News >> Support the Proposed Landlord License Ordinance!
Support the Proposed Landlord License Ordinance! - 78666.com - San Marcos, Texas Guide

Support the Proposed Landlord License Ordinance!

01/29/2008

By: citizen
Add A Picture
Report A Problem

There is a proposal on the table right now for requiring landlords to be licensed by the city in order to rent. The fee would be a meager $70 and make landlords responsible for their tenants.

According to a quote by Richard Skiles from News8Austin; News8Austin Story

"It makes me as a landlord more responsible for the activity of a tenant than their parents. It's asinine, it's completely ridiculous".

This quote sums it up. Landlords do not want to be responsible for their tenants. They think they should be able to rent to whomever and then make their tenants neighbors and the police deal with their bad tenants.

This proposal has worked wonders in other cities including Minneapolis, Aurora, Milwaukee, Lawrence, etc and it would work very well here.

Wayne Becak of the San Marcos Area Chamber of Commerce said it would prevent people from buying rental properties here.

Perhaps it will make San Marcos unattractive to non-local investors but it will improve local investing of rental property. A lot of our problems with bad renters are from investors who live out of State and could care less who is renting or what troubles they are causing. Also all these out of State investors are taking money from our local economy.

Bottom line is this proposed ordinance makes landlords responsible for their tenants and could promote investing by locals thus keeping more money in our local economy.

Don’t let the voices of property managers sway your opinion. Their inaction of renting to responsible tenants is why we have such a growing problem in places like Sagewood and Bishop.

We are looking for a solution to our growing problem of out of control tenants and this is it.

Add A Comment

Name
Review
Please type 3392 in the box to continue:




COMMENTS

Name: Dan Martian

Dear Citizen,

Cleary you haven�t done your homework regarding fees. You are only partially correct, and �partially� is probably a �generous� word choice. According to Draft Six of Chapter 32 Residential Rental Property Licensing and Inspection, Section 32.1520 (b), � A fee of seventy dollars ($70.00) per premises plus twenty dollars ($20.00) per rental unit is required (example a duplex unit is $90).�

That error would be forgivable if it were the only fee, but there is also a flat $200.00 operational permit for multi family units in Section 32.1520 (c), a $50.00 Test fee for Licensed Maintenance Person in Section 32.1520 (d), a $25.00 transfer of rental property registration in Section 32.1520 (d), a $25.00 change of status fee in Section 32.1520 (d),a $10 annual non inspection fee, in Section 32.1520 (e) Late fees ranging from $25.00 to $200.00 in Section 32.153, and re-inspection fees from $150.00 to $300.00.

So, a small-time landlord, owning a duplex and living on one side of it, could incur an initial $90.00 fee annually, not seventy. Let�s say he decides to become a licensed repairman. Now he�s out $150.00, not $70. The following year, assuming he passes inspection, that same landlord will incur a $100.00 fee, not $70.00.

Let�s continue and say he fails to pass inspection and must get his property re-inspected once. His annual fee cost will be $240.00, not $70.00. And that�s �Fees� were talking not �Fines.� And if you accept the accounting equation Income Minus Expenses Equals Profit or Loss, then for the Landlord to break even or make a profit, which is his motive here, those fees get passed onto the tenant. I�m sure in this town where sixty percent of people live below the poverty line, an extra $20.00 a month sounds appealing to a struggling renter.

Citizen, you then go on to assert �Landlords do not want to be responsible for their tenants. They think they should be able to rent to whomever and then make their tenants neighbors and the police deal with their bad tenants.�

As it already stands under Texas law, landlords can be held responsible, in fact liable, for their tenants� behavior under certain conditions. Their remedy would probably require eviction, which will usually lead to more hostility, property damage, court costs and lost rental income. Consequently, this ordinance duplicates already existing laws, and since landlords themselves face added expense from problem tenants it�s in their best interest to screen applicants. Unfortunately, they have to do it in a nondiscriminatory way, making the job more difficult, and it costs money, something even some to many landlords find in short supply. Perhaps they are short changing themselves, but even I, a former long-time renter, doubt that most landlords are thinking about sticking it to their neighbors or police when they are filling a vacancy with just anyone.

Even an onsite landlord, such as the duplex owner I described above, regardless of how much of a fascist control freak he is, can possibly control all of the possible thousands of potentially criminal acts, such as those described in the San Marcos City Code, The Texas Penal Code or even the United States code in his tenant. He lacks the authority and jurisdiction to do it, even if he is a victim himself. Who does? The police! It�s their job. In this instance, what can the landlord do? Evict? He still has to call law enforcement to do that, assuming he doesn�t have to go through the 90-day process to do it. And how do you know that it�s actually the tenant at fault here? It could be a guest or even a stranger. Should the property owner be responsible in that case?

Furthermore our fair city spent over a million taxpayer dollars last year to create and fund a code enforcement department. We haven�t even been able to guage their effectiveness, according to the Fire Marshal at Monday�s task force meeting. Clearly certain citizens don�t feel that they are effective, nor do they think the police are. So, you�re asking the same people who are in charge of two failed jurisdictions to create another? Most would agree that doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is insanity.

Citizen, you claim that these types of ordinances are effective, precisely what wonders have these types of ordinances worked? And why aren�t any of the places in Texas? What kind of laws were already in place, and what kind of laws were lacking? I�m just curious. By the way sweeping, unsupported generalizations are not usually considered effective rhetoric.

Citizen, you go on to cite Wayne Becak of the San Marcos Area Chamber of Commerce, who said that it would prevent people from buying rental properties here, and try to refute him by saying: �Perhaps it will make San Marcos unattractive to non-local investors but it will improve local investing of rental property. A lot of our problems with bad renters are from investors who live out of State and could care less who is renting or what troubles they are causing.� This is impressively mistaken.

Texan property owners rent many of the problem properties, including Sagewood. Some are from Austin, Dallas and Houston. The gentleman who owns and rents the house next door to lives in Fredericksburg. One of his tenants, otherwise quite law abiding, owned a red-tagged junked, vehicle. His current replacement is a drummer. Is the landlord responsible? Does that make him a �problem� property owner?

I rented from a family who primarily lived in Austin. Does that make him a �problem� property owner? Far from it and in fact I happily stayed there for six years. I also rented from two locally based property owners and they were far worse. It was because of one of them that I got quite a liberal education in real estate law, which is why I know that Landlords can be held liable for the behaviors of their tenants. The other�s rather relaxed views of maintenance inspired me to buy a house.

Citizen, had I known that this type of regulation would be coming so soon, I never would have bought my house, which is a duplex. At the time it made sense to buy a house with rental property in order to defray costs like the mortgage, utilities, property taxes and insurance, but with this type of legislation, the same purchase would have made less sense. I�m sure other locally based landlords will now consider selling their properties.

The question remains: who will buy them? Not everyone in this town earns the kind of money necessary to buy these properties and many could wind up in the hands of the University, effectively removing them from our tax rolls and thus emptying the precious local economy. And what happens to property values in the event of a mass sell off? They drop.

How will that effect you and the value of you biggest investment, Citizen? Don�t own? What will happen to your rent when the fees are passed on, more tenants are forced out of their homes and the supply of rental properties drops? What happens when businesses refuse to come to San Marcos? What will that do to our local economy? Oh, I�m sure we�ll hear more whining form you.

And I�m glad you mentioned the bottom line, Citizen. Let�s examine what happens to the hypothetical duplex owner I mentioned above. For the sake of argument let�s assume he�s charging $500.00 a month for rent, all bills paid. He grosses $6,000.00 per year, which would sound rather nice. Unfortunately, he must pay utilities, insurance and property taxes, which could reduce his gross by about $250.00 a month or $3,000.00 annually. Half of his gross is gone, netting him $3,000.00, which is only half as attractive. Then he must pay the $90.00 annual fee and decided to become a licensed repairman, costing him another $50.00. His net is now $2,860.

His property finally gets inspected and is found to be in violation. The fine is the maximum, $2,000.00, leaving him $860.00. This does not include court fees. For the sake of argument, the landlord fixes the mess promptly and must submit to another inspection, which costs him another $150.00, leaving him with $710.00 at the end of the year. Almost 90% of his gross is already gone and we haven�t even covered what it cost to remedy the problem or do ANY routine maintenance. My best guess is that if the violation is that steep, the remedy will easily exceed the remaining $710.00, resulting in a loss.

For the sake of argument, let�s say the tenant caused the violation. The landlord stands to lose $1,500.00 in lost rent, assuming a 90-day eviction, plus court costs, repair costs, makeover costs, advertising costs and screening costs. It seems to me that the landlord is already being hled responsible for his tenant�s bad behavior and certainly liable. The new tenant will also likely face a much steeper security deposit. How does $2,000.00 sound?

Now, keep in mind that according to Section 32.170, �Each act of violation and each day upon which violation shall occur may constitute a separate offense.� In other words this could get expensive and quickly.

Who would want to rent in that environment? The landlord will either have to raise his rent steeply or go out of business. Who would want to invest in that climate? A San Marcan, whose median income is lower that that of someone from Austin, Dallas or Houston? Clearly, locals won�t invest, and this is no solution to our growing problem, despite your misguided assertions and sophistic arguments.

Do you want a solution? Try asking the university to cap enrollment, attract more responsible students or focus on grad students. Try asking the Economic Development Council to attract better paying jobs that are also environmentally responsible. Demand that the code enforcement officers and police actually do their job and fine the people who are directly responsible for the problems.

Or you can do what I did when I got tired of dealing with crappy landlords and move. And don�t think I�m not still considering it.

Citizen, perhaps you have heard of Minneapolis, Aurora, Milwaukee or Lawrence?


Name: James

Bye bye Dan move and be gone, 100-200 is meager.

Name: Dan Martian

All right, James, have you agent contact me here and will consider it. We willl see how you like the potential exposure to fines and inspections.

Name: ICONBLDR

I am so confused about this rental registration mess. From what I understand it was all started by the whole Sagewood, snobs on the hill mess last year. I live close by and actually worked (construction) in the neighborhood there. What really use to bothers me most is that there are a lot of empty lots in the area that are not taken care of. I bet there are over 10 empty lots and most have a Carson reality sign in them and they are always overgrown with grass and garbage. Who is responsible for the upkeep of those lots? The owner? Carson? Well, nobody is enforcing the codes on WC Carson. Should he not be fined for not meeting the city code? Also, the same neighborhood had a Texas State student living there growing over 200 pot plants. Did the landlord get a fine? I doubt it. If you really want a good laugh, go there anytime of the day and you will see the robe-lady as we all called her. She must not ever get dressed and goes out all day long wearing a robe to smoke. My crew would always say “the robe-lady” is out again. She lives on the corner of the first Culdesac (Juniper) there so she could not be missed from the house we were building. Is there a code for wearing your bedroom clothes outside? If you go down Holland Street you will see a house with more yard art and crap all over it right next to the Taco stand house. It looks horrible but are they getting fined? You could look all over San Marcos and fine everyone for something so why do we need more laws?

Name: Hill Snob

Thanks for the heads-up ICONBLDR. I'll be coming by to talk to you and your crew about your concerns within the next week or so.

Name: Karen

Here's the real question: does changing the way we deal with "delinquent" renters really change what they're doing? No, it doesn't.

If someone is growing pot plants, beating their dog, leaving trash on their lawn, etc. they're still going to be fined by the city, arrested or whatever. Forcing the landlords to pay more fees and obtain new licenses is only giving the city someone else to blame for San Marcos's "problem" of bad renters. It's not going to curb police involvement in illegal activity or make the city any less likely to fine the tenants.

And who the hell cares if people walk outside in their robe???

Name: Dead issue now!

The city council officially suspended the proposal Tuesday! I guess that the Realtors and Landlords showed San Marcos who really runs the town and council! By the way, every neighborhood has ever embarrassing a "Robe-lady" in it.

Name: renter

It's just as hard to find a good landlord in this town as it is for landlords to find good tenants. I do feel like the surge of younger people constantly has a lot more to do with the property value than landlords, though. Most college students live in apartments after dorms, so instead of run down out of state owned slums, you'll have run down locally owned slums (which we already have plenty of.) Houses that are in good condition and a fair price are hard to come by. If you actually work here and don't get any benefits from student loans or parents helping out, it gets difficult to live in a place that even has central a/c and heating. Most of the places around here, atleast houses and apartments that friends of mine live in are owned by skiles, isn't he local? I know those places aren't well maintained, and it's difficult to get something fixed when it breaks because it's a company that owns the property, not an individual.

I feel that the state does need to be stricter with landlords, but if the city wanted to do something about property value and local investment, then I feel that they should go around and fine those landlords whose properties are being rented out without the regular upkeep and maintenance it takes to keep a place livable. It's too difficult, though, to care all that much when you know some irresponsible, fresh out of the home young person moves in next door. That's the constant enrollment of new students at the school, and constant discovery of freedoms never before known.

Move to a non-college town if you want a realistic goal of local investment and local economic growth; if it weren't for the school, this town wouldn't exist.

Name: semi-native

The way Hays County, Austin and San Antonio are growing and with the Hill Country, the San Marcos River, the Outlet Malls and everything else that makes this area great, you'd have to be an idiot to say that we would not be here without the university.

Yes, the university has a significant impact (both positive and negative) and it would be a far different city without it, but be serious. Kyle is about to blow past us, with no university.

Name: Realist

Renter is in a dream world if he thinks that San Marcos would not exist if not for the University. No it would be the same and who knows we might have had someone actually invest with a business or two. But as we stand now no major business would touch us with a ten-foot pole. I believe that Kyle will soon blow us by and if San Marcos does not progress then not to long in future, this will Austin south.

By the way, I would not be happy with a robe-lady living in my neighborhood either, put on some clothes once in awhile. Karen must be her neighborhood robe rep!

Name: Robe-lady fan

I had a few robe-lady sightings there myself last year while living in that neighborhood. She is out and about all day long in a white robe usually smoking. On a more serious note, this is not crime more of an embarrassment so we should keep this more focused. The rental proposal was good thing that the powers to be never envisioned to be brought forth in the beginning.

Name: ICONBLDR

Pack a lunch Hill Snob! You do not have the nerve to come see me, that I guarantee.....You will not like meeting me.

Name: Morgan

Unless you are a landlord then your comments are irrelevant. It's not you that would pay the fees. Please name one specific example where this ordinance would have helped anyone in anyway? To what degree would a landlord be responsible for tenant behavior? Do not mistake this for anything but a way to increase tax base. Any other interpretation would be ignorant and I dare someone to say otherwise.

Name: Dan Martian

So, James, it has been almost four weeks since your brilliant post that screams “I didn’t really pay attention,” and I still have not heard back from you or your agent. What’ is the matter? Don’t you want to put your money where your mouth is? Hmmm, seems like all the fees aren’t so meager, especially when it’s YOUR money, huh?

Name: James

Dan Martini, alright give me your "Agents" name and number. Better yet, give me your number. Give me a break, "your agent"!?!?

Name: Swisher

Morgan...Really now. Only landlords have anything to say about this? You don't believe that do you? What someone does with their property 10 feet from mine does not affect me? Also, if this is just about "increasing the tax base" as you claim, which I don't think it is, isn't increasing the tax base a good thing?

Name: Semi-native

I don't know who you are Iconbldr, but rest assured, YOU do not want to meet ME.

That being said, thanks for pointing out the trashed empty lots (I actually clean some by my house WEEKLY, when I'm not busy being a snob) and thanks for pointing out the renter with the 200 pot plants.

We've been trying to get these sorts of issues addressed as well. Don't think we haven't tried to get Carson fined for those lots.

God forbid anyone in this town did anything but kneel down, pucker up and kiss the ass of folks like that, though. No, the city isn't interested in holding Carson accountable for anything.

It's probably just a matter of time before he gets the city to re-zone that land for multi-family, so he can build phase II of Sagewood.


Name: Jordan

Morgan you are a moron if you think that only a landlord has a say in this. How about those unfortunate enough to live near the homes that have the rowdy students renting from buffoons like you? This is all over San Marcos so maybe we should just give them the city? San Marcos will never be able to recruit quality people or businesses until they get a handle on these types of situations. San Marcos is a commuter town and nothing more because the city itself is their biggest enemy and will not control the students, is scared of the developers, the realtors and lastly the landlords. The Mayor sold out quick on her own proposal once these folks got to her. People like the Carson’s have and never will be held accountable for anything. No wonder WC Carson is the most disliked man in the City and they will have to look hard for paul bearers at his funeral.

On another note, I would not mind a good looking robe-lady but not the old hag they discussed earlier. I love this site where on can vent with great discussion!

Name: San Marcos Resident

Semi-Native you and the ICON dude need too meet! Seriously, we all understand the frustration brought about by the whole Sagewood/Neighborhood mess but you need keep it all in perspective, Sagewood is not the only troubled area with College students. It is not even in the top 5 for calls to the police. I know the Army guy wants it cleaned up but remeber, San Marcos is a lot bigger than Sagewood. Army guy has made a splash in San Marcos on the Sagewood drunk driver issue but it is all over town.

Name: Morgan

Jordan...

Do you really think this ordinance will be able to regulate "rowdiness"? How does this not fall under the responsibility of the police? The idea that "rowdiness" is keeping San Marcos down is an absurd assessment. A college town is populated by college students, is that so hard for you to understand? You can't legislate good behavior. If your neighbor is bothering you, the police will be happy to mediate. Only a socialist would think that Big Brother would be able to regulate personal behavior from the top down. People are accountable for their own actions, a basic premise that you and other socialists have trouble understanding. Please wake up to the wonderful world of personal responsibility.

Thanks

Name: Jim

Morgan you are an idiot, no way you can deny this but except in your own limited brain. Please wake up to the wonderful world of personal responsibility and as a landlord take responsibillity. No one else in San Marcos has, you obviously must be a product of the "pay your fee get a B" texas state university system. Have a great life, I am sure that you are the typical 60-75,000 dollar a year max SWT alumnus. Enjoy that degree.

Name: James

Dan, you move yet? Perhaps you have heard of Minneapolis, Aurora, Milwaukee or Lawrence, go there soon!

Name: San Marcos citizen

I am new to this site but must speak out in defense of the "Robelady". I live in the neighborhood next to them and actually know her and the reason behind the robe wear. She works from home and makes good money doing it. She works early in the morning till the evening. She not only supports a 4 year old but a man who lives off of her. He will tell you that he went to an Ivy league college but yet he has never worked???? He should be the joke of this site as he is around that neighborhood, not her. He honestly thinks "the man is holding him down"! So, be gentle with the "Robelady'!


Name: Tne proposal is alive! Show!

Dear Neighbors,
It’s still alive!! The rental permitting process will be discussed at a special council meeting this Monday evening at 6 in City Council Chambers. It will also be televised (see the following article). Whether rental registration is implemented is entirely up to you, the neighbors. You will have to speak to, call, or write the mayor and the council to keep this alive. There are powerful forces that
don’t want landlords to have any responsibility for the problems that occur in their rental properties. A rental permit that can be revoked would be a good tool to establish order in this community, resulting in increased property values and quality of life.

What can you do? Call or send emails to the mayor and council asking them to put in place a system of rental permits that can be revoked for poorly managed properties. Send the email to cityhall@ci.san-marcos.tx.us
Ask them to distribute a copy of your letter to all members of the council.

Then please show up Monday and submit written questions if you don’t hear what you need to know. Please be patient and don’t give up on this process – it’s complicated because it involves police, health dept., code enforcement, city court and rewriting of ordinances. All of these elements need to be streamlined to come up with an effective system. That’s why we asked for all of these staff members to be at this meeting. This is the first time they have all been in one room to discuss this issue. It’s up to you to keep the ball rolling.


City Panel to Discuss Neighborhood Issues Monday

The San Marcos City Council will hear a panel discussion about community policing issues and enforcement at a special workshop starting at 6 p.m. Monday, March 24 at City Hall, 630 E. Hopkins.

Loud parties, alcohol offenses, litter and trash, parking, traffic, and how City departments and ordinances deal with the issues will be addressed by Assistant Police Chief Lisa Dvorak, Chief Howard Williams, Fire Marshal Ken Bell and City Attorney Michael Cosentino.

The workshop is open to the public and will be televised live on Time Warner Channel 10 and Grande Communications Channel 16, and video-streamed live on the Internet.

Assistant Chief Dvorak and Chief Williams will discuss the Police Department’s approach toward problem-solving in neighborhoods where noise, litter and alcohol-related offenses are causing neighborhood deterioration and conflicts. They will review current ordinances on the books, how complaints are handled by the department, and lay out short term, medium term and long term solutions that could be considered.

Bell will briefly review the recent effort to develop a rental registration or permitting ordinance, while City Attorney Cosentino will discuss City ordinances that are aimed at dealing with problems in troubled neighborhoods.

Municipal Court Judge John Burke will also be present to discuss the municipal court process in handling ordinance violation cases.

Following the presentations by the panelists, Mayor Susan Narvaiz will invite attendees to submit questions in writing for the panel to address.

The City Council will then discuss several policy issues and give direction to staff.







Name: Swisher is a MORON!

We won at council the other night! We beat your whiny neighbor butts! Years ago we fought to make the noise and nuisance ordinances completely unenforceable by not having any responsibility put on us. This week we beat back any new rules that would have us landlords us do anything. We don't need to register or get a permit and we don't have to evict any tennant even if they have 10 citations for noise or garbage, or anything else. Now I can rent my home and only worry about picking up the rent check! The way it should be. They even torpedoed a plan with no fees, paperwork, or inspections. My thanks to Mayor Narvaiz and council members Couch, Porterfield, Guerrero. I knew it would pay off to name Mayor Susan Narvaiz the Citizen of the Year at the SM Board of Realtors. Of course I need to move out of town now since I might get a nuisance rental next to my home.


What a dork and idiot, nothing was really discussed on this if you were even there. Agreed that Susan Narvaiz and her cronies Porterfield, Couch and Dvorak all utilized the standard study it away method. We can all sing together on this and hold hands, not. The typical short term was to throw this bs out to quiet the neighbors and the Army dude. Mid term is this crap to keep them lulled into a sense of melancholy and the long term is status quo because Susan will be elected Mayor again. San Marcos will never learn and leave 1980. Keep on this track and this town to shall be Austin and the campus will be UT Austin South campus.

Name: Wes

The only nuisance neighbors are those not attending Texas State. You reap the benefits of the over 1 billion dollars the school generates. Face it that school IS San Marcos, I'm not going to act like students are the best citizen's but unfortunately unless you moved here before the late 1800's then you moved into a college town. I grew up in Buda right between San Marcos and Austin, and am sick about people moving somewhere then whining about the way it is. The School is here to stay and so are the students. Be appreciative the school is a huge reason San Marcos hasn’t turned into some cheap suburb with junky houses like Kyle and Buda, the school makes the town more so then any of you complainers do. On a side note, all you whiners stay out of Swell Park, a STUDENT only park paid by our tuition you guys bring your little brats to, you don't hear us complain.

Name: semi-native

Actually Wes, the university only brings about $400 million to our $2 billion + economy. The idea that the school IS the city is a myth that has had no merit for a long time.

The school is PART of the city and the students, like it or not, are PART of the problem.

Incidentally, not all college towns have these problems. Many have learned how to live together quite nicely. There is nothing wrong with us trying to emulate those cities.

Name: Semi-native

Also Wes, you might be interested to learn that MANY complaints about the problem renters come from other renters, often STUDENTS. So, you see, even your own peers see you as a problem.

Name: Tiffiny Tribbey

I think this is a great idea I am currently attending school at Texas State and renting at Sagewood and the people that lived here before me mistreated this place so bad it is gross!! My landlord refuses to take care of the property correctly however, if he had been required to be more resposible for his previous tenants then I would be moving into a much nicer place that might be worth the $1095 I have to pay to live in this roach infest hole.



Disclaimer: All content on 78666.com (News, concerts, events, reviews, businesses, forum entries, ratings) is submitted by visitors unless noted that it was submitted by 78666.com Staff. All content on 78666.com is not verified and not confirmed. No content should be regarded as fact or true.