Dealing with Punitive Local Ordinances

[Fran Flanagan]

The local borough where I own my rental property has come up with a real doozy of a new ordinance to go into effect this January. I'm fairly sure that they wanted a new law to deal with a few problem properties, problem landlords and just went entirely too far. I'm curious if any other landlords have encountered anything like this.

Basically, in the new ordinance, if my tenant gets arrested for pot smoking or one of their kids gets cited for underage drinking, I can't be a landlord in town for 3 years? And I can't sell my property to another investor for the same 3 years?

I know that the town prefers to have owners in houses, but the area is popular with 20-somethings who currently have trouble qualifying for loans, or want to live with their friends short term without committment... I'm fairly new still, rather curious if anyone has dealt with anything like this before.

From the ordinance:
Any rental property licensed under this Ordinance that is determined to be a nuisance shall be subject to revocation. A nuisance property shall be any property which is in violation of the Borough property maintenance requirements by being in a substantial state of uncleanliness, disorder or disrepair; any property substantially damaged by fire, flood or other natural disaster; any property determined to be uninhabitable by the Code Enforcement Officer; or any property which is occupied by any tenant who has engaged in any or all of the following conduct:
1. Drug possession, sale, or use.
2. Underage consumption and/or possession of alcohol.
3. Illegal possession or discharge of firearms.
4. Possession or use of fireworks or other incendiary or noisemaking devices.
5. Possession of noxious chemicals or materials
6. Untimely or excessive noise or disruptive conduct, including but not
limited to, noise or disturbance caused by voices, radios, stereos, televisions, tools, machinery, equipment, motorized vehicles or animals.

Any property which has been subject to revocation of a Residential Rental License Permit under this Ordinance shall not be eligible for a new or renewal Residential Rental License Permit for a period not less than three (3) years. Further, any landlord who has been subject to revocation of a Residential Rental License Permit under this Ordinance shall be deemed ineligible to hold (individually or as a member, shareholder, officer, director or partner in any limited liability company, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership or any other entity) a Residential Rental License Permit for any new or additional rental property for a period not less than three (3) years. Any entity, as herein described, which is associated in any manner with a landlord who has been subject to a revocation under this Ordinance shall be deemed ineligible during any such period of association.

The full ordinance (7 pages) for anyone interested is here: http://morethanthecurve.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/residential-rental-ordinance.pdf

[Bill Gulley]

Ordinances are political, not so much to a party but as to controlling social order. I understand the issues of police powers, on the other hand there is an issue with restricting the ability of earning the fruits of the property and taking the use without compensation.

I've seen such vague ordinances being held unconstitutional, a recent issue was with three or more blocking sidewalks, calling it disruptive, but disruptive was not clearly defined and no one knew what conduct was expected.

City fathers usually do whatever they like with little consideration to any minority and their actions are usually are grounded in some economic goal.

The way this ordinance is written seems that selective enforcement could be used to control who could be a landlord.

A good reason to join or establish a landlord organization and to lobby and sue when appropriate.

Sounds like properties might be placed under a contract for deed for conveyance in three years, it's not a sale and it's not a lease. :)