We went to the council meeting on January 14 and asked that they put the rental registration ordinance back on the agenda.

Council Meeting (Video)  (See Item 4 Visitors)

However, the mayor notified us that they "will not be placing it on the agenda in the near term."  He said, "The City Council carefully considered this issue and provided numerous opportunities for public input throughout the program's development. In addition, we regularly receive updates on all of our code enforcement programs so that we can gauge their effectiveness."


We asked the mayor for data showing the effectiveness of the program and we are waiting for his response.  We know he, along with some HOAs and citizens, strongly opposed the program in 2003 when it was conceived.

Yesterday I was at court to observe two cases against landlords about rental inspections.
(I'm not a party to either defendant.)

The defendants' attorney had asked the (visiting) judge to have the jury review the entire ordinance related to the inspection,
but she allowed only the section most favorable to prosecution!

The jury was allowed to see only (a) and (b) of Sec. 6-474 (below).
The judge also didn't allow the defendant to mention the warrant, claiming because it was a part of the ordinance she refused to admit.

The argument was solely on
1) Whether the defendant scheduled an inspection within 30 days after registering their property
(She did.  Even the inspector, the prosecutor's witness, confirmed that.)

2) Whether the defendant made the property available for an inspection.
(The defendant's tenant testified that she informed him of an inspection and he was home that day.
He decided not to allow an inspection and he was not coerced by his landlord.)

The focus was what happened on 11/29/12--did an inspection occur?
On that day, city inspectors were at the rentals with the warrant.

It was difficult for both sides to discuss why an inspection didn't occur on Nov. 29, without referring to the warrant because the warrant was the excluded part of the ordinance!  Neither landlord nor tenant knew the inspectors would be there that day.
The warrant was good for 3 days and the inspectors could be there on any one of the days.  

Still, the prosecutor didn't look that good during the trial.
He offered the other landlord a plea bargain.
(Some of us speculate that the prosecutor might have picked the other landlord intentionally.)

Then the jury verdict came in for the first landlord.
She was found guilty and fined $1500.

This really scares me as a citizen because the municipal judge can get to choose which part of the ordinance can be used by the defense.  How is a fair trial possible while a part of the law is withheld?


Ordinance Sec. 6-474 Inspection

(a) The building official may inspect a rental unit to determine compliance with applicable state and local laws if the renewal of a registration for a rental unit includes that a change of occupancy of one or more tenants has occurred at a rental unit or at any other time when authorized by law.

(b) Within thirty (30) days after the initial registration of a rental unit and within thirty (30) days after the change of occupancy or change in tenancy of a rental unit, the owner of the rental unit shall request the building official conduct an inspection and make the rental unit available for inspection by the building official. The owner and the building official shall agree
on a reasonable date and time for the required inspection. Upon each inspection by the building official, the rental unit must score 85 or higher on the habitability evaluation criteria set forth in section 6-474 (e) below to satisfy the minimum physical condition and human habitability standards for the rental unit. Any rental unit that has a habitability score of less than 85 must be re-inspected and charged a re-inspection fee as set forth in subsection (d), below.

(c) The building official or his agent shall enforce the provisions of this article upon presentation of proper identification to the occupant in charge of any rental unit and with the occupant's permission, may enter any unit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; provided, however, in cases of emergency where extreme hazards are known to exist which may
involve imminent injury to persons, loss of life or severe property damage, the building official may enter any rental unit at any time and the requirement for presentation of identification and the occupant's permission shall not apply. Whenever the building official is denied admission to inspect any rental unit under this section, inspection shall be made only under authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate authorizing the inspection. In applying for such a warrant, the building official shall submit to the magistrate an affidavit setting forth his belief that a violation of this article exists with respect to the place sought to be inspected and the reasons for such belief. Such affidavit shall designate the location of the rental unit and the name of the person believed to be the occupant thereof. If the magistrate finds that probable cause exists for an
inspection of the rental unit in question, a warrant authorizing the inspection may be issued, such warrant describing the rental unit with sufficient certainty to identify the rental unit. Any warrants issued will constitute authority for the building official to enter upon and inspect the rental unit described therein.

(d) Any rental unit that has a habitability score of less than 85 must be re-inspected until the rental unit achieves a habitability score of 85 or greater. A re-inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 shall be paid prior to the initial re-inspection. A re-inspection fee of $120.00 shall be paid prior to each second and subsequent re-inspection.

(e) The habitability score for a rental unit shall be determined by deducting up to the maximum points set forth below from 100 based on the conditions or existence of the inspected category or item as determined by the building i.e The jury didn't get to see that the ordinance states that an inspection had to take place with the occupant's permission and the city had other remedies like issuing an administrative warrant.

AAOA (American Apartment Owners Association) Blog

It took a city’s oppressive inspection regulation, but a landlord and tenant have formed an alliance committed to fighting a law which they both say violates the tenant’s privacy.

Rental registration laws have become commonplace across the country. In many instances, all rental property owners must first pay to register a property, then pay each time it is routinely inspected — in some cases, each time a new tenant moves in.

Typically, lawmakers will tout the registration program as a matter of public health and safety. But these inspections rules do not apply to homeowners, leaving 60% of the city’s population outside the scope of the rules — and sticking landlords with 100% of the tab for inspectors’ salaries.

Outraged by the Richardson regulations, the landlord tenant team have launched two companion websites, www.richardsontexaslandlords.com and www.richardsontexastenants.com  to encourage others — both landlords and tenants — to join them in the fight against similar measures.

According to the a news report, Richardson landlords must have inspections each time a new tenant moves in. The inspection checklist includes plumbing and electrical infrastructure, cleanliness, and a look at the landscaping. If a property doesn’t measure up, the owner is subject to subsequent inspections which cost $90.

Lawmakers in nearby Garland were forced to amend its rental registration program after a legal challenge, according to the report.

After the Richardson landlord refused to comply with the inspection rules, city officials obtained warrants to inspect the rental property. The tenant refused entry, citing a violation of his privacy. As a result, the landlord was cited for failing to make the house available for inspection, according to the report.

City officials told reporters the program was designed to ensure that homes are safe, healthy and clean.

The landlord says he has hired an attorney.  According to his website, the matter is set for a jury trial on January 9.  The tenants website encourages renters to file a complaint with the ACLU.

City officials say they are confident the program will survive a legal challenge.

http://www.american-apartment-owners-association.org/blog/2012/12/23/landlord-and-tenant-join-forces-to-fight-rental-law/