I have serious doubts about the propriety of this proposed ordinance in Greenwood. The mayor wants a ban on the rental of any newly constructed home for a 3 year period.
I think you could probably make it legal, by using the zoning and building permit processes to get the builder to agree to such a condition in exchange for permission to build. I understand the motivation — you have a number of builders softening the housing market which probably has deleterious effects on the community at large.
I don’t necessarily have much sympathy for large developers, who can address the pros and cons of such an ordinance up front and price and plan accordingly. But, it might tie a home buyer to his or her property in an unfair way. Say someone buys their home, plans to live there, but their situation changes 1.5 years later with the real estate market in a down phase — perhaps getting them upside down on their mortgage, making their only real option to rent the place out.
Councilman Keith Hardin seems to have a good head on his shoulders about this at any rate:
Some Greenwood City Council members, who will hear Henderson’s proposal tonight, like the idea behind it but are wary of whether it can pass legal muster.
“I don’t want to be a test case in the courts for these types of things,” said Councilman Keith Hardin.
He prefers more of a carrot-and-stick approach in the form of a three-year tax abatement to developers that could be passed on to homeowners to help nurture the upkeep of their properties.
“The whole point is we debate this and encourage developers to stick with their original plan and not bait-and-switch the city.”
He and fellow Councilman Bruce Armstrong want the city to tighten its zoning regulations, too. Greenwood’s ordinances allow a developer to change his commitments without penalty.“It’s the wrong way to go about what needs to be done,” Armstrong said of the ordinance. “Unfortunately, there are too many loopholes developers are using.”
I spent yesterday ‘open house’ hopping in Henricks/Marion county area.It seems everyone wants to sell and there are no buyers.Multi-signs at intersetions with arrows pointing in all directions to houses for sale, open houses…from builders and inviduals.This is not the time for any new restrictions. Deal with developer infractions at a later time.’Rent with option to buy’ may be the only way to get a deal done now for some.
I fail to see the mayor’s logic. The alternative to a sold house under a rental ban is a vacant house. Is that really better?
I think the alternative is not to have the house built in the first place.
And who issued the building permit?
I think the proposal is probably to make non-rental a condition of issuing the building permit in the future.
I think it would be more appropriate to put it in the platting process, not the building permit process. That way it could be covered by zoning and/or covenant requirements.
Putting it in the plat would make it plain for all to see, and wouldn’t require an ordinance. But that would require the developer to embrace the idea.
I think this is perhaps an example of “reactive” law, where one reacts to a situation by making a law, instead of working to find another solution to the situation. In this case, I have noticed a local reaction against rental properties purportedly because all rental properties are badly maintained. The association that we have has even had members propose to enact bylaws to keep rentals and landlords out completely. While not in Greenwood, we are close enough geographically to get similar attitudes. Never mind, of course, all the empty houses here that have been on the market for many months that there is little or no interest in. Of course the developers are building a new edition across the street, so these 2-5 year old houses are close to worthless unless rented or contracted for sale.
Perhaps then, the issue should not be whether or not rentals should be allowed, but how landlords and their tenants should be held accountable for their actions. Are there “carrots and sticks” available to either?