives first approval to rental inspection ordinance


Posted on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 08:42 — by Clayton
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1135
You do understand that the cost of these licenses and inspections will be passed on to tenents. It appears that the underlying purpose is to drive out low income tenents, which is probably a good thing. Now just get rid of the stinking illegals and Brentwood will worth living in.
No votes yet
‹ trails in Brentwood Erratic Black Helicopter flying over NW Brentwood at 5am ›

Wed, 04/09/2008 - 12:02 — I'm not sure the idea is to
BazookaJoe
BazookaJoe's picture

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2730
I'm not sure the idea is to drive out low income tenants. I think the idea is to keep rental properties from becoming eyesores. Antioch put in place their residential rental inspection program which made it mandatory to register your rentals. The initial fee for the inspection and registration is about $246 dollars, but you figure that's not too bad because the program has to be paid for. If you pass it on to your tenant, it's ony about $20 more per month, but if the property passes the initial inspection, you only have to pay $29 every year so owners may not raise the rents at all for a tenant that keeps the place nice so it passes. If the tenant is messy and the owner has to pay more for reinspections and everything, than it makes sense it should be passed through to that tenant anyway if they caused it. I think rental market rates will be set more by supply and demand and not really affected by the inspection fees. I'd sure rather pay for this program than rent control. If I understand it correctly, Brentwood is requiring you to get a business license to rent your property out. I've never really liked that idea. I guess it will cost $100 per year according to the article. Just on the surface, Antioch's program sounds better to me because their program sounds more like a response to problems and you feel like maybe someday they will abolish the program and the fees if the problem of eyesore properties goes away. (I know, probably not likely). Brentwood requiring business licenses, sounds like more gov't control and a permanent policy. Most people aren't going to be thrilled about having to get a business license to rent out a house. In reality though, all these cities feel they have to implement some kind of program to deal with all the deteriorating housing trend that neighbors are complaining about. Maybe somebody else can shed some insight on what the heck is going on? I just don't agree that it's purpose is to drive out low income tenants. All a low income tenant has to do is clean up the yard and abide by the laws, just like anybody else, and they don't have to go anywhere. If some kind of standard is in place, any tenants, or landlords for that matter, that want to keep a shabby looking house, will have to go somewhere else. I don't really have a problem with that or paying a little bit more so people keep their properties in nicer condition.
Wed, 04/09/2008 - 14:41 — Rental Inspection
andy94509
andy94509's picture

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 87
BazookaJoe, I agree with you. There is a lot of good from the rental inspection program. It is very hard to quantify; however, I believe, once houses start to sell again, the cost of $246 for the rental inspection will be a great value to the city. I believe cities that institute some sort of a rental inspection program will see more equity gain than cities that let certain rental houses drag down property values. As houses sell for more, the city will receive more property taxes. The rental inspector came to my house and was very reasonable. In my opinion, Antioch has a lot less blight because of the rental inspection program. Andy
Wed, 04/09/2008 - 16:46 — I know Andy, and I remember
BazookaJoe
BazookaJoe's picture

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2730
I know Andy, and I remember when you had a really bad tenant and had the neighbors calling you on your rental house because of the cars and debris but instead of telling the neighbors to mind their own business, you took the right course of action and evicted the tenant. Now you have a good tenant in there that keeps the house nice. I'm sure the neighbors appreciated that. Landlords have to do their part. It's too bad a lot of them don't, but that's the reason the program was implemented. Even though we have to pay when our rentals are not eyesores, it's good the program is there to make the negligent landlords clean up their places. We all benefit in the long run.
Thu, 04/17/2008 - 16:54 — Since you guys are on the
KITTENCHOPS
KITTENCHOPS's picture

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 138
Since you guys are on the subject of landlords, I have some questions. Is there any law about how often carpets need to be changed in rental homes in Antioch? There is a law that they have to at least be professionally cleaned before a new tenant moves in I think, but what about actually having to replace the carpets? Any advice would be helpful.
Thu, 04/17/2008 - 18:12 — Carpet Cleaning
andy94509
andy94509's picture

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 87
Kittenchops,_____________________________________________ To my knowledge, there is no law that says a carpet has to be cleaned or new carpet has to be put in. In most cases, the place is rented as-is. If there is a safety problem, then there might be a problem; however, I have never heard of a law regarding carpets._____ Andy
Thu, 04/17/2008 - 22:36 — Yeah, don't think there is a
BazookaJoe
BazookaJoe's picture

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2730
Yeah, don't think there is a law like Andy said, but I think there is probably a law of habitability so if a carpet was so bad it was a health risk to live in the home, I guess that could come into play. But I don't know why a landlord would try and rent a vacant place without cleaning the carpets or a tenant would agree to accept a place if the carpets were not cleaned. The tenant has to take care of the carpet once they move in unless a pipe broke or the roof leaked or something that was not the tenants fault and it ruined the carpet. If the tenant lived there a real long time and the carpet deteriorated from just normal wear and tear, they could ask the landlord if they would install new carpet, but the landlord would probably jack the rent up after installing the carpet, so most tenants don't. If it's not stipulated in the lease, you can try to negotiate it with the other party.
Fri, 04/11/2008 - 09:45 — One telling question
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1135
Honestly, did you pass on the cost of the inspection program to the tenents or did you eat the cost yourself?
Fri, 04/11/2008 - 19:59 — You can only rent it for
BazookaJoe
BazookaJoe's picture

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2730
You can only rent it for what the market will bear. I can try to raise to rents anytime I want because there is no rent control in Antioch, but it doesn't mean I am going to get it. If it sits vacant too long, I'm going to lower the rent to get it occupied and not worry about any pass-thru fees being placed on the tenant. Fees always go up, so you are always trying to get the higest rent you can. The market, supply and demand, determines the rent you get. It could care less what you want to get.
Thu, 04/17/2008 - 16:43 — Actually,
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1135
The market, supply and demand, determines the rent you get. You are correct. The dynamics of the current market are: I *Increased numbers of renters due to those homeowners who lost their home and need a place to live *Decreased houses available as rentals becauses of the housing stock sitting idle and the slow down of new housing. As a result, rentals are increasing in cost,((statitically the cost of rentals in increasing). and a new operating cost, like a task will be passed on, (inflated by administrative costs) to renters. In Section 8 housing, the federal government(you and me the taxpayers) will cover these costs. So, as a landlord why are you not raising your rent, if you lose a tenent you can quickly get a new one.
Fri, 04/18/2008 - 09:13 — And the very next day
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1135
The San Francisco Chronicle confirms my points. According to them... Average asking rents climbed 8.8 percent over the first quarter of last year to $1,578, as the occupancy rate nudged up 0.6 percent to 95.8 percent, according to a report by RealFacts of Novato, which analyzes data from apartment buildings with at least 50 units. Since 2004, regional rent has risen 23.7 percent. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BUHM107C0Q.D... THere is little or no chance that rents will decrese or even remain steady because in the same paper the environmentalists are calling for a halt to all new building to combat global warming. So if you are a landlord not charging higher rents, you should be.
Fri, 04/18/2008 - 10:18 — Rents are going up, but I
BazookaJoe
BazookaJoe's picture

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2730
Rents are going up, but I think it has more to do with the mortgage crunch, foreclosures, layoffs, and other economic factors and not so much because cities have instituted a rent registration or license fee. I agree that the demand for rental housing has increased so rents are on an upswing, but there are lots of factors that affect different regions like desireability to live in a cetain community and number of rental units available. A rental in say, Clayton, is an a different market altogether really than say one in Antioch.
Fri, 04/18/2008 - 16:58 — I did not say
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1135
I did not say that cities fees are the entire reason rents are going up--but with rents on the increase, increased costs are easily passed on to tenents. To review, you made was that landlords can only charge what the market will bear. My response was with increasing rents and a shortage of rentals, the market will clearly bear the increase, and that landlords are within their rights to pass on the increased cost plus an administrative multiplier on to tenents. The result of the fees is that lower end tenents will be priced out of the market.; not that the fees are driving the market. Pushing out low income tenents seems to be the underlying goal of the cities. It has been the objective of many in these cities and a large topic on this blog. I am not sure why this is so complicated to understand?
Fri, 04/18/2008 - 20:55 — "Pushing out low income
BazookaJoe
BazookaJoe's picture

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2730
"Pushing out low income tenents seems to be the underlying goal of the cities." I don't agree with your statement above, that the city's objective is to push out low income tenants. That kind of thinking is similar to the way those legal aid advocates spin things when they make those kind of charges. IMHO, the cities are implementing these programs to improve the quality of life by decreasing blight. All I have to do is look around and see all the shabby yards to believe that's the case. I certainly don't like having to participate in these mandatory programs, but I can understand why I do. As a landlord, I get to choose whether I rent to low income tenants, not the city. They are just trying to ensure that I keep my property up to a certain standard regardless of who my tenant is. I look at it this way, as long as they make everybody across the board comply, then I'm ok with complying too. The best way for them to control the process so everybody complies, is to have a program in place that will enforce it.
Mon, 04/21/2008 - 09:47 — Blight=low income?
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1135
Isn't blight another term for low income? I know you think this is just a measure to clean up blight--but the result is going to be to price a community out of reach to lower segments of the market. I believe the Cities understand this when the draft and apply the rules. In fact, this is one of the few legal ways a City can insure that it will be beyond the reach of the low income. Ask yourself one question, with rental prices going up, and a surplus of tenents looking for rentals, are you going to pass on this new cost to your tenents?
Mon, 04/21/2008 - 14:41 — No, I do not believe blight
BazookaJoe
BazookaJoe's picture

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2730
No, I do not believe blight is another term for low income. Low income is usually a characteristic of people. Even when you say, "low income housing," it means housing which is intended for low income wage earners. To me, blight is not used to describe people, but things that are deteriorated or show signs of deferred maintenance. I use it as described by this definition from Dictionary.com: The state or result of being blighted or deteriorated; dilapidation; decay: urban blight. I always try to get the highest rent I can, but you always run the risk when you bump up rents that your tenant will decide to move. What dictates those decisions for both the tenant and the owner is where the rental market is at. If I install a nice capital improvement, sure, a tenant will usually agree to pay a little more because some new carpets, appliances, roof, windows, or whatever make their home a little more enjoyable. A rent registration fee is not a tangible item the tenant can experience, so they might say, "Heck with that, I've been thinking about moving anyway, so now that you are raising my rent, I'm outta here." If rents are going up, I might not care if they move out, but it depends on the market, and the overall market is affected by many different variables. There's a lot of recently built housing tracts, and foreclosures in east county, so it may not conform as much to other regional trends too.
Mon, 04/21/2008 - 15:22 — The blight we're
roygur
roygur's picture

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 566
The blight we're experiencing in East County has little to do with low-income renters, moreover, it has to do with the economy: tons of foreclosed properties, short sale properties left by folks who have no way of continuing the payments. Their properties are left unattended to (mostly) by the Banks/Mortgage companies, lots of weeds, dead landscaping, green pools breeding mosquitos to transmit West Nile Virus (several of which I've reported and been thanked by Vector Control). I've had low income renters for years past that appreciated what they had and kept up my properties. I always made sure their rentals were up to snuff and replaced things as needed, never using that as a justification for a rent increase, just the COLI, (cost of living index) for the East Bay. Things wear out: appliances, carpets, air conditioners, etc. That's to be expected and not something to tack onto a renters monthly payment. If there's a fee to inspect rental properties, that's not a bad thing and probably benefits the renter as well as the landlord. Each knows what's expected of them in that sense. Maintenance, maintenace, maintenance, both sides. Roy Gursky http://gurskyranch.com
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 23:00 — I agree Roy. I'd be
BazookaJoe
BazookaJoe's picture

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2730
I agree Roy. I'd be interested to hear from others in East County to see what they are experiencing as far as rental rates and how long it is taking to fill vacant units. I have heard landlords are filling them quickly and bumping rents up elsewhere in the County, but it would be good to hear from more landlords, resident managers, or even tenants about their experience in leasing residential properties in East County. If more folks chime in and confirm rental rates are on the upswing, then Clayton and I can continue our argument over what is responsible for that. I have a vacancy coming up so I wouldn't mind knowing if I can tack on an extra $20 bucks a month to pay for that darn rent registration fee I got hit with.
Wed, 04/23/2008 - 11:00 — Rental rates seem to be
roygur
roygur's picture

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 566
Rental rates seem to be hovering around a $1.00 per square foot in Brentwood, a bit less in Antioch, according to MLS statistics. Rates in Summerset a bit above that, what with the gated area and owners paying for landscape and HOA fees. Roy Gursky http://gurskyranch.com
Fri, 04/11/2008 - 09:43 — Go beyond the political correctness
Clayton
Clayton's picture

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1135
I'm not sure the idea is to drive out low income tenants. I think the idea is to keep rental properties from becoming eyesores. Given the public furor over section 8 tenents, I do not think you are being realistic. The unspoken intent is reflected in the results, and the results are very clear. The next effect is to increase the costs to property owners, and adding in an administrative factor, it will be by more then $20 month. Increased rental costs will eliminate persons at the lowest end of the market be effectly pricing them out. All a low income tenant has to do is clean up the yard and abide by the laws, just like anybody else, and they don't have to go anywhere. No, they have to pay more rent, and that increase may force them out of the rental unit. I just don't agree that it's purpose is to drive out low income tenants Where were you when the Times forums where filled to the brink with complaints against low income and section 8; including nasty racist commentary from both Brentwood and Oakley. Did you also miss the public meetings opposing low income tenents as well? Politicians have found a politically correct shield of neighborhood blight for a very nasty campaign to price out low income residents. I don't really have a problem with that or paying a little bit more so people keep their properties in nicer condition. And I am sure you do not have a problem with keeping out the “unwanted poverty elements” from your neighborhood. I would note that this is not an increased tax on all property owners, but a fee targeting the poor. Unless you are a tenent you are not paying for this. Class warfare, even if coated in political correctness, is wrong. On the other hand, class warfare is what the Democratic party is all about these days and these are very democratically voting areas. So maybe these ordinances are just a preveiw of the class warfare that will occur nation-wide if a Democrat is elected.
Wed, 04/23/2008 - 18:16 — Blight, increased crime and drugs come after low income move in
BBrentwood
BBrentwood's picture

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 245
People in all four sectors of Brentwood have reported many times over what occurs after Section 8# and low income housing units are built. I and hundreds of other residents, have personally have heard horror storys and have encountered the denigration of new housing developments when greedy investors and slumlords decide to turn new homes into subsidized Section 8 rental units. There is a culture clash, the recipients do not know how to act civil or respect others, and that doesnt even touch the criminal elements that accompany low income families into a neighborhood. Drug dealing, house burglaries, items stolen out of back yards, trespassing, stealing mail..etc...etc... One gentlemen and his wife had a chop shop, and drug dealing going on in a house off Balfour Avenue, 2 1/2yrs later and the problems are still on going. Even after DEA swarmed the house. Cars were being chopped up in the driveway in open view, and the guy could not get the authorities to do anything about it. Several members of our crime watch group suggested he contact the FEDS. At another public meeting a retired officer told a story of a section 8#family that let the lawns die, weeds 4ft high and then filled the backyard with junk. When the tenants were finally evicted the landlord found a garage filled wit hundreds of dirty diapers. This is not the kind of lowlife most people want to live next to when purchasing a 700,000 home in a new development. Only the greedy, slumlords and realtors with many rental houses tried to kill the new rental inspection program created in Brentwood. Civic minded responsible landlords do not rent to low-life, and the fee is just part of doing business. Responsible landlords also want to hear when their tenants are causing problems....the slumlords do not return calls, letters and even threaten to sue when bothered by neighborhood groups reporting crimes, and drug use/abuse in Section 8# housing units... Many of us in Brentwood and Antioch have seen and heard it all, the excuses from the CC Housing Authority, the excuses from politicians and indifference from some Contra Costa Supervisors...... Brentwood and Antioch are now taking the first steps with the rental inspection ordinances to address the many problems associated with some low income, section 8# rental properties, this is excellent progress after being hounded by the public to "do something". Personally it is my opinion that no Welfare , or section 8# family should be allowed in a brand new home in a new development. If your receiving free housing, at the taxpayers expense.......it should be "modest" , a run down small apartment, in an undesireable area so that the recipients do not become long term welfare recipients of feel entitled to free or subsidized housing for decades. It should be short term 2yrs max. Failed Liberal social policies at at both county and Federal levels are to blame for the many problems associated with low income housing and Section 8# recipients living in 1/2 million dollar homes in new subdivisions. "Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate the change.
  • Shop Local  |
  • Classifieds  |
  • Jobs  |
  • Cars  |
  • Homes 
  • MediaNews Group - Northern California Network