When it comes to rental and vacant property registries, municipalities don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
Across the country, communities have spent years developing registration programs, refining ordinances, adjusting fees, creating exemptions and, in some cases, defending their programs in court.
Yet we continue to see communities approach these programs as though they are creating something entirely new.
That can be expensive.
It can create unnecessary conflict.
And it can delay the very outcomes the municipality was trying to achieve in the first place.
Three recent examples, Edison, New Jersey; Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Chicago, Illinois illustrate why municipalities should look beyond their own borders before adopting or substantially changing a registry program.
Edison: Registration Fees Need to Be Conservative, and Look at What You Already Have
Edison provides a particularly important lesson about registration fees, but there may be another question worth asking: What registration and inspection programs does a municipality already have in place?
The Township adopted a rental-registration ordinance that included a $100 annual registration fee for each rental unit, along with registration, licensing and inspection requirements. More than 40 apartment owners representing approximately 8,200 rental units challenged the ordinance in court. Among the arguments raised was that the $100-per-unit fee was not reasonably related to the Township’s actual regulatory costs.
The financial exposure was significant: approximately $820,000 annually in registration fees for the properties represented by the plaintiffs.
The takeaway for municipalities is not that registration fees are inappropriate.
It is that registration fees should be conservative, reasonable and defensible.
But before creating another registration requirement, there is an equally important question:
What information is the municipality already collecting, and what programs are already operating?
Edison already has a substantial fire-prevention registration and inspection program. Its code requires registration applications for certain businesses, occupancies, buildings, structures and premises subject to fire inspections. The Township also has annual registration fees for non-life-hazard uses, with fees based on the size of the premises, as well as a separate registration structure for life-hazard uses.
That raises a question worth asking, not necessarily an accusation:
Was the existing fire-registration program fully reviewed when the new rental-registration requirements and fee structure were developed?
There may be properties subject to both regulatory programs. There may also be information already being collected by the Township that could potentially reduce duplication or inform the rental-registration process.
The point is not that the fire-registration program makes a separate rental registry unnecessary. The programs serve different purposes, and the existing fire requirements do not appear to cover every residential rental situation. Rather, a municipality should understand the full regulatory landscape before adding another layer of registration.
That is exactly where experienced outside expertise can be useful.
A municipality considering a new registry should look not only at what other communities are doing, but also at what it is already doing itself. Existing fire registrations, rental registrations, business registrations, licensing programs, inspection records, code-enforcement databases and other municipal information may all be relevant.
And then there is the fee question.
A municipality should be able to answer a relatively simple question:
What does it actually cost us to administer this program?
There is a substantial difference between establishing a fee that reasonably supports administration and creating a fee structure that becomes the center of a legal dispute.
Edison ultimately moved toward a dramatically different structure, with a proposed $10-per-unit registration fee, along with separate inspection and compliance charges (click here – paywall)
That is a significant change from the original $100 registration fee.
A conservative fee structure, and a careful review of programs already in place, can prevent a lot of unnecessary headaches.
Cambridge: Step Back and Look at the Big Picture
Cambridge offers another important lesson: look at the big picture before deciding which properties need to be regulated.
Property owners have sued Cambridge over its vacant-property ordinance, challenging the city’s requirements and their application to properties that the owners contend should not be subject to the ordinance. The Star Democrat’s report on the Cambridge lawsuit
That raises an important question for other municipalities: Could clearer and more carefully considered exemptions have avoided some of the conflict?
That is not to suggest that exemptions would necessarily have prevented the Cambridge lawsuit, but it demonstrates why municipalities should consider, before adoption, whether every property technically meeting a definition needs to be subject to the same requirements.
A property undergoing active rehabilitation, already subject to another regulatory program, temporarily vacant for a legitimate reason, or otherwise not presenting the problems the ordinance is intended to address may warrant different treatment.
This is exactly where an experienced registry expert such as MuniReg can be valuable. MuniReg can help a municipality examine definitions, exemptions, existing regulations and approaches used in other communities before an ordinance is finalized.
The goal isn’t to regulate every property.
It’s to develop a program that addresses the problem the municipality is actually trying to solve.
Chicago: This Isn’t a New Concept
Chicago provides another lesson: unnecessary disagreements can lead to unnecessary delays.
Chicago is currently dealing with competing approaches to rental regulation, including proposals involving registration, inspections and fees. The competing proposals have advanced through City Council committees, setting up further negotiations over the city’s approach.
Chicago is obviously a unique city with unique housing challenges.
But the concept of a rental registry is not new.
Neither is a vacant-property registry.
Neither are registration fees, inspections, exemptions, compliance requirements or enforcement mechanisms.
There are municipalities across the country that have already worked through these issues.
There is no reason for every community to learn the same lessons independently.
Utilize the Experts and National Best Practices
Municipalities don’t need to reinvent the wheel. MuniReg works with communities across the country on vacant, abandoned, distressed and rental property registration programs, providing firsthand experience with different ordinances, fees, exemptions and administrative approaches.
Not every MuniReg client follows every recommendation, and ultimately, each municipality makes its own decisions. But working with an experienced registry administrator allows a community to investigate the available options, identify potential problems and learn from what other communities have already experienced before adopting an ordinance.
There is a difference between customizing a program for local needs and starting from scratch.
Borrow what works, avoid what hasn’t, and then tailor the program to your community.
Sometimes the smartest first step isn’t writing a new ordinance.
It’s finding out who has already done it, asking what they learned, and utilizing MuniReg’s experience to identify issues that may not have surfaced yet. Of course, there are no guarantees in municipal government, or in life. A community can make a well-informed decision based on the best available information and still encounter an unexpected challenge down the road. The value of experienced guidance is not a promise that problems will never occur; it’s giving a municipality the benefit of experience and helping it make the most informed decision possible before moving forward.