Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005

CONTRA COSTA TIMES
TIMES Staff Editorial

Beef Up Inspections

INSPECTIONS HAPPEN ONLY when tenants complain. Then tenants are charged for those inspections. Enforcement of the housing code is inconsistent. Violation follow-up is nearly nonexistent. Approximately 47 percent of residents are renters, and the slightest hiccup on their part could lead to eviction. It's no wonder Richmond is a breeding ground for slumlords.

But the City Council is considering changes to its 1995 rental property inspection program that could give it some muscle, particularly money and staff. It also will need to include expectations of action and consequences. Tenants can expect response and landlords can expect consequences when they're called onto the carpet.

This proposal is much-needed and long overdue. The city looked at programs in Concord and San Rafael before drafting it.

Too many landlords in Richmond are taking advantage of their power in a city crowded with renters. Many people live in substandard housing in unhealthy and unsafe conditions. Housing codes are not met and laws are often broken. Because landlords don't even handle clearly visible problems, such as trash pickup, it's easy to believe inside problems, such as faulty wiring and bad plumbing, are low on their priority lists.

Generally, renters' options are limited. Calls to landlords often get.no response, and calls to the city are often no better. And when an inspector does respond, the renter will pay. That's just wrong.

Unless the tenant's concerns were totally unfounded, the fee should have always been billed to the property owner. They often didn't even receive reports, let alone bills. But even with notices to make changes, rentals often remained ignored, and the city never followed up. Tenants also faced the potential wrath and eviction notice of a peeved property owner. That thought keeps official complaints to a minimum. After all, a moldy roof is better than no roof.

Officials, laws and actions need to support renters in these unequal power situations. Richmond's beefed-up plan would raise inspection fees, which would pay for full-time inspectors.

An inspection schedule would be set, so that the program is not just reactive. Inspections would include single-family rental houses in addition to buildings with multiple units. This is an important aspect of the program, because many of the city's renters live in houses, not apartments, and many of the city's homes are older. All of these are positive and necessary steps to having a more useful program and for protecting renters.

But Councilwoman Gayle McLaughlin is correct in saying the issues in the "Just Cause Eviction" ordinance must be considered in conjunction with this program. Without regulations that outline acceptable reasons for booting tenants, landlords hold a hammer over their heads. Without said guidelines, this program is doomed to remain a failure. And the city should be striving for success with this one. It affects a high percentage of the population.

This program is a hallmark of a city's regard for both its image and its citizenry. Neglected property is an eyesore, is less valuable and is a fire hazard. Also, it is potentially dangerous to those who call the residences home.