New Landlord restrictions may become Idaho law

[Brian Stutzman]

Dear fellow Idaho landlord,

 I was contacted tonight by Senator Doug Ricks to see my thoughts about a bill idea that Senator Rabi is trying to put together that would hamper landlords. The bill idea includes:

1. Making Idaho law state that landlord's late fees to tenants are capped at 10% of one months rent.

2. Landlords will have a cap ( maybe $20?) of what they can charge for a rental application fee.

I feel this is the first step to make Idaho landlord law similar to California law and is a potential gateway to rent controls at the like.
The sponsor is a 1st term Senator from Boise with a very impressive resume and I am sure is a delightful person. However her bio is a bit disturbing, at least to me, which reads in part: Senator Ali Rabe (1st Term Boise) executive director of Jesse Tree, a Treasure Valley nonprofit dedicated to preventing eviction and homelessness

Senator Ricks asked me to solicit other landlords input, and have them email him directly their thoughts on the state mandating caps on late fees, and caps on application fees.

If you feel inclined, would you email your thoughts to Senator Ricks at the email below?

dricks then the at sign, then, senate.idaho.gov

Thanks!
Brian 

[Corby Goade]

As a caveat- I am not a fan of legislators dictating how business is done, and for the most part, Idaho has been great about this. 

That said- the property management profession is completely unregulated in Idaho and there are a lot of PMs out there who have no business managing tenants or real estate. In Idaho you don't need any certification or license to be a property manager, literally anyone can be a property manager today and know nothing of tenant landlord law or have an ethical bone in their body. It' been getting better, but Idaho was known for a while for people throwing together "discount" PM companies, spending a year rounding up a few hundred management contracts, collecting deposits and then disappearing in to the ether with their tenants and clients money. All you need to do is spend five minutes on your town's Facebook marketplace and you will see multiple fair housing violations on available rentals posted there for all to see. 

This is an industry where as a consumer- the tenant- doesn't truly have the ability to shop for service or an ethical PM. If a certain PM manages a property that you like or want to live in, that's it. You are forced to deal with that PM- bad policies, poor management, whatever. If you have a vacancy and screen multiple tenants so that you have a pool of applicatants to choose from, you are doing it wrong. 

Heck- my property management company doesn't advertise and we turn potential contracts with property owners away all of the time, but our phone rings constantly with property owners who have terrible PMs and are looking for anyone who can do better and operate with some modicum of ethics- and a few who are annoyed at their PM because the DO have ethics and want someone to be their slum lord by proxy. 

All of this to say- would't it be nice if we could collectively just do the right thing so that legislation like this wasn't even on the radar of our lawmakers? Seriously- if all of us read the Idaho Landlor Tenant laws and knew them well, and followed the HUD tenant selection process, there would be no need for this discussion at all. I am a firm believer in NARPM, which offers education, data, training and support for PMs so that our industry is held in high esteem. If you are a PM and aren't affiliated with NARPM, I highly suggest checking them out. 

The fact is, there are LOTS of bad landlords out there who take advantage of tenants and the lack of housing- it's wrong and predatory. I think in many cases, the landlords who are making us look bad aren't doing it out of malace, but likely out of ignorance, not knowing that what they are doing is, at the very least, not a best practice. I am not saying I want legislation, quite the opposite, but we can do better. Let's regulate ourselves so the state doesn't have to.