Once thought necessary for affordable housing complexes in Spring Hill, the County Commission rejects the regulations.
By WILL VAN SANT
Published February 19, 2004
BROOKSVILLE - Creating a set of rules to regulate rental properties in the county appeared necessary in 2002, when debate raged over how affordable housing complexes in Spring Hill might affect neighborhoods.
After nearly two years of development, those rules died a swift death Wednesday.
The County Commission rejected a proposed property maintenance ordinance in the face of opposition from a group of about 75 real estate agents, landlords and political candidates, who criticized the rules as unfair, ineffective and a threat to personal freedom.
"The whole thing is just an egregious infringement on private property rights," David Sturgill of Century 21 Alliance Realty told the board during the morning public workshop.
Richard A. Power, a candidate for County Commission District 5 who has no party affiliation, likened the rules to communist termites bent on attacking the idea of private property.
"We have to exterminate these critters quickly," Power said, as the real estate agents and landlords, who made up the great majority of those present, applauded.
Under the rules, a landlord would have faced fines for, among other things, failing to keep windows in good repair, gutters functioning properly and walls from crumbling.
At present the county has ordinances that address how lawns and fences should be maintained, but nothing that specifically regulates the upkeep of buildings. The rules, some county officials said, were a sensible way to protect tenants and property values.
In rejecting the ordinance, commissioners latched on to one of the opponents' chief complaints: that the rules would apply to landlords who rent residential property but not to commercial landlords or those who live in the homes they own.
Development Department director Grant Tolbert explained that in speaking with other governments, such as Clearwater which had instituted similar rules, he had been advised to move slowly, tackling one segment of the real estate market at a time.
None of the commissioners voiced enthusiasm for the rules. By not directing staff to revise the proposed ordinance and bring it before them again, they essentially let the idea die.
Development Department field investigator Ron Aliff said after the workshop that tenants - who lack an organized lobby like the one real estate agents enjoy - were the missing piece in the day's discussion.
While only a small portion, perhaps a few hundred, of the estimated 7,000 rental units in Hernando might be in disrepair, Aliff said those living in such housing are in jeopardy and there is no mechanism to force landlords to do repairs.
"I have seen some sleazy things out there," Aliff said. "Children are living in houses with leaky roofs. There are mobile homes that don't even have heaters in them."
According to Aliff, there is a vicious cycle at work in some segments of the rental market: tenants complain about unsafe conditions, county staffers lack the authority to force landlords to make needed repairs, landlords evict the complaining tenants and find a another renter. Meanwhile, the property continues to decline.
Aliff said the cycle repeats itself with certain properties about once every six to eight months.
"What do we do about these people who are living in very unsafe conditions?" he asked.
The board asked that Development Department officials, eral estate agents, and concerned citizens to meet to discuss the matter further. One possible course of action mentioned at Wednesday's meeting would be to expand nuisance ordinances that now deal with yards and fences so that they apply to rental structures.
Commissioners gave no timeline for when they wanted to hear back from the discussion group.
"This is probably one that is going to go on the back burner for now," Aliff said.
- Will Van Sant can be reached at 754-6127. Send e-mail to vansant@sptimes.com
