Students, East Lansing residents and landlords will benefit when the East Lansing Housing Commission makes revisions to a housing ordinance passed in 1998.
The ordinance requires every rental property to have a rigorous inspection by 2009. The inspection, which is called an all-trades inspection, is a process that can cost close to $1,000 per home.
And according to commission members, the fee is generally passed on to the cost of rental licenses, which usually trickles down to occupants’ rent.
The housing commission had the right idea when it created the ordinance. Officials hoped that by forcing all rental property to face the same intensive standards, landlords would be less likely to slack off in maintaining their properties.
East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows said he had hoped the inspections would ultimately rid the city of housing code violations completely.
But as the ordinance stands, 200 properties would have to be inspected each year for inspectors to be finished by 2009.
Only 88 houses have been checked in the past four years, leaving inspectors playing a serious game of catch-up to meet the deadline.
Completing the inspections would likely require hiring more personnel. On top of $700,000 of budget cuts faced by the city this fiscal year, the costs of finishing the task would be one more financial burden for East Lansing and, ultimately, its residents.
That’s why the commission should be commended for opting to revise the ordinance in ways that can save the city money while still looking out for the best interests of renters.
Under the revision, landlords who constantly fail routine inspections would come before the commission to work out what requirements have to be met to lease a house.
The commission is on the right track by finding ways to take care of legitimate housing concerns while saving money in the process.
But the fact that very few of the 88 houses inspected by the city showed major violations proves the ordinance was due for review.
The concern remains how to keep bad landlords on their toes between routine annual inspections.
Without very clear guidelines on which owners should be subjected to strict scrutiny, landlords who know the right tricks may be able to slip through the cracks without having to improve living conditions in their properties.
Perhaps the commission should include a clause in its revision that would provide forced inspections should enough complaints be received about a particular landlord or building.
By defining the changes clearly, the commission can avoid loopholes and continue to protect the interests of taxpayers and students.
