By Paul Thompson
Northeast News

The Kansas City, Missouri City Council chamber was packed with landlords ahead of the Housing Committee meeting on the morning of Wednesday, August 23.

The landlords dutifully lined up before the meeting, each eager to sign up for a chance to state their opposition to a proposed $25 per property rental fee that would fund a new interior inspection program.

The $25 fee would be charged to landlords annually on a per-parcel basis. The funds would hypothetically keep the Healthy Rental Homes inspection program self-sufficient enough to address tenant (or landlord) issues in a demand-based program. Additional fees would only be applied if there was a persistent issue. The program calls for a $0 fee for responding to a complaint if there are no violations, if the violations are corrected at the time of inspection, or if the violations are corrected before the set re-inspection date. If a re-inspection remains necessary, a $150 fee would apply for the first unit, along with a $100 per-unit fee thereafter.

On August 23, landlords came out in force against the additional fees and regulations.

Robert Long told the story of a tenant who sent him a picture of a moldy bathroom after he had sent her an eviction notice for non-payment of rent.

“Whose responsibility is it to clean the bathroom?” he questioned.

Allen Norman acknowledged that the City had a health issue as it relates to housing, but contended that the problem is a citywide dilemma; not only an issue for landlords.

“Yes we have health problems,” Norman said. “It’s a city-wide problem; it’s not a landlord problem.”

Another landlord expressed concerns about the per-parcel cost of the interior inspection program. Because the individual owns 31 single-family homes, he calculated that the program would cost him $775 annually for all of his parcels. It’s a cost he doesn’t consider equitable.

The committee eventually heeded the concerns of the collected property owners, deciding by a 4-1 margin to hold the proposal until the committee’s next meeting. The decision effectively quashed any hope that the measure could be placed on the November 7, 2017 election ballot. The vote was a disappointment for ordinance architect Scott Wagner, who felt the program would protect tenants who might fear retribution if they report issues under the City’s current policies.

“The issue that you have is that it’s very difficult for tenants to come forward and say, ‘I have a problem,’ because they’re renting from someone,” Wagner said. “They may feel that if they speak out publicly, that landlord may be vindictive.”

The 1st District Councilman left the meeting frustrated that the inspection program was not approved in time for Kansas City voters to consider on the November ballot. Wagner said that he’d been working on crafting the inspection program – with input from landlords – over the past several months. That work included multiple hours of debate and testimony during the previous congregation of the Housing Committee on Wednesday, August 16.

“Again, we started with a routine inspection program, and dialed it back to a demand-based program. That wasn’t enough,” said Wagner. “Then it was the amount; now it’s $25. Then we’re hearing that it’s going to raise people’s rent. I don’t how that works at $25 a year, but that is $2.10 a month.”

Housing expert Ruth Ann Norton – who has worked on behalf of similar legislation in dozens of American cities – was flown in from Baltimore, Maryland to testify about the program. Norton began by discussing some costly issues that afflict tenants throughout the country.

“In the United States we spend over $250 billion a year on avoidable health care costs that are directly related to housing,” Norton said.

Norton also countered concerns among the Council that rents would rise and property ownership would decrease if the inspection program was implemented. In her experience, Norton has found that property ownership actually statistically increases when inspection programs are put in place. She has found no significant increase in abandonment and eviction, reporting that senior citizens are better cared for and children show up to school in better shape to learn in cities where robust interior inspection programs are operational.

Wagner had made alterations to the ordinance, too. One major addition proposed during the August 23 meeting was the inclusion of a nine-member Rental Housing Advisory board that would advise the Health Department’s Director on issues that sprung up within the inspection program. In addition to advocating for tenants, that advisory board would serve landlords by resolving disputes between the two groups.

Still, committee members Dan Fowler, Alissia Canady, Quinton Lucas and Teresa Loar remained unconvinced that the program was ready for the ballot. After clarifying that there are anywhere from 65,000-80,000 rental units in Kansas City at any given time, Loar wondered what kind of staff increase would be needed to finance the program.

“How are we going to process all of this? How are we going to enforce it? We’re going to have to hire tons of people,” Loar said. “I am very sympathetic to the cause here…I just think we’re looking at something major here that I’m not sure we’re ready to tackle yet.”

Fifth District Councilwoman Canady expressed concern with waning federal support for housing programs in Kansas City, and worried that the City might have eventually needed to implement an additional sales tax to fund the Healthy Rental Homes inspection program.

“In almost all of the cities where this has been implemented, rents have gone up,” Canady said.

Norton disputed that assertion, stating that the data points she’s studied don’t show “an increase in rent related to this kind of legislation.” Norton’s testimony did not convince the committee to recommend placing the inspection program on the November ballot.

After the committee voted to hold the ordinance, Wagner said that the failure to get the inspection program on the ballot is likely to draw the ire of social service groups who fight for tenants throughout the metropolitan area.

“The people I’ve been holding back, because I wanted to see if we could come to some agreement, are all the people in those social service non-profits who, frankly, are mad at me because I was talking to those landlords so long I was dialing back what we were going to do,” Wagner said. “Now, if I invited those into a meeting…that would be an interesting meeting.”