Bar Non-Resident Owners/Investors?

**Meddle** · June-12-10, 05:10 AM

Feasible? Legal? Beneficial?

Still seeing posts on other boards about distant investors asking about the condition and livability of specific neighborhoods. I don't live in town anymore and never will again, but this concept still annoys me and personifies the term 'slumlord' to an extent. To me distant landlords have little, if any incentive to maintain properties short of collecting rent. Just the bare minimum, nothing more and sometimes not even that. They don't really care who lives there or how they get along with any neighbors.

Would it work to require rental property owners to also live in the city? To be a part of the community? For properties of four units or more, could they be required to live on-site or hire a manager/caretaker to live on-site?

Would it help at all?

**ct_alum** · June-12-10, 07:12 AM

Meddle:

Not only don't you live in the city, you aren't even on the same Planet. Get real.

BTW, I DO live in the City of Detroit, so don't go there.

**Hermod** · June-12-10, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by ct_alum

Meddle:

Not only don't you live in the city, you aren't even on the same Planet. Get real.

BTW, I DO live in the City of Detroit, so don't go there.

Meddle did make a serious proposal towards solving a problem which may be a partial cause of the disaster. Whether or not his proposal could pass legal muster is another point.

It is certainly appropriate for him to make the proposal on this forum and your instant dismissal of his proposal on the basis that you do not like him or that he does not have "standing" does not contribute to the collegiality of the board.

**Detroitej72** · June-12-10, 10:30 AM

I usually think Meddle likes to stir the pot and create controversy, but I think he has a point here, and an idea worth looking into.

**Lowell** · June-12-10, 11:25 AM

Whatever the merits it is totally unconstitutional. Unless you think you can change that at both the state and federal levels this is pure day dreaming.

**Hermod** · June-12-10, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Whatever the merits it is totally unconstitutional. Unless you think you can change that at both the state and federal levels this is pure day dreaming.

You might be able to require a resident owner or manager for apartment buildings or rental complexes with a certain number of units. That should pass constitutional muster.

Disallowing a non-resident owner for a single piece of property or a duplex would probably get shot down.

**Meddle** · June-12-10, 12:04 PM

Zoning laws can do a lot of things that standard laws can't. That's how some communities get around laws allowing Adult entertainment.

Maybe some tax regs, like giving resident owners better rates than non-resident owners.

**tahleel** · June-12-10, 02:17 PM

I believe landlords have the right to live wherever they choose, and residency requirements should not hold one back. If a residency requirement was imposed, don't you think a distant landlord could buy a crap shack and call it "home" for legal purposes? Imposing a requirement like this would create red tape ultimately hindering growth in the city. At least these distant buyers are stimulating the housing market by buying some of these properties albeit for pennies on the dollar.

-Tahleel

**Hermod** · June-12-10, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

Zoning laws can do a lot of things that standard laws can't. That's how some communities get around laws allowing Adult entertainment.

Maybe some tax regs, like giving resident owners better rates than non-resident owners.

We have a version of that in Florida. It is called the "homestead law". Taxes on owner occupied dwellings can only go up by a fixed percentage each year. For part time owners [[snowbirds) it is considered a "second home" and does not enjoy the homestead exemption. Rental units are not homesteaded. Of course, the advantage is realized in a time of higher and higher home prices where you can have four identical houses on the same block that the current owners purchased in 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 where each one is paying different taxes based on their original purchase price.

neighbor · June-12-10, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

We have a version of that in Florida. It is called the "homestead law". Taxes on owner occupied dwellings can only go up by a fixed percentage each year. For part time owners [[snowbirds) it is considered a "second home" and does not enjoy the homestead exemption. Rental units are not homesteaded. Of course, the advantage is realized in a time of higher and higher home prices where you can have four identical houses on the same block that the current owners purchased in 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 where each one is paying different taxes based on their original purchase price.

Do you know anything about Michigan? We have the same thing here. Thanks for you input from 1500 miles away. Very informative.

**n7hn** · June-12-10, 06:57 PM

Wow, I must have missed the real estate rebound in detroit, but Im glad to hear There are so many buyers they can now be screened and approved of by some board or commision.

**East Detroit** · June-12-10, 07:04 PM

Meddle is going to anger the carpetbaggers who come here looking for the inside scoop on real estate.

They usually act like we should be oh so grateful for their charity.

**jams** · June-12-10, 08:13 PM

I saw this episode of the Rifleman just this morning.

Sorry, kids, but the old saw "money talks and bullshit walks" applies here.

It sucks, but reality trumps idealism, so, unless you're prepared to organize a serious alternative, get used to it.

**daddeeo** · June-13-10, 09:47 AM

Is this another Detroit for Detroiters idea?
Get serious.
Detroit needs all the help it can get.
I'd say, hold people accountable whether they
are from Detroit or not. Slum landlords come in all
shapes and sizes. Let's get a broken glass mentality
here in Detroit.
Clean up and shape up.

**cloud_wall** · June-13-10, 10:08 AM

Meddle, the answer to each of your first three question is a resounding "No."

**Russix** · June-13-10, 12:44 PM

Don't rent from a slumlord and buy your own home. Problem solved.

Bearinabox · June-13-10, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Russix

Don't rent from a slumlord and buy your own home. Problem solved.

...until a slumlord buys the house next door.

**RO_Resident** · June-13-10, 04:12 PM

Yeah, absentee landlords/slumlords can and often are a problem. However state and federal laws would probably preclude such residency requirements for property ownership.

It's certainly a twist on the 'Pointe System'.

**detroitsgwenivere** · June-13-10, 04:21 PM

The worst slumlord I ever lived under was from, and lived in, Detroit. She rented out units hiding badly needed repairs, black mold, and roaches. She had units hooked up to power illegally, and when DTE found out she tried to pin it on the tenants. After they took her and DTE to court, she ended up oweing over $30k The best part was fiding out that she was an Oncologist at DMC. Now she heads an entire cancer related department at another large hospital. B*tch....

**Russix** · June-13-10, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

...until a slumlord buys the house next door.

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Home/CityCo...laintForm.aspx

**sumas** · June-13-10, 11:20 PM

The house next door was bought by a lady from Atlanta. She apparently has bought several homes all around Detroit. She takes ok care of it but would really just like a permanent neighbor.

**kathy2trips** · June-14-10, 01:45 AM

Oh, no, no, no. You want outside investment in the city. No city could survive without it. Imagine if NYC enacted a law like that!

However, I get where you're coming from and my suggestion is to implement strict building maintenance codes. Some ordinances are already on the books, but are deficient in some ways. Once example: A six-foot chain link fence will not keep out most people over 5 feet tall who are marginally fit. Some ordinances exist, but aren't being enforced due to lack of funds and manpower, perhaps? That's where fines [[per day) come in for any unoccupied building not fenced and/or otherwise secured against illegal entry.

Don't think for a minute that many of these folks are using the buildings Detroiters have to look at every day as their tax write off. And many owners are actually just banks. The same banks that taxpayers bailed out! Base the fine "compounded daily" on square footage, for example. After, say, six months, no pay...no property. The city seizes it and it goes to auction. If they think they can just tear it down, think again. They'd have to have a land use plan approved by permit...if it's not of architectural or structural significance. They just couldn't go and tear down the Eastown Theater, for example, just because they don't want the expense of securing it. We wouldn't want mass tear-downs just for greed's sake. It would have to be more profitable to turn the structure into low income housing or donate it to a charity.

Yes, people need to be more responsible. When people won't do that themselves, the government has to step in and get tough. Money [[or loss of it) is a great tool for that.

bartock · June-14-10, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

You might be able to require a resident owner or manager for apartment buildings or rental complexes with a certain number of units. That should pass constitutional muster.

Disallowing a non-resident owner for a single piece of property or a duplex would probably get shot down.

Even assuming it is constitutional [[which I don't think it is), the "problem solved" for anyone trying to avoid this type of law would be to incorporate [[corporations are individuals by law), then create a P.O. Box. There would also be a problem of straw men. Think Matty Maroun indirectly [[via corp) paying 200 people $25 a year to "own" his properties.

bartock · June-14-10, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by bartock

Even assuming it is constitutional [[which I don't think it is), the "problem solved" for anyone trying to avoid this type of law would be to incorporate [[corporations are individuals by law), then create a P.O. Box. There would also be a problem of straw men. Think Matty Maroun indirectly [[via corp) paying 200 people $25 a year to "own" his properties.

...much more feasible would be my campaign to change Maroun's nickname from Manny to Matty.