The proposed Quakertown Property Inspection Ordinance has finally been made public, and immediately drew fire from angry residents, and council members who alleged that certain people who helped draft it were biased. And because it went well beyond its original purpose, council will likely reject the most controversial, and unpopular, recommendation.
After an August, 2006, drug bust at an apartment on Front Street exposed "deplorable" living conditions, Quakertown Alive!, and Councilman David Zaiser, raised the idea of simple health and safety inspections of all borough rental units. Many other towns do so. The concept gained additional impetus when fire destroyed the senior center, and it was learned that former manager David Woglom had discontinued most fire inspections more than a year before.
However, then-Council President Dennis Hallman didn't name the Landlord Tenant Committee until September, 2007. And, when he finally did act, some of his choices were rather controversial. A knowledgeable observer of Qtown politics opined "Hallman really leaned toward having no, or at least a very minimal, ordinance. He put Jeff Haring and Dennis Lawrence, two of the very vocal Realtors, on the committee. They had been the unofficial spokesmen for landlords at council sessions. But I think Hallman put them on mostly because they were so aggressive, and he felt some obligation to favor them. If I were Hallman, I would not have put someone on who was so opposed going in."
Any working body needs diverse opinions. But Zaiser, who was on the committee, feels that certain members were more concerned with protecting their own businesses, or simply opposed to any ordinance at all. "Our role was to review different options and come up with suggestions on shaping an ordinance. We did that very well as a group, and discussed each issue thoroughly. All I wanted was a simple safety inspection - bare wires, mold, clear exits. I gave in on almost everything else. But out of the 13 items on the report, there were landlords on the committee who wouldn't compromise on a single one."
Another council person, who asked for anonymity because council has not yet voted, was equally critical: "My main concern is that there were people placed on the committee who were closed-minded and just pushed their personal positions. They are entitled to their opinions, but I don't understand what they could have possibly contributed to this committee. To develop an ordinance that would be fair and beneficial to all residents, you need to have a willingness to hear other points of view, and I don't believe certain members were interested in doing that."
Hallman appointed Lawrence even though the Realtor had already engaged in a heated public debate with Borough Solicitor Chuck Fonzone over the constitutionality of any ordinance whatsoever. Regardless of the case law that Fonzone presented, Lawrence just persisted in his opposition. The Intel reported on February 28, 2007, that Lawrence said "Any ordinance that sets up an inspection system would put an undue burden on property owners; it would encourage government to overstep its authority and look beyond safety issues." The Free Press quoted Lawrence on August 30, 2007, as saying that Quakertown Alive's proposal was a "nuisance ordinance".
A third council person added "Dennis Lawrence never hid his disdain for this proposal, though I don't think he's worried about what anyone will find at his properties. They seem to be pretty well maintained. He is just opposed to the principal of anyone coming in and telling him how they should be maintained. Jim Roth was also against rental-only inspections from the beginning, and wasn't going to budge, although I do think he took his role as chairman very seriously, and he did not vote on any of the points."
Equally disturbing is that the committee kept no minutes of their meetings, but somehow changed the focus of the study. Their report states "While impaneled to study the issue of inspection of tenant occupied property, the committee addressed all current property uses in Quakertown". And, not surprisingly, most of their recommendations won't trouble a landlord: Defer to HUD regulations. Defer to the QT Zoning Code. Defer to current laws to control disruptive behavior. Keep no records of renters, which could help assure that they pay taxes. Don't require a landlord to have a representative in the area. Reinstate fire and safety inspections for all commercial, industrial, and institutional properties.
The major controversy involved residential inspections. The committee voted 6-4 to recommend inspecting rental units - which was basically the only issue they were asked to consider. Lawrence and Haring were both nays. But the group then went even further, and voted 6-4 to inspect all residential properties. And now, Lawrence and Haring were in favor! Why? Zaiser, who objected repeatedly to the expanded scope, believes that the landlord faction, having lost on rental inspections, was now trying to make the ordinance so unpopular that it would be rejected by residents and council. "It's a common ploy. Whatever will get the people on your side, the most fired up, you play to them. I hope our resolve as a council is stronger than that."
If you own your home, don't worry...inspections of owner-occupied properties won't happen. But rental inspections will. Zaiser explained: "Rental units are like businesses, where you should be required to provide safety for those who occupy them." And Councilman Ed Scholl added "The sole purpose of a rental property is to generate income. While I truly believe most of our landlords are responsible businessmen, it is likely we have a few who might cut corners, or perform substandard maintenance. An inspection program will take the onus off of the tenant to blow the whistle on questionable landlords, thus preventing any potential retaliation."
Once council votes, things will move much faster. The new ordinance, which is already in the works, will be based on court-tested models from other towns, and inspections can be enforced even during legal challenges. Most members of the LTC were well-intentioned, and borough renters will be better protected, thanks to their hard work.