City Council Postpones Action on Expanded Rental Regulations

**etbusch** · October-05-17, 12:40 PM

After threats of a court challenge, City Council delays action on allowing renters to forgo paying rent on unregistered and code-violating properties.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...rds/106282524/

If the condition of a lot of the rentals I see in Northwest are any indication, this had the potential to increase the standards of living dramatically for many residents. I'm sad to see it delayed.

**Lowell** · October-05-17, 05:15 PM

Therein is the conundrum. Is there to be a crackdown on landlords who can walk away on the properties, forcing tenants to leave, often with population loss for Detroit?

The end of the article suggests a solution -- renters putting their rent in 90 day escrow, but who would manage that? Not an easy issue.

This article describes an eviction epidemic in Detroit. Council may be concerned about adding to those.
Persistent evictions threaten Detroit neighborhoods

"Families in one out of five Detroit rentals face eviction every year, a persistent churn that uproots thousands, destabilizes neighborhoods and schools and even threatens the health and safety of residents, a Detroit News investigation has found.

"The News analyzed nearly 285,000 eviction cases since 2009 — the first time this data has ever been examined — and found, for example, that in 2015 alone, the vast majority of landlords who took their renters to court were themselves operating illegally."

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-05-17, 06:24 PM

Although the grief and misery often co-mingle, timely payment of rent and proper management of properties are not the same issue. If a house or apartment is not up to code, the tenant should have a set course of action to take to have that remedied. Also, landlords [[and yes, there are good and honorable ones in addition to the slumlords) should have the right- through a regulated legal channel- to give the boot to tenants who are either not paying their rent or who are destructive of the property [[this includes extreme cases of filth) or disruptive to neighbors or fellow tenants. Where there is a dispute, money should be put into an escrow managed by the city until such a time as it is resolved in court. Bad landlords are a real problem, but so are bad tenants. I would not want to see the legit desire to help one side stupidly ignore problems on the other.

**Meddle** · October-05-17, 07:19 PM

There are bad tenants who don't care about the property since they don't own it. But there are also tenants who do care about the place because that's all they have. So, for those, allow them to do repairs in lieu of rent. Document their expenses and submit receipts as payment of rent. If repairs hit a certain level, they be gin to acquire ownership of the property.

Again we get to the question of who manages such a program to ensure fairness to all.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-05-17, 09:31 PM

So, for those, allow them to do repairs in lieu of rent. Document their expenses and submit receipts as payment of rent.

This is perfectly fair and reasonable, provided the tenant registers the problem, and provides a receipt for the repairs. The landlord should also be afforded a time frame in which to have repairs or needed upgrades addressed [[24-48 hours for critical things like no heat or broken plumbing, longer for less essential things).

If repairs hit a certain level, they be gin to acquire ownership of the property.
Terrible idea. The credit to rent, plus possibly an automatic lease extension*, would be the reward to the tenant for taking positive action on the property. Also, assuming the value of repairs rendered does not equal the value of the home, would the tenant then become co-owner of the property? Tying them together in perpetuity of acrimonious litigation and feuding?

*I would allow an automatic one month, no-rent-increase extension of lease terms for every month containing any emergency violations, or more than a week of non-critical violations. The tenant could choose to accept that extension, decline the extension, or terminate the lease entirely if they preferred. I would also require the landlord to return an entire security deposit- regardless of any claim against- for any property with a critical violation if the tenant chooses to leave.
Again we get to the question of who manages such a program to ensure fairness to all.
The city or the county should have an office that runs the escrow and mediates landlord/tenant disputes. The office would be easier, faster option to resorting to court.

**Wesley Mouch** · October-06-17, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

...snip...The city or the county should have an office that runs the escrow and mediates landlord/tenant disputes. The office would be easier, faster option to resorting to court.

Your experience with 'offices' must be different than mine.

We have a code enforcement. Make that work first. If codes are enforced, then most of these problems go away. Yet another bureaucracy with a battalion of new rules isn't best.

**Meddle** · October-06-17, 11:31 AM

^^ Not to mention the history of palm greasing by landlords. Having an idea and making it work effectively without bias or influence are two different things.

**softailrider** · October-07-17, 02:40 PM

Tough business, with too many tenants it's first months rent and security deposit, then the chase is on. Taxes are high, insurance in the city is very high. It's not easy showing a profit even if you have legitimate tenants who pay their rent. When property becomes vacant theft become rampant. And that's just scratching the surface of problems you run into.

**Jason** · October-07-17, 05:13 PM

imo when someone rents someplace they're paying money for a service, and the service of rental housing includes the property being registered and up to code.

If I had a prescription filled somewhere and I found out that I had been getting counterfeit medicine, and I supposed to keep on paying until I "eventually" get the real deal?

Now I don't think the renter should be able to live there forever, but during the window in which the landlord can address the problems, the tenant shouldn't have to pay.

But I also think that when the clock strikes midnight and the tenant hasn't payed rent, imo the landlord should have the discretion to evict them right away. I don't even think there needs to be a window to let them move out. A tenant knows when rent is due and they know that they weren't going to pay it. I think it's too hard to kick out bad tenants and there's too many renters playing the game, and I think it's too easy for bad landlords to bully and lie to and harass and exploit good tenants.

imo something like a non-profit or city run rental platform could be nice. Renters could pay their rent through that, keeping things on the up and up, and it would be a convenient place for making complaints and making sure that properties are compliant. It could also provide resources and tools to help landlords do their jobs well, and it would help them find good tenants by giving themselves some credibility in a city where most landlords are shady and unreliable. The platform could also be a way of keeping track of the histories of the tenants, rewarding good tenants and incentivizing bad tenants to become good ones. Something like this might already exist, idk, but I think it could be beneficial.

**softailrider** · October-07-17, 07:30 PM

With all due respect to anyone who suggested this, letting tenants deduct repairs or improvements in lieu of paying rent is a really terrible idea. It is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum. You cannot allow any alterations or repairs to property without approval of management for obvious reasons.

**archfan** · October-08-17, 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by Jason

But I also think that when the clock strikes midnight and the tenant hasn't payed rent, imo the landlord should have the discretion to evict them right away. I don't even think there needs to be a window to let them move out. A tenant knows when rent is due and they know that they weren't going to pay it.

Can the landlord drag them to the curb, and push their face into the mud, too?

I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you have problems paying your rent; I also hope you find some empathy for people who do.

**Honky Tonk** · October-08-17, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by archfan

Can the landlord drag them to the curb, and push their face into the mud, too?

I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you have problems paying your rent; I also hope you find some empathy for people who do.

Once, twice, monthly? Is everyone else who's paying their rent supposed to just carry these tenants from month to month? How is the landlord supposed to make ends meet or make improvements if they're not being paid? It's great to be ideological when you have no skin in the game.

**archfan** · October-09-17, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Once, twice, monthly? Is everyone else who's paying their rent supposed to just carry these tenants from month to month? How is the landlord supposed to make ends meet or make improvements if they're not being paid? It's great to be ideological when you have no skin in the game.

I think there's probably some middle ground between carrying tenants for months, and instant eviction if the rent isn't paid by the exact due date.

By your reaction, I take it you're a landlord?

**Jason** · October-09-17, 05:04 PM

When you know that you can't afford rent at a certain place you should start looking for a new place to live then.

The way it is now, a tenant can know for a full month that they won't be able to make rent, then after missing rent they can tell the landlord that the money will come, and then when the landlord finally decides enough is enough they can start the court process to get an eviction order, and after that the tenant has another 30 days before they're actually kicked out.

From the point that a tenant knowingly has no intention/ability to pay rent, it should not take months to finally kick them out.

**Meddle** · October-09-17, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

When you know that you can't afford rent at a certain place you should start looking for a new place to live then.

Helps to READ the thread before you post. This isn't about not being able to afford the rent. This is about witholding rent on properties that the landlord is not maintaining.

**Meddle** · October-09-17, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by softailrider

With all due respect to anyone who suggested this, letting tenants deduct repairs or improvements in lieu of paying rent is a really terrible idea. It is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum. You cannot allow any alterations or repairs to property without approval of management for obvious reasons.

If properly managed, the city or county or maybe state would inspect the property based on complaints by the occupant. Any repairs would be inspected also and need to be approved. It would not be up to the landlord to accept or reject the repair however.

**Jason** · October-09-17, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

Helps to READ the thread before you post. This isn't about not being able to afford the rent. This is about witholding rent on properties that the landlord is not maintaining.

Yes, it does help to read the thread before you post, doesn't it?

So, for those, allow them to do repairs in lieu of rent. Document their expenses and submit receipts as payment of rent. If repairs hit a certain level, they be gin to acquire ownership of the property.

Helps to READ the thread before you post. This isn't about letting tenants do repairs in lieu of rent. This is about witholding rent on properties that the landlord is not maintaining.

If you had read the thread or even read your own posts you'd know that the conversation has expanded beyond the specific proposal to Detroit's dysfunctional rental market in general.

**Jason** · October-09-17, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

If properly managed, the city or county or maybe state would inspect the property based on complaints by the occupant. Any repairs would be inspected also and need to be approved. It would not be up to the landlord to accept or reject the repair however.

95% of the time any improvements would be contentious and ambiguous and would make relationships more toxic. Whether or not the repairs were wanted, whether or not they were done to an appropriate standard or added to the value of the property, whether the tenant spent the typical amount of time and money on the repairs, the exact monetary value of the repairs, whether or not the landlord contributed money or labor to the improvements, who is responsible for getting permits, who is responsible if improvements break buildings codes, there's just an endless number of ways that it'd get messy.

Aside from that the money spent paying government workers to process the paperwork and do all of the inspections would probably cost just as much as the actual repairs [[so the city spends $300 to verify that a tenant's wall painting work was work $150). And part of the original problem is that the city doesn't have enough people managing the paperwork and inspections of the rental properties in the first place.

**BankruptcyGuy** · October-09-17, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by softailrider

With all due respect to anyone who suggested this, letting tenants deduct repairs or improvements in lieu of paying rent is a really terrible idea. It is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum. You cannot allow any alterations or repairs to property without approval of management for obvious reasons.

This is already the law in the entire State of Michigan. MCL 125.530

**BankruptcyGuy** · October-09-17, 08:54 PM

A couple of quick notes:

1. As I mentioned, the concept of a rent escrow or rent offset has been enshrined in state law for a long time. It is not a new concept.
2. It is not often used for two reasons: 1) many people do not know about it, and 2) it requires notice to the landlord in advance, not as a defense to a rent payment. most often, the rent money dries up first, and then complaints about the building are made.
3. A citywide requirement to improve the quality of the entirety of the housing stock would lead to many more abandoned properties. If you bought a home for $5000, and the city comes along and requires $3000 in repairs, many owners will opt to just walk, because they will never get that money back. in most areas, you cant just raise rents without losing tenants.

**Richard** · October-10-17, 06:00 AM

Are they charging market rates for the houses in disrepair?

Not there,but I have some acquaintances that own 70 plus properties that they paid little for years ago and they need lots of work but their rents are in the $300 to $400 monthly in neighborhoods that are in the $1200 to $1500.

If they brought the properties up to par there would be a lot of waiters,and other lower paid workers that would have to be living further out and driving.

Screw a piece of plywood down over the hole in the floor,most of them you could not pry out of those houses because they would not be able to find anything elsewhere in that price range.

Their next step would be homeless.

How many tenants are expirenced,licensed and insured to preform property repairs,and have the tools,that would be next,sue the landlord because you were preforming repairs and fell off of the ladder.

**softailrider** · October-10-17, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

This is already the law in the entire State of Michigan. MCL 125.530

in 30 years of having rentals in Detroit and other cities, I've never had that escrow thing rear up its ugly head. I vaguely remember hearing about it. Maybe it has too many moving parts to be useful to tenants.

**Richard** · October-10-17, 02:06 PM

We have it,renters deposit the rent with the clerk of court and get a receipt,I have never heard of anybody use it,usually repair issues pop up the last week of the month.

**Honky Tonk** · October-10-17, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Richard

We have it,renters deposit the rent with the clerk of court and get a receipt,I have never heard of anybody use it,usually repair issues pop up the last week of the month.

Ah, you've been there and done that.

**Richard** · October-10-17, 02:37 PM

^ No,I buy cheap old houses cash,live in them while rehabbing then rent or sell them.

I did have a section 8 tenant that had HUD withhold two months for $1600 because she said the heater was not working in the middle of July in 95 degree temps,because she was trying to break her lease so she could move in with her boyfriend down the street.

The gas company guy ratted her out to me after she paid him $50 to declare it unsafe.

I ended up with the $1600 and the 9 months repayment for the broken lease and she lost the ability to section 8 for fraud.

Unless your in the $1800 to $2500 a month with a more stable clientele it is a lot of headaches.

My friend in the U.K. has 70 some properties,there if you leave it unsecured a squatter can take over and it takes a year to get them out,they seem to have more rights then the homeowner.