U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2011, 11:14 AM
 
1,661 posts, read 2,785,214 times
Reputation: 549

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trademarked View Post
They (CMPD) claim they can revoke your right to rent property. ....
The police have no such power. I would ask any police representative who said this to go on record, in writing, with such a claim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2011, 09:00 AM
 
10 posts, read 16,167 times
Reputation: 12
Folks write your state senators there is a new bill up for a vote on Thursday, May 26th that is addressing registration fees (tax) on rental property. Write your state senator in a round of support. If you like fees please don't write.

This is a note I received regarding this new bill:

The fees provide little public benefit and increase the overall cost of housing. Senate Bill 683 (Residential Building Inspections), introduced by Sen. Neal Hunt, http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions...PDF/S683v1.pdf, will do just that.

WE NEED YOUR ACTION! The Senate Commerce Committee will vote on this bill on Thursday, May 26thand the Senators need to hear from you that we support this legislation! The members of the Senate Commerce Committee are as follows:

Sen. Bob Rucho Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net

Sen. Brent Jackson Brent.Jackson@ncleg.net

Sen. Buck Newton Buck.Newton@ncleg.net

Sen. Dan Blue Dan.Blue@ncleg.net

Sen. Dan Soucek Dan.Soucek@ncleg.net

Sen. Daniel Clodfelter Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net

Sen. Debbie Clary Debbie.Clary@ncleg.net

Sen. Don Vaughan Don.Vaughan@ncleg.net

Sen. Doug Berger Doug.Berger@ncleg.net

Sen. Floyd McKissick Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net

Sen. Gladys Robinson Gladys.Robinson@ncleg.net

Sen. Harris Blake Harris.Blake@ncleg.net

Sen. Harry Brown Harry.Brown@ncleg.net

Sen. Jim Davis Jim.Davis@ncleg.net

Sen. Josh Stein Josh.Stein@ncleg.net

Sen. Kathy Harrington Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net

Sen. Linda Garrou Linda.Garrou@ncleg.net

Sen. Malcolm Graham Malcolm.Graham@ncleg.net

Sen. Martin Nesbitt Martin.Nesbitt@ncleg.net

Sen. Neal Hunt Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net

Sen. Peter Brunstetter Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net

Sen. Ralph Hise Ralph.Hise@ncleg.net

Sen. Richard Stevens Richard.Stevens@ncleg.net

Sen. Rick Gunn Rick.Gunn@ncleg.net

Sen. Stan White Stan.white@ncleg.net

Sen. Thom Goolsby Thom.Goolsby@ncleg.net

Sen. Tom Apodaca Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net

Sen. Wesley Meredith Wesley.Meredith@ncleg.net

Sen. William R. Purcell William.Purcell@ncleg.net

You can go to http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/GIS/Representation/Representation.htmlto (broken link) find out who represents you or email all the Senators on the Committee by using the emails above. Below is a sample email you can use to express your support of the legislation. Please feel free to add your own examples of city ordinances that have increased the cost of housing in your market place.



Sample Email:

Dear Senator _____:

North Carolina cities have historically been concerned about housing conditions in their jurisdictions, especially in older, poorer neighborhoods, and have appropriately adopted ordinances calling for minimum housing quality codes. The administration of these codes are an important tool in helping North Carolina municipalities fight neighborhood decline while ensuring that minimal health, safety, and sanitation conditions are maintained in residential structures.

Unfortunately, some N.C. municipalities have substantially broadened these programs aimed at stemming blighted conditions and now apply them to all housing, or at least all rental housing, as part of mandatory inspection approaches. Sometimes these programs are tied into required permits and fees as a condition of operating rental property. Programs designed to systematically inspect all rental housing for the purpose of improving housing quality are bad public policy and waste needed resources that could be used to combat problematic housing.

Inspection programs in these environments amount to a "housing tax" with no public benefit. The core of current NC law gives units of government the authority to respond to housing conditions that are unsafe, dangerous, and unfit for human habitation but does not authorize random inspections.

I am asking that you support Senate Bill 683 in the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday and on the Senate floor. Senate Bill 683 provides the following:

Requires units of government to have reasonable cause to believe that unsafe housing conditions exist in order to inspect private housing, via landlord history, reports, or actual knowledge by a unit of government. This provision allows resources to be used to focus on unsafe conditions, problem properties and irresponsible owners and landlords.
Requires government housing inspection programs to be administered in a non-discriminatory way regarding housing type or ownership.
Provides local governments the authority to make an exception to the reasonable cause test in order to conduct periodic inspections as part of a targeted effort to arrest blight within designated Community Development or similar zones.
Prohibits local government rental registration programs, permits, fees, and Certificates of Occupancy as a condition of operating rental housing - all of which increase the costs of housing.
Again, I ask that you vote for a favorable report for Senate Bill 683 in Senate Commerce on Thursday.

Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2011, 09:19 AM
 
467 posts, read 1,286,050 times
Reputation: 330
gforce, I think it's great you've compiled this list of contacts, but the bill you linked to is for property inspections, and not rental property tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2011, 09:37 AM
 
10 posts, read 16,167 times
Reputation: 12
trademarked: Actually it does address rental property registrations.

Read the near the bottom:
"Prohibits local government rental registration programs, permits, fees, and Certificates of Occupancy as a condition of operating rental housing - all of which increase the costs of housing."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2011, 09:49 AM
 
467 posts, read 1,286,050 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by gforce1999 View Post
trademarked: Actually it does address rental property registrations.

Read the near the bottom:
"Prohibits local government rental registration programs, permits, fees, and Certificates of Occupancy as a condition of operating rental housing - all of which increase the costs of housing."
Oops, I was wrong!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2011, 12:51 AM
 
110 posts, read 277,420 times
Reputation: 45
Am I hearing a swelling of support? I want my $330 back, class action or not.

If I didn't sell my rental and was still playing a landlord, I would draft a new clause in the lease, specifically addressing this ordinance. The tenant shall repay all fees associated with ordinance xyz, upon causing crime or being a victim of crime, or having called police department with disturbance as the reason, the resulted registration fee of $330.00 will be immediately due to landlord.

I think that solves most problems for the landlord.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2011, 06:10 PM
 
211 posts, read 439,046 times
Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbelman View Post
Am I hearing a swelling of support? I want my $330 back, class action or not.

If I didn't sell my rental and was still playing a landlord, I would draft a new clause in the lease, specifically addressing this ordinance. The tenant shall repay all fees associated with ordinance xyz, upon causing crime or being a victim of crime, or having called police department with disturbance as the reason, the resulted registration fee of $330.00 will be immediately due to landlord.

I think that solves most problems for the landlord.
Now thats just dumb.... I am a renter who lives in midwood area, and we got broken into last year. YOU choose to be a landlord for second income, same as if a tenant who steals or stops paying rent, you should write this off as another fee for this business... sorry I live in a safe house should I stay home and monitor the home every time some one walks by and have a gun ready? I THINK NOT!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2011, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
4,760 posts, read 6,407,764 times
Reputation: 5236
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmanak View Post
Now thats just dumb.... I am a renter who lives in midwood area, and we got broken into last year. YOU choose to be a landlord for second income, same as if a tenant who steals or stops paying rent, you should write this off as another fee for this business... sorry I live in a safe house should I stay home and monitor the home every time some one walks by and have a gun ready? I THINK NOT!

Okay. Then YOU should go buy your own house rather than rent from someone who chose property as a profession. Random break-ins are not enough to get a house into the program anyway. And if we write this fee off as a part of business, who do you think is going to wind up paying it? Umm, the tenant. The costs always get passed on. So, this helps increase rental prices in certain areas of town and makes affordale housing that much harder to come by. And the fee is much higher for those larger multi-family buildings and complexes. Much higher.

And while CMPD did not write this ordinance, I have been told that they pushed very hard for it and originally wanted the program to include 10%+ of rental properties. Hello, revenue generator. If I recall correctly, the check is to be made payable to CMPD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2011, 08:22 PM
 
10 posts, read 16,167 times
Reputation: 12
spankys is absolutely correct about costs being passed on. It happens in any business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spankys bbq View Post
Random break-ins are not enough to get a house into the program anyway.
spankys, unfortunately what your saying here is inaccurate. This is my primary gripe about this law. It does not discriminate about crime that occurs at a residence. If any crime occurs (with the exception of domestic violence) it counts against the property.

http://www.charmeck.org/city/charlot...yOrdinance.pdf

Read the definition in section 6-581 regarding "disorder activity".

Also, during a recent hearing for a client of mine, I specifically asked the question if the two break-ins that occurred at my property counted against my property and the answer was "yes". Each break-in is .25 so my property is at .5 and its a matter of time before something else happens. Once a property reaches the 1 threshold then the landlord is forced to register and pay the fine/fee/tax.

So, I've paid for an alarm system, security bars on the windows and a gated security screen door. The police actually caught the kids (teens) from the first break-in. My tenant testified and I testified with them to provide an impact statement. The kid was suppose to make restitution but I haven't seen any money. My point is as a rental property owner what more can a person do to stop random crime occurring at a property. The tax/fine/fee is punitive. After spending more money to hopefully prevent crime now a person has to pay money to the city because they own a property in a challenged part of town.

By the way during a hearing the CMPD provides a list of 10 action items for the landlord to complete. On this list of 10 items, I can not see one thing that will prevent a random break-in. Maybe the requirement for operable exterior lighting? But that assumes that break-ins only happen at night.

The application of the law makes little sense to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2011, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
4,760 posts, read 6,407,764 times
Reputation: 5236
Then it takes four of them to reach the threshold. Four break-ins is nearly unheard of unless there is a reason to have that many. It does seem like, in theory, that every rental property in Charlotte could be subject to this program if there were to be a crime wave of sorts. I know its a stretch, but houses in the nice areas of town get broken into. But I doubt they will even get a call about those.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:53 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top