Because legislators are cheaper than building repairs?

Rumor has it that Kevin Davis does, in fact, have a day job. Hard to be sure, because the guy's blog is everywhere you want to be.

Yesterday, he broke this news:

Housing inspections kiboshed? One of the real eyebrow-raisers in this year's short session is SB 1507 -- a bill that's passed the Senate and is due up in the House that would, if passed, effectively ban the City's ability to conduct regular inspections of all rental housing stock in Durham.

Housing inspections have been a much-ballyhooed and talked-about topic over the past year; the Council didn't provide the funding requested by Neighborhood Improvement Services last year, though NIS has taken a voluntary, opt-in approach with landlords instead. (I'm suspecting those abusers of rental property responsibility, our friendly neighborhood slumlords, aren't lining up to be test subjects.)

A staggering 99% of housing code violations, according to the City, occur in rental housing. Yet SB 1507 would prevent cities from distinguishing between rental and owner-occupied housing, or between single- and multi-family rental units, when implementing an inspection program. Obviously, this provision -- which appears in a bill that's had the strong support of the realtor and apartment industries -- makes it far less feasible (i.e., more expensive) for cities to undertake such an inspection program.

Cities could still target "blighted" areas or those receiving CDBG grants from the Federal government for regular housing inspections, but otherwise inspections would only be allowed where "probable cause" exists based on the presence of a housing complaint or a landlord having a track record of violations.

The City reports that the N.C. League of Municipalities opposes the bill, and that the state's tenants rights organization is negotiating with the real estate industry over this bill. Still, it passed the Senate easily and a concerted effort is needed to avoid this bill sailing through the House and gubernatorial offices.

(emphasis added)
So, 99% of all housing complaints come from rental stock. I'm willing to bet that some variation of the 80/20 rule holds sway here as well: The vast majority of those complaints are generated by a small number of slumlords. But rather than deal with the problem, or allow the city to deal with the problem, the landlord lobby decides its better to protect their profits than be good citizens.

And don't go all Fourth Amendment on me, either. you don't see restauranteurs lobbying to have health inspections banned on the grounds that their kitchens are private property, do you? You don't see the hotel and motel industry saying their buildings don't need to have the fire marshalls come through every once in a while to check on the sprinkler systems and make sure the exit paths are marked and clear. And Cherie K. Berry sure makes it a point of making sure every elevator in the state is functioning properly, doesn't she?

So what's the difference between those industries and the home rental industry? I mean besides the fact that neglected and decrepit rental housing stock blights the entire community? Why shouldn't municipalities have the right, if they choose, to require that rental properties meet certain community standards? Why does the landlord lobby need to go to Raleigh to make sure that communities don't have that right?

The only answer is because it's cheaper in the short term to buy legislators than it is to invest in your rental property. Long term, after the slumlords have made the community completely undesirable, who knows? Maybe they'll be swooping in to pick up those same properties in preparation for gentrification, at bargain prices.

Gah.