City: Notice of Rental Inspection

[Eli]

Locally I had to get a CO (certificate of occupancy) before I could rent my other house. How do they enforce that? The tenant can't get the water turned on unless there is a CO on file.

However 13 years later, same tenant, no re-inspections.

That would certainly make a lot more sense. I would be far more OK with a practice like that. That's what they do if they find significant violations and you don't fix them and/or pay your fines, turn the water off. I'm OK with that in principle, as long as it's the tenants who complain in the first place. Then you have a reason for the inspection, and all is well. This inspection for the sake of inspection nonsense is WAY too steep of a slippery slope for me. I can barely hang on already. Had they come at me with this when they were unoccupied, I probably would have just been like "Oh.. um.. okay... sure, whatever.." But with tenants(who don't want it either)? Nope.

I suppose if the tenants were OK with it, I might be willing to concede. I don't know. It's just so wrong.

Oh and to answer your question, the place was empty when I bought it, having just been remodeled(Wish I had been the one to flip it...). So new tenants.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Wouldn't a vehicle emissions test in which someone has to get in your car to drive it through a testing station be similarly "unconstitutional"?

If courts have ruled the inspections unconstitutional in some city or state, it would be foolish for another city to continue to have such inspection requirements, wouldn't it? Knowing that it would cost them lawyers fees and that they'd lose any challenges to the law solely by precedent. Doesn't quite add up.


.

 

[Eli]

Wouldn't a vehicle emissions test in which someone has to get in your car to drive it through a testing station be similarly "unconstitutional"?

If courts have ruled the inspections unconstitutional in some city or state, it would be foolish for another city to continue to have such inspection requirements, wouldn't it? Knowing that it would cost them lawyers feeds and that they'd lose any challenges to the law solely by precedent. Doesn't quite add up.

You would think, eh? It's all pretty new, the Ohio ruling was just late last year I believe.

As for your example, do they have places where you do that? Here you drive through yourself. I would be OK if it was that way. To have a rental, you have to have a license, and to have a license, your place has to be inspected to be habitable. But that's not the way this is being presented. This is a random inspection, while tenants are in place. Nope, not happening. I am looking at this from the point of view of a tenant. Maybe that's because I haven't been a landlord long enough, I don't know.

To me, It's really disturbing that any citizen of the United States could be for this. This is a fundamental right. So you're OK with the police just stopping by and coming in any time they want to? You know, to make sure everything is OK?

 

[guachi]

Looks fine to me, OP.

You are engaging in commerce and they are ensuring you are meeting codes and regulations. Not sure why you are getting so bent out of shape.

 

[guachi]

Here's a link to a ruling saying requiring inspections to rent property is legal.

One difference to Ohio is whether you get a warrant or not, though there is nothing illegal about required a property be inspected to rent it.

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2015/nov/01/1101_inspect/?dgzrg

 

[Humpy]

Locally I had to get a CO (certificate of occupancy) before I could rent my other house. How do they enforce that? The tenant can't get the water turned on unless there is a CO on file.

However 13 years later, same tenant, no re-inspections.

It seems that simply renting with utilities included and keeping them in the owners name would be a good idea.

 

[tortillasoup]

There are at least two sides to every position. Try Arizona where landlords can do anything they please and have the tacit backing of the courts. There was a recent case of a fire in an apartment building that put thirty families out on the street. The kicker? Half the apartments didn't have running water or working toilets. This had been going on for THREE YEARS with the tenants complaining to the city the whole time. If the fire department hadn't condemned the property, the landlord would still be doing business as usual.

People rent public storage units to live in, they don't have any of those things. Yeah not having toilets or running water sucks but obviously it wasn't so bad that the people left.

 

[Eli]

Looks fine to me, OP.

You are engaging in commerce and they are ensuring you are meeting codes and regulations. Not sure why you are getting so bent out of shape.

Here's a link to a ruling saying requiring inspections to rent property is legal.

One difference to Ohio is whether you get a warrant or not, though there is nothing illegal about required a property be inspected to rent it.

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2015/nov/01/1101_inspect/?dgzrg

If you read the article, it declares that needing a license to rent is not unconstitutional, and thus needing an inspection for the license is not either. If that's what little old Gresham were doing, that would be fine. But it's not.

It's a random inspection. With tenants in place. No agent of the government has any right to enter someone's home without a warrant. PERIOD! And the article reiterates this.

They just need to change things around a little bit. This would be a non-issue if I would have had to get a Certificate of Occupancy, and have it inspected first. They need to fix that hole, not implement random inspections. They're just way too invasive.

In essence, it feels like I've been set up and forced to do something against my will. It would have been so easy to just require a Certificate of Occupancy or Rental License on file in order for the water to be put into a different name, but nope. Instead of making it easy like that.. all up front, they make it cryptic and put tools in place to "catch" people who don't fill out the rental license application? What a nice city. That's not OK. A city that wants to instigate fights with its citizens is no city of mine. Especially in the name of unlawful searches.

So again I ask. You would be OK with the police stopping by at random? Inviting themselves in? Just to, you know, check on things. That's the world you want to live in?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Legally, what is the difference between tenants and room mates? Could you have a door between each unit and consider them room mates instead of tenants? The doors could lock on both sides.

It's retarded all the legislation and red tape these days though, it seems to be with EVERYTHING. No matter what you want to try to do these days the government is putting their hands in your pants.

Heck speaking of stupidity, you can't even go fishing without 2 different licenses, an outdoors card and fishing license, and the rule book for fishing is over 200 pages long. You almost need a lawyer with you on the boat to figure out if you can keep a fish or not. Thankfully this is something that's not really enforced much. I rarely go fishing and when I do I might be lucky to catch one or two. It's not like I'm trying to empty a lake here.

 

[sdifox]

You would think, eh? It's all pretty new, the Ohio ruling was just late last year I believe.

As for your example, do they have places where you do that? Here you drive through yourself. I would be OK if it was that way. To have a rental, you have to have a license, and to have a license, your place has to be inspected to be habitable. But that's not the way this is being presented. This is a random inspection, while tenants are in place. Nope, not happening. I am looking at this from the point of view of a tenant. Maybe that's because I haven't been a landlord long enough, I don't know.

To me, It's really disturbing that any citizen of the United States could be for this. This is a fundamental right. So you're OK with the police just stopping by and coming in any time they want to? You know, to make sure everything is OK?

Randomly selected <> Random Inspection.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Sheesh, some of the plumbing and electrical requirements are pretty broad and could be hugely expensive to meet if you got an assholish inspector.

Just like when a cop pulls you over - If they don't like you they can find SOMETHING to ticket you for. Our laws in this nation are obscene and ridiculous. Plenty are still in place that are now a joke, but at one time were considered serious.

 

[Eli]

Randomly selected <> Random Inspection.

Fair enough. So you would be OK with being randomly selected for police visits?

End result is the same....

 

[sdifox]

Fair enough. So you would be OK with being randomly selected for police visits?

End result is the same....

You know a lot of people get stopped on the streets by cops all the time right?

They do random selection because they don't have the manpower to inspect everyone.

 

[Squisher]

As a landlord I have to get the rental house I own checked out every three years. Three years ago they dinged me for the tuck pointing on the brick chimney coming out of the roof was cracked and deteriorated in a couple spots and they didn't like the cracks in the wood molding going around the back door screen door (brick molding).

Just had one last month and they passed me on everything. Still it costs me $250 to pay for the inspection.

 

[Spacehead]

Seems odd that you went into a business without knowing some basic related things. The rental inspection thing is the first sentence on that page.

Looks like the tenants need to consent to the inspection. Do you know what happens if they don't? Serious question, do they say anywhere what will happen?

Honestly, I didn't even really pay attention to what city the place was in. The cities just bleed together here, it's a metropolitan area. It's literally in the city of Gresham by like a block.....

Maybe i misread but how do you buy a house & not know what town it's in?
Guess i didn't misread.

 

[Eli]

Seems odd that you went into a business without knowing some basic related things. The rental inspection thing is the first sentence on that page.

Looks like the tenants need to consent to the inspection. Do you know what happens if they don't? Serious question, do they say anywhere what will happen?



Maybe i misread but how do you buy a house & not know what town it's in?
Guess i didn't misread.

I fully admit that this is partially my fault, I didn't do my full due diligence. But like I said, I didn't think I needed to for things of this nature. I'd never heard of needing a license to operate rentals around here, and I'd certainly never heard of a program like random inspections. The biggest city, Portland, has neither. Which is where I've lived for the last 12 years combined. Haven't actually lived in Gresham since 1997. I know ignorance isn't an excuse, just saying.

This is why I need a real estate attorney of my own, I guess. Had I known such an insane thing existed in Gresham, I would have certainly avoided it. Or figured out how to comply without it being so invasive, which is still a possibility I guess.

And it's not that I didn't "know" where the house was, I just didn't think it mattered.

 

[Meghan54]

Fair enough. So you would be OK with being randomly selected for police visits?

End result is the same....

You do know you kinda consent to random police visits when you drive...such as DUI checkpoints.

 

[Eli]

You do know you kinda consent to random police visits when you drive...such as DUI checkpoints.

We don't have DUI checkpoints in Oregon. I remember first learning they do them in other states. Blew my mind that it was legal. But yes, driving isn't a right, blah blah. They can peer into your car and ask you as many questions as they want. They still can't search it or force you to open your trunk with probable cause.

In Oregon, they still need probable cause to pull you over. Yes, it's easy to manufacture, but whatever. They still don't get to do it for literally no reason. They have to at least make something up.

Anyone for this is insane. INSANE. What will they be coming in to check on next? To make sure you're a citizen? To make sure your kids are receiving proper nutrition? To make sure you're taking care of your pets? To make sure you aren't doing illegal drugs? To make sure you've changed your furnace filter?

It's okay, we're just checking. What do you have to be afraid of, if you're not doing anything wrong? Right?

NO!! I'm innocent until proven guilty in my own home, as are my tenants. Got a warrant?

 

[ViRGE]

Listen guys, I'm all for responsible landlords.. But.. No... No, no, no no no no. This isn't the right way to do it. It would be VERY easy to bolster tenant laws. Rather than a "Mandatory Inspection Division", how about a very robust hotline/complaint/review division?

The problem with a reporting concept in general is that if someone only gets investigated when they're reported, then the perp typically know who reported them and who to retaliate against. That in turn would be a big problem in a tight market like Portland.

A random inspection (or at least a "random" inspection) should in theory keep everyone on their best behavior.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Listen guys, I'm all for responsible landlords.. But.. No... No, no, no no no no. This isn't the right way to do it. It would be VERY easy to bolster tenant laws. Rather than a "Mandatory Inspection Division", how about a very robust hotline/complaint/review division? I'm all for all that kind of stuff, but entering your home? Did any of you read this?

....but then how are they going to create more worthless city jobs where their sole purpose is to go through other people's homes with a stupid checklist trying to generate more revenue?

 

[shabby]

It's a random inspection. With tenants in place. No agent of the government has any right to enter someone's home without a warrant. PERIOD! And the article reiterates this.

But this isn't a "home", its a rental, which is a business. If you owned a restaurant would you deny food inspectors too?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

But this isn't a "home", its a rental, which is a business. If you owned a restaurant would you deny food inspectors too?

For a lot of people that are landlords though... they really aren't a place of business. They are simply people that moved at some point in their life and didn't feel it was financially feasible to sell the home. Instead they would rather just rent it out. There is a reason why there are certain thresholds in life concerning things like revenue before the state/city will get involved in trying to regulate things.

Also, are taco trucks subject to food inspections? Also comparing to food in general is just rather apples to oranges. One is something you put in your mouth, which can potentially kill you depending on how it is made and sanitary conditions... The other is a house. I've seen people live with cockroaches and ants and they are just fine (and I'm not talking about people that rent).

 

[Humpy]

For a lot of people that are landlords though... they really aren't a place of business. They are simply people that moved at some point in their life and didn't feel it was financially feasible to sell the home. Instead they would rather just rent it out. There is a reason why there are certain thresholds in life concerning things like revenue before the state/city will get involved in trying to regulate things.

This would be my problem with the inspections. If someone wanted to rent out grandma's old house for a while to keep it in the family they would potentially have to spend a bunch of money to bring it up to code. The only options left might be to sell or operate outside the law.

It's perfectly fine for grandma to safely live there for 60 years with the original electrical system. Now it might have to be replaced only because someone else is moving in? Doesn't make sense.

 

[Spacehead]

I fully admit that this is partially my fault, I didn't do my full due diligence. But like I said, I didn't think I needed to for things of this nature. I'd never heard of needing a license to operate rentals around here, and I'd certainly never heard of a program like random inspections. The biggest city, Portland, has neither. Which is where I've lived for the last 12 years combined. Haven't actually lived in Gresham since 1997. I know ignorance isn't an excuse, just saying.

This is why I need a real estate attorney of my own, I guess. Had I known such an insane thing existed in Gresham, I would have certainly avoided it. Or figured out how to comply without it being so invasive, which is still a possibility I guess.

And it's not that I didn't "know" where the house was, I just didn't think it mattered.

OK, fair enough.
Sounds like you're going to talk to an attorney next week. Any plans on asking any other landlords what they think about this?


Also...

Looks like the tenants need to consent to the inspection. Do you know what happens if they don't? Serious question, do they say anywhere what will happen?

 

[Capt Caveman]

The problem with a reporting concept in general is that if someone only gets investigated when they're reported, then the perp typically know who reported them and who to retaliate against. That in turn would be a big problem in a tight market like Portland.

A random inspection (or at least a "random" inspection) should in theory keep everyone on their best behavior.

Correct. You have renters who would be afraid to report their living conditions due to being afraid of their renting being raised, being kicked out b/c repairs need to be done, they're breaking the lease due to too many renters, etc...

A couple of deaths in Boston were due to fires and renters illegally living in attics with no escape routes. Don't remember if the attics were presented as illegal bedrooms that the renters didn't know would be illegal or if the student renters made them into bedrooms to get more people into the rental to cut down on expenses.