I was disappointed to read Laura Rott's letter to the editor on Aug. 6, 2007, encouraging the public to refuse entrance to building inspectors at their rental property.
The reality is that there are a number of great landlords who keep their property well above code and keep up with yearly maintenance. However, there are also many landlords who do not.
Our agency receives hundreds of calls each year from tenants across the state concerned about the safety of their rental units. These calls range from concerns regarding black mold, frequent sewer back-ups, frayed electrical wires, holes in the roof and rodent infestation to name just a few, to the "minor" of no door locks and lack of basic maintenance, proper heating and functioning smoke alarms.
These calls typically come from tenants who are scared to complain about these conditions out of fear of eviction or lease non-renewal because it's the only property they can afford or they cannot afford the extra expense of moving.
These housing providers know that in a rental market where affordable and accessible housing is quickly becoming outside the average worker's price range, that someone else will come along desperate to rent the property because they have no other options.
ADVERTISEMENT
These potential tenants are people in our communities who are looking for fresh starts and cannot afford most housing, victims of domestic violence who have no credit or landlord history to obtain mainstream housing, and elderly residents and people with disabilities who may not qualify for benefits and are on extremely fixed incomes.
It's a difficult situation, because how much do you complain about your substandard property when it's better than no housing at all? However, is that the decision we want our residents to have to make? Shouldn't someone who pays rent be assured that their housing at least meets basic health and safety codes? Rott claims she doesn't need someone telling her that her "home is unsafe." I'm surprised that a resident would not want to know that.
Building inspectors need to have the capacity and authority to enforce code violations. Some cities in other states have passed city ordinances requiring the yearly inspection of rental property of a certain size in order for the property to be rented to the public. This is the city's way of keeping control of substandard housing and ensuring that a resident's health and safety is not harmed.
I do agree with Rott that inspectors should not use their power to harass landlords or tenants. In some states, discrimination cases have been made when inspectors unfairly targeted households or landlords for inspections just because of the resident's race, color or national origin.
However, we rarely hear of those occurrences at our offices. We most often hear of the need of more inspections to help residents. We hear of understaffed departments, inspectors not able to respond in a timely manner and unable to meet the demands of citizens.
Residents need to demand that their housing and their neighborhoods are kept up to code. Rott notes that we "don't need the streets of this city paved in gold" but we do need safe, sanitary and affordable housing and have building inspectors able to inspect property and enforce violations. That's not a gold-paved street, but at the minimum, a maintained gravel road.
Nelson, Bismarck, is executive director of Fair Housing of the Dakotas, which serves North Dakota and South Dakota and works to eliminate housing discrimination and ensure fair housing. E-mail ndfhc2@btinet.net
