Indy passes Landlord Registration Requirements

[88GT]

Indianapolis Passes New Landlord Registration Requirements

My predictions:

There were will be massive non-compliance. Ironically (or not so much) from the very "absent" landlords they are attempting to rein in. But also to a lesser extent from those who just refuse to be subjected to such unnecessary and pointless regs.

The number of vacant properties will actually increase.

The availability of affordable housing will decrease. Initially as a result of the increase in vacant properties, but also as the costs of compliance for all the new regs that will necessary be spawned from this.

Despite the efforts, the accountability requirement (and kudos to MIBOR and others for getting it in there) will be soundly ignored. I'm not even sure they have a rubric for determining the effectiveness of the regulation. But even if they do, it's far too easy for them to manipulate the numbers to their benefit.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I am ignorant on what happened. How is this different than property tax records showing the owner? Does it unmask the LLCs?

 

[88GT]

I am ignorant on what happened. How is this different than property tax records showing the owner? Does it unmask the LLCs?

That's one of the driving reasons it's such a stupid regulation.

As with all large metropolises, there are areas of the city that are economically depressed and have a far higher than average vacancy rate. Many of these vacancies have what the city is calling "absent owners." Apparently, owners that are not maintaining the property, though "absent" was never defined either. It was never stated whether the owners of the properties were paying the property taxes either. A point I repeatedly tried to impress in MIBOR to determine because if the owner is paying the taxes, then the vacancy issues are already covered under the health and zoning ordinances.

Indy seems to think making the non-absent landlords register the properties is going to solve the absent landlord problems. Which any one with a brain can look at it and realize it won't work. The non-absent ones aren't the problem. And the absent ones aren't exactly going to comply with a reg that would require them to come out of "absent" status. Knowing that the initial fee suggestions for registration ran in the several hundred dollar bracket, it's nothing more than a revenue generation scheme.

LLCs are required to register a physical address with the Agent. So even LLC-owned properties will have a paper trail to find the owner.

The only time an owner can't be found is if the owner address in the tax record is no longer accurate due to the owner having moved. But most landlords will make sure that the billing address for those tax bills gets changed so they don't lose the property in a tax sale. The only ones that wouldn't care are the ones who have stopped paying property taxes. And they won't be the ones registering. (There's a very strong corollary to the legislation passed to curb gun crime.) If the owner isn't paying the taxes, there is already a process in place to remedy that.

The registration, while annoying and maddening for all that it means, is less worrisome than the fact that it absolutely will not stop at simple registration of properties. Next will be annual inspections. Then all work must be performed by a licensed contractor. They'll try to sneak the Tenant Bill of Rights back in. (I've read IC on landlord-tenant law. It's extremely fair. ) And I will charge more in rent for the hassle of having to deal with all of that crap.

Indy is turning into Detroit. Now if I could get Mr88GT to move.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Do you anticipate an increase in insurance claims due to fire?

 

[88GT]

Do you anticipate an increase in insurance claims due to fire?

Not among my units, but that is a very real possibility.

 

[T.Lex]

There may be another dynamic in play, although you are far closer to this issue than I am: redevelopment. Is there any room in the regulatory scheme that gives the city leverage to take over the non-compliant parcels and take them over for redevelopment?

 

[88GT]

There may be another dynamic in play, although you are far closer to this issue than I am: redevelopment. Is there any room in the regulatory scheme that gives the city leverage to take over the non-compliant parcels and take them over for redevelopment?

This particular regulation has no such language, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that elsewhere in the ridiculous amount of control over our daily life the city had some means to do so. But it's not used often if it's there, at least not to my knowledge.

But even if it were possible, there's no point in redeveloping some of these areas.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm thinking of a longer term strategy (not that gov't is particularly good at that). If you get enough of those parcels in a certain area, and have a way of getting them cheaper than eminent domain (and easier), you can then package them and request bids from "completely neutral" parties and subsidize them with TIF money.

It is similar to an issue Carmel has had to deal with, although if you compare the "blighted" areas, they would look nothing alike.

 

[singlestacksig]

how exactly is it worded? Are they going to go after everyone who rents their house for short term, like airB&B renters?

 

[88GT]

I'm thinking of a longer term strategy (not that gov't is particularly good at that). If you get enough of those parcels in a certain area, and have a way of getting them cheaper than eminent domain (and easier), you can then package them and request bids from "completely neutral" parties and subsidize them with TIF money.

It is similar to an issue Carmel has had to deal with, although if you compare the "blighted" areas, they would look nothing alike.

Again, to what purpose? There is nothing in these areas to support anything.

how exactly is it worded? Are they going to go after everyone who rents their house for short term, like airB&B renters?

The text of the actual regulation is hyperlinked in the article. I imagine it will revert back to state statute definitions of landlord.

 

[T.Lex]

Again, to what purpose? There is nothing in these areas to support anything.

Not yet.

I suspect there are developers that have these things mapped out. If the city can get enough parcels in a concentrated area, someone will be willing to "invest" - with the city throwing in TIF money - into a mixed use development.

I may just be jaded by what's happened in Carmel, in an admittedly different socio-economic environment. But, that TIF money can provide serious incentive.

 

[88GT]

Not yet.

I suspect there are developers that have these things mapped out. If the city can get enough parcels in a concentrated area, someone will be willing to "invest" - with the city throwing in TIF money - into a mixed use development.

I may just be jaded by what's happened in Carmel, in an admittedly different socio-economic environment. But, that TIF money can provide serious incentive.

Never happen. Not without some major social upheaval that changes the demographics of the area first. Because the current one will not support anything else. And what will you do with the displaced residents? This is an unpleasant truth to say out loud, but they will relocate and turn wherever the end up into what they left. And we've simply changed one blighted neighborhood for another.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Never happen. Not without some major social upheaval that changes the demographics of the area first. Because the current one will not support anything else. And what will you do with the displaced residents? This is an unpleasant truth to say out loud, but they will relocate and turn wherever the end up into what they left. And we've simply changed one blighted neighborhood for another.

I am actually going to start with your earlier post. I agree completely. This may not have a whole lot of actual immediate impact other than establishing the city.gov a rolodex at the expense of those contained within, but the big deal is that the camel now has his nose under the tent and isn't likely to go away.

I can also see the argument for redevelopment. While you are absolutely right that the denizens of such neighborhoods will turn wherever they move into whatever they left, and that the city.gov consistently demonstrates short-sighted thinking, the people who buy influence are long-term thinkers and realize that at the right time, they well may be able to shove the present denizens to a new location, scoop up the properties for below-eminent domain, such that they can depopulate and redevelop making themselves winners and the owners of property in the areas to which the displaced persons move losers with the ultimate irony coming when the upstanding folks who have their property values ruined down the road are then turning to these same developer/pirates to buy property at an inflated price.

All things considered, it is not too bad today, but looks like it could get really nasty down the road.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Government: if you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions.

 

[ModernGunner]

Well, other than the ridiculous revenue generator, there's little (okay no) practical use of the policy as outlined in the link.

It can, however, be envisioned (if not already being done in Indy) the .gov coming in and 'forcing' occupancy to fill vacant rentals. Meaning that Indy.gov would eliminate the possibility of landlords screening the tenants by any criteria whatsoever.

Meaning, that if someone shows up to rent, the landlord would HAVE to rent to them, no questions asked. That would really put the landlord in a bad position, as who knows what group of scumbags the landlords would be forced to accept.

Any sensible landlord would then require a first / last months rent plus a significant security deposit. Wouldn't hesitate to make that equivalent to, say 6 - 8 months rent, as the landlord may need to start evicting after the first month - 6 weeks, LOL...

The only 'hope' would be that mandatory data tracking would demonstrate the failure to accomplish anything positive, and would then be rescinded.

 

[alexanjl12]

"Removed a requirement that the landlord provide the tenant with a Tenant Bill of Rights"

A tenant bill of rights? Are they supposed to provide one now? Because I sure have not been given any such thing.

 

[88GT]

"Removed a requirement that the landlord provide the tenant with a Tenant Bill of Rights"

A tenant bill of rights? Are they supposed to provide one now? Because I sure have not been given any such thing.

No, it is not required. Never has been. But it would have been if the language hadn't been removed from it before final passage.

 

[Birds Away]

So, if I understand you correctly, the gubmint has a set of regulations in place that people are ignoring. In their infinite wisdom the gubmint has now added more regulations rather than enforcing the current regulations? If I have this correct that sounds very familiar.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

No, it is not required. Never has been. But it would have been if the language hadn't been removed from it before final passage.

Headless Roland's Proposed Bill of Tenant Rights:

You have the "right" to abide by and live under the legally-binding terms of the contract which we've both mutually agreed upon, or you can get the **** out.
Have a nice day.
The End

 

[88GT]

That's pretty much what it ought to be. I'll even go a little farther. The IC is pretty good about identifying the tenant's rights and responsibilities. If the language had not required me to deliver their version of the tenant's BoR, I would have printed out a copy of the relevant IC and handed it to them.

The horribly ironic reality is that most of them don't care. People will voluntarily live in the nastiest of places if it means low enough rent or no screening.