Twilight Zoning in Bellingham: Why Subsidize Rental Property Water Meter Installation?

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Why Subsidize Rental Property Water Meter Installation?

Last weekend the Herald ran an article (click here to read it) on the 2003 Washington State mandate to install water meters at single family homes by 2017. It is now 2008 and the city seems to have no installation plan although one is due in July 2008. There is a voluntary program sponsored by the city whereby a homeowner can have a meter installed by the city for $150. As of 2006 about 75 single family homeowners had signed up for the program. Perhaps more have signed up since then but overall it is not promising for reaching 100% participation by 2017.

The Herald article points out that the cost for the voluntary metering program (click here to read the report) is heavily subsidized by the city (that means you taxpayers). The real cost of placement of these meters is around $300 to $600 or 100-400% more than the cost to the homeowner. However, since about half of the unmetered single family homes (15,000 flat rate customers) are putative rentals, that means that the city (again, you as a taxpayer) is subsidizing those properties which are being used as money generating entities by landlords, some of whom do not even live in the city. If the city charged all rental property owners the full rate for meter installation, it would receive at least $2,250,000 at the low end ($300 per installation). High end ($600 per meter) would bring in considerably more. Furthermore, after meter installation the true water consumption costs would be passed on to the consumer, i.e., the renters.

The city requires metering for properties involved in commercial enterprises. Why should rental properties be treated any differently? Why should you, as a taxpayer, subsidize landlords in their income producing pursuits? Why should an illegal rooming house with 4, 5, 6, 7 or more renters be charged at the same rate as the live-in property owner/family?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: If the state mandated this then the state should pay for it. That means our taxes should pay for it. Sounds like another industry pushed legislation just like the mandatory insurance law.; April 11, 2008 at 7:57 AM
Terry said...: Owner-occ and rental properties should be charged the same.

No subsidies for anybody.

I wouldn't be strongly opposed to some sort of low-income subsidy or deferral (as are often extended to low-income elderly homeowners), but I believe properties/owners should generally be charged equally.

p.s. I'm enjoying the content here with the occasional chuckle thrown in...unwilling sponges...putative rentals...now I'm actively looking for more.; November 27, 2010 at 3:34 AM

The Rationale for Rental Licensing

There is the definitive experience of cities that have already adopted rental licensing and inspections in the face of exactly the same opposition as we saw in Bellingham over the last decade. Ultimately, each of these cities was proven correct in its resolve to move ahead to protect the safety and health of the renters. We already know that the city of Pasco, WA found that 15% of the units inspected under their program had serious life/safety issues. 10% had mold problems. A full 85% had problems of varying degrees. The city of Gresham, OR performed over 1600 inspections in 2009 and issued, as a result, over 4,000 citations. Lexington, KY performed inspections of units near the University of Kentucky and found that 50% had life/safety issues. Sacramento, CA began an inspection program during which one third of the units inspected had serious safety and health issues. The question why does anyone believe that the condition of rental housing here in Bellingham does not mirror that which is found in cities that have the statistics to show that time and time again the condition of rentals in our cities is problematic? All we have had to date from those who oppose licensing are broad statements by the landlords and their paladins that are completely and utterly unsubstantiated. The Zonemaven has searched in vain for the horror stories that these opponents of licensing and inspections have predicted. On the other hand, The Zonemaven did find over 100 cities that have licensing AND inspections without the catastrophic effect for the rental markets that the landlords would have you believe. (See this blog's sidebar at bottom left for list)

One Reason Illegal Rooming Houses Do Not Work

The limit for unrelated persons at a single family home rental is three residents. Leases are signed by three people who then invite additional renters to join them to lower per capita rental rates. The perverse effect is that rental rates tend to rise under these circumstances making it difficult for single families to rent single family homes. Some local rental agencies facilitate this practice.

"To say that a family is so equivalent to a ragtag collection of college roommates as to require identical treatment in zoning decisions defies the reality of the place of the family in American society, despite any changes that institution has undergone in recent years. Only the most cynical among us would say that the American family has devolved to the point of no greater importance or consideration in governmental decision making than a group of college roommates." (Stegeman v. City of Ann Arbor)

That being said, accommodation ought to be made for protected classes, especially non-traditional unions and group houses for the disabled. These classes are laid out in federal and Washington State law.