Get out of Sacramento investments
There are a number of reasons not to own a rental in the city (not the county) of Sacramento. Crime is higher in Sacramento than any other area in the Tri-county area. While a shooting in Placerville or Roseville will make the six o'clock news broadcast, they are few. Each day, somewhere in Sacramento, there is a shooting. There were over 400 reported shooting incidents last year. They are so common that the local news media will only cover the most bazaar.
Traffic, noise and parking are other reasons to avoid owing an investment property in the city. Street violence isn’t confined to gangs and shootings. Random assaults and property damage are higher in the city than in all of Placer and El Dorado County combined. Now there is another reason to liquidate rentals in Sac and move investments to a friendlier place.
Mandatory rental inspections are under favorable consideration by the Sacramento City Council. The proposed new city ordinance would require city inspectors to inspect each rental property periodically for any code violation. If adopted into law, landlords would be required to pay a fee to the city for the privilege of the inspection. Landlords would be required to make arrangements for access between their tenants and the new cadre of city code inspectors. The inspectors would insure the rental unit complies with all health and safety standards set by the department.
Max Fernandez, the city's director of code enforcement, isn’t satisfied with the current number of 3,000 rental units that his department declares substandard each year. “There are probably a lot of properties out there that for whatever reason don’t get inspected by anybody” he said in a recent interview. Yes, Max you’re right and there is a good reason. It’s called, tenants rights.
The City of Sacramento has been loosing owner-occupied housing for years. Forty-seven percent of all housing units in Sacramento or 75,000 are currently rented. Many are single rooms or small apartments in older boarding houses. Theses historic Victorians, however stately, are rife with modern code violations.
The proposed city ordinance is full of pitfalls. What happens if a tenant will not allow an inspector access for the inspection? It is then incumbent upon the inspector to obtain an inspection warrant from a judge. So, who pays that cost? Must a tenant take time off from work waiting for an inspection? What happens when a code violation of found? A citation is issued and an re-inspection is scheduled? Does the tenant need to be present?
Tenants as well as landlords need to leery of this proposed city ordinance. Where is the ACLU on this privacy issue? There are government officials entering a tenant's home without cause. If they protest, a warrant will be issued. If the property is found to be in violation, they may be evicted until repairs have been made to the property.
Current law already exists mandating that landlords maintain a rental up to certain health and safety standards. There are reporting procedures already in place for a tenant who has a problem with the habitability of their rental. The tenant also has the option of moving and terminating their lease if they are denied their right of “quiet enjoyment” of their leased property.
If we are concerned about the National Security Agency eavesdropping on phone conversations between suspected terrorist in a foreign county and US citizens, shouldn't we be concerned about government officials entering our property (without cause) and conducting a mildew test in our bathroom? Will our homes be next?
Traffic, noise and parking are other reasons to avoid owing an investment property in the city. Street violence isn’t confined to gangs and shootings. Random assaults and property damage are higher in the city than in all of Placer and El Dorado County combined. Now there is another reason to liquidate rentals in Sac and move investments to a friendlier place.
Mandatory rental inspections are under favorable consideration by the Sacramento City Council. The proposed new city ordinance would require city inspectors to inspect each rental property periodically for any code violation. If adopted into law, landlords would be required to pay a fee to the city for the privilege of the inspection. Landlords would be required to make arrangements for access between their tenants and the new cadre of city code inspectors. The inspectors would insure the rental unit complies with all health and safety standards set by the department.
Max Fernandez, the city's director of code enforcement, isn’t satisfied with the current number of 3,000 rental units that his department declares substandard each year. “There are probably a lot of properties out there that for whatever reason don’t get inspected by anybody” he said in a recent interview. Yes, Max you’re right and there is a good reason. It’s called, tenants rights.
The City of Sacramento has been loosing owner-occupied housing for years. Forty-seven percent of all housing units in Sacramento or 75,000 are currently rented. Many are single rooms or small apartments in older boarding houses. Theses historic Victorians, however stately, are rife with modern code violations.
The proposed city ordinance is full of pitfalls. What happens if a tenant will not allow an inspector access for the inspection? It is then incumbent upon the inspector to obtain an inspection warrant from a judge. So, who pays that cost? Must a tenant take time off from work waiting for an inspection? What happens when a code violation of found? A citation is issued and an re-inspection is scheduled? Does the tenant need to be present?
Tenants as well as landlords need to leery of this proposed city ordinance. Where is the ACLU on this privacy issue? There are government officials entering a tenant's home without cause. If they protest, a warrant will be issued. If the property is found to be in violation, they may be evicted until repairs have been made to the property.
Current law already exists mandating that landlords maintain a rental up to certain health and safety standards. There are reporting procedures already in place for a tenant who has a problem with the habitability of their rental. The tenant also has the option of moving and terminating their lease if they are denied their right of “quiet enjoyment” of their leased property.
If we are concerned about the National Security Agency eavesdropping on phone conversations between suspected terrorist in a foreign county and US citizens, shouldn't we be concerned about government officials entering our property (without cause) and conducting a mildew test in our bathroom? Will our homes be next?
posted by Ken Calhoon at 9:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home