Northwest Indiana Discussion

Realtors and Cal City in dispute on inspections
Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:13 AM CDT
Post a Comment | Email this story | Print this story



BY KIRSTEN SRINIVASAN
kirsten.srinivasan@nwitimes.com
219.933.4158

Viewed as a tool to keep property values at a premium, Calumet City wants conduct an inspection before a home or multi-unit building is sold.

But real estate agents claim the city-run inspections hammer sellers, especially when issuing a property-transfer stamp -- necessary for the transaction -- is tied to completing city-required improvements.

The Realtor Association of West-South Suburban Chicagoland, now known as the Main Street Organization of Realtors, filed suit last year against Calumet City over its point-of-sale ordinance.

In 2006, a U.S. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Calumet City from requiring point-of-sale inspections before issuing transfer stamps, or ordering property deconversions -- reducing the number of apartments in a multi-unit building.

Calumet City appealed the injunction, and the lawsuit is scheduled for a June 22 status hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Calumet City's inspection ordinances have kept the property values at a premium and ensure compliance with building codes, Mayor Michelle Markiewicz Qualkinbush. The City Council enacted the ordinance after complaints from neighbors, she said.

"The purpose is the health and safety of tenants and to keep property values up and keep housing stock up," she said.

But refusal to issue transfer stamps without completing city-required improvements, or by ordering a deconversion, has had serious ramifications for sellers, Main Street Organization of Realtors government affairs director Tom Joseph said.

When sellers couldn't afford city-required improvements, they couldn't complete transactions and buyers sometimes saw their loans expire.

Curt Brady, a property manager who also rehabilitates properties, said he lost one sale and spent more than a year trying to sell a house after Calumet City conducted at least four inspections and found new repairs each time.

Unable to rent or sell the house, Brady had to pay for the mortgage and inspections, which according to the city's Web site cost $150 for a single-family home.

Calumet City has amended its point-of-sale inspection ordinance twice since the lawsuit began, Calumet City Attorney Mark Sterk said.

Now, the ordinance has a provision that allow homeowners to refuse the inspections and require the city to get a warrant. The ordinance also specifies a 28-calendar-day timeframe for the city to conduct its inspections, he said.

That's not enough, said Philip Stahl, an attorney who represents the Main Street Organization of Realtors, which has also successfully sued Dolton for requiring cosmetic changes as a precondition for issuing real estate transfer stamps in an as-is home sale.

Stahl argues municipal inspections should always requires a warrant and the city needs to implement standards that a home seller can contest.

"(Without due process) it's a violation of the constitutional right to have your property and dispose of it without the government taking it away from you," he said.

WHY would Hammondf want to go to court too over something like this? We already have a $9 million pending judgment against the city.

Just asked a question girl…….I think a watered down version might benefit the city and improve the housing stock.

And I disagree. I don't like the idea of this kind of ordinance. Too intrusive for my taste.

We are dealing with a new home invasion ordinance in La Porte also. Fortunatly we have many landlords and partiots here that are fighting it.

You may want to pas this info on to other that can use it:

Current Cases


Stewart v. City of Red Wing
Mandatory Inspections of Rental Property: Is Your Rented Home Your Castle?
http://www.ij.org/private_property/redw ... index.html



The City of Red Wing, Minn. is enforcing a rental property inspection law that requires landlords to open their tenants' doors without permission and submit to inspections of their private property in order for the landlord to receive a rental license. Landlords who respect their tenants' right to exclude government strangers from their homes risk losing their right to rent their property.

As a result, under Red Wing's rental inspection ordinance, it is easier for the government to force its way into the homes of law-abiding citizens than it is to search the home of a suspected criminal. The U.S. Constitution does not allow such an absurdity. Red Wing's inspection mandate is unconstitutional.

But the inspection of rental properties is only the first phase of the City's plan to inspect all housing units in Red Wing. If the City is not stopped, every resident of Red Wing could face intrusive, unreasonable and expensive forced inspections of their homes as a condition of exercising their property rights. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the Fourth Amendment right to exclude the government from arbitrarily intruding into one's home. It is time for the state court in Goodhue County to do the same in this case.

To protect landlords, tenants and, ultimately, homeowners against searches that violate the Fourth Amendment, the Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter has filed a lawsuit in Goodhue County District Court in Red Wing, Minn., under the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions to stop the City of Red Wing from conducting or coercing consent to warrantless inspections and also to ensure that constitutional standards govern residential inspections.


Completed Cases


Brumberg v. City of Marietta
Mandatory Inspections of Rental Property: Is Your Apartment Your Castle?
http://www.ij.org/private_property/ga_i ... index.html
The City of Marietta enacted a rental-housing inspection ordinance in 2004, requiring landlords to obtain "rental licenses" for all rental properties. To obtain a license, landlords had to hire and pay City-approved "rental housing inspectors" to inspect and certify that properties were in compliance with all housing codes. Nothing in the ordinance, however, required the landlord or the City to obtain the tenant's consent before conducting the intrusive inspection. Yet, without inspection, no rental license would be issued, and the City Manager could order the property to be vacated. Residents who exercised their constitutional-and statutory-right to refuse a warrantless inspection, therefore, risked potential eviction.

To vindicate renters' rights, the Institute for Justice and local attorney Charles J. Mace challenged the ordinance. Their challenge was consolidated with two cases filed by local landlords.

On June 12, 2006, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the city's rental-housing inspection ordinance allowing a victory for renters and landlords at the Georgia Court of Appeals to stand. As a result, the City of Marietta cannot require housing inspections without obtaining either consent of the renter or a warrant issued for probable cause.




Smith v. Ayotte
Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Close Door on New Hampshire's Unconstitutional Home Inspections
http://www.ij.org/private_property/new_ ... index.html
Residents of the Granite State are finding themselves caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to exercising their constitutional rights to exclude unwelcome government employees. In New Hampshire, government-hired inspectors may enter and search the homes of every person in the state. Worse yet, the law penalizes anyone who refuses to consent to an inspector's search. For these reasons, the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice joined today with four New Hampshire residents to file a federal district court challenge to New Hampshire's property-assessment inspection law. The goal of the lawsuit is to restore the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to all New Hampshire homeowners.

According to the "Inspection of Property" statute, local government officials and their employees can obtain warrants that allow them to search the homes of everyone in their city and town for the purpose of property tax assessment. Because officials don't have to show that a law is being broken to get the warrant, it's easy for government-hired inspectors to conduct blanket searches of entire neighborhoods. If officials would rather not take the time to get a warrant, they don't have to. That's because the statute provides a tool with which to force a person to "consent" to the search: Any person who refuses to allow a warrantless and unconstitutional search of his home automatically loses his right to appeal his property-tax assessment. Even the mere act of asking an inspector for a warrant can get a homeowner in trouble.



Stanphill v. City of Yuma
Challenge to City of Yuma's Warrantless Searches of Rental Homes
http://www.ij.org/private_property/az_yuma/index.html
Under an ordinance adopted in 2002, the City of Yuma, Ariz., tried to force landlords to open their rental property without obtaining consent from or even providing notice to tenants. Outraged by the City's disregard for their rights, two tenants and their landlord joined with the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter and filed suit in Yuma County Superior Court seeking to restore their constitutional rights.

In response to the lawsuit and public advocacy from the IJ Arizona Chapter, the City of Yuma quickly announced in a letter that it had suspended the warrantless inspections and agreed to amend its ordinance to require search warrants for city inspectors to enter tenants' homes.[/b]

Welcome to Hammond.
a lot of this, is what Hammond has passed.

and it is not to the benefit of the people.
but the city.
but people don't understand that.

well they are just trying to help.

more the case of the rental fees, and fines etc if you don't comply.

Martha heres a new quote for you.

“In free countries, every person is entitled to express his opinions and every other person is entitled not to listen.” -- G. Norman Collie"

Yes expresso I reported myself for being off topic.

Not so fast. The article is referring to Point of Sale inspections, not rental property inspections.

I actually favor both. Rental inspections are a good idea as long the landlord/tenant are given reasonable notice. I believe it improves the living conditions of the tenants.

As for Point of Sale which I think is a good idea also if it’s geared down to life threatening issues such as safe electrical, plumbing and mold/lead paint inspections. As for roof, siding and cosmetic issues, I think that should be left up to buyer and seller to negotiate.

If you are going to inspect rentals, which I am against, why not owner-occupied homes too? why should they be exempted? they can be just as crappy as an apartment.

And you say this because you have been in how many of these properties……….. A owner occupied property would be inspected when it goes on the market. I’m not throwing anything specific out just some thoughts.

Say whatever is on your mind, Joey, it is nice to have a debate without resorting to name calling and such. I like to argue.

Why, because you don't own a house?

JOey,
Maybe we can continue this debate later. I"ve got to go now. Big Unit just showed up, so I'm out of here.