I have argued strongly for certain kinds of rules and against other kinds, it’s true. It sounds like you disagree with my conclusions. I’d be happy to hear your reasoned critique and counterarguments. I’m not interested, however, in sarcasm and generalized mis-characterizations. As I responded to “Jonathan” on the latest post in the series, such sentiments — typically all mashed together in a noxious blend of unstated stereotypes and logical fallacies — are all too common in debates about housing codes. That’s the problem.

I’d be interested to hear a reasoned argument that long-term residents of neighborhoods will stop investing or will relocate in the absence of the specific rules I’ve critiqued in this series. Those rules are: occupancy limits, extra scrutiny of congregate housing, and minimum unit sizes. In my history of rooming houses, I also mentioned as destructive those zoning rules that exclude hotels from most residential neighborhoods. Oh, and I expressed nervousness — but not opposition — to mandatory universal rental unit inspections at property owners’ expense.

“permanent housing solutions in Vancouver often cost significantly more than they should….in the order of $300,000 a unit. or up to $1000 a foot for projects like the Pennsylvania Hotel.”

Do you have an explanation for this? I’ve heard similar things from friends in the housing field in Portland: that building a unit of “affordable” (aka, publicly subsidized) housing there costs about $250,000.

You’ll also be interested in the subsequent posts in this series, which get detailed and practical about the specific regulatory barriers to inexpensive housing.

Now I’m not advocating rotting housing, but I do also argue for reduced housing standards, especially to accommodate those who might otherwise be on the streets or in shelters. Here’s an idea I proposed when running for Vancouver City Council in 2008. It got some traction, but never moved forward. Perhaps this is an idea that might be implemented by Seattle or other US cities. Merry Xmas http://www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca/2012/12/finally-heres-description-of-proposal.html

One other thing that I like to point out about this legislation is that this is not just a benefit for the tenants. Clearly it’s a major win, and because I was so involved with the campaign myself, I consider it a huge victory. Where it is also a victory for landlords lies in the fact that sometimes landlords will not come to a property if they are happy with their tenants and the tenants are also happy with their landlords. However, things happen to properties, say a foundation crack, a deteriorating furnace, or something that could end up costing the landlord many thousands of dollars to fix, could be identified by an impartial 3rd party, giving the landlord plenty of time to fix it before trying to put their property on the market and get something from their investment, or fixing it before becomes a REAL problem and increases the amount of money to get it fixed. Doesn’t it make sense to see it as a benefit for all involved? Also, doesn’t it behoove neighbors, who do not want to see their property values decline in any market, to support this legislation?

Yes. This is HUGE for renters. But it doesn’t have to be an us vs. them. The only people who are really going to suffer here are people who are only out to make a buck and don’t give a hoot about public health.

And I’m sorry, and I mean no disrespect – but if you’re going to slam legislation in a public column, it really helps to understand all the aspects of it before doing so.

It is not my intention to mix apples and oranges but it seems to be the government’s intention to push its nose in our tents as far as possible and then some or so history has taught me.

http://daily.sightline.org/2012/11/14/rooming-houses-historys-affordable-quarters/

You are mixing apples and oranges here. The issue of rental inspections is not one of zoning but is one of safety and health. The two should not be confused as there is much to be discussed about zoning issues/sprawl, etc. as you have pointed out.

You have also raised the red-herring argument about the government coming into one’s own privately-owned home for purposes of inspection although nobody has even remotely suggested that this is a follow-on intent by local governments. If you can find me an instance of that happening in a city that has ordered rental inspections, please let me know.

What you do in your own home is your business and you accept health and safety problems at your own risk and that of your family. The health and safety issue with respect to rentals is quite different in that the landlord is offering a product (the rental) to the public for money. That rental ought not cause harm to the individuals renting it as you unfortunately found out when you rented a home that made you and your wife ill. Were one to follow your logic, we would cease inspections of restaurants and let the poor diner evaluate the cleanliness by exposing himself and his family to a meal of uncertain quality and cleanliness.

I am also much puzzled that you and others bring up much in the way of extraneous issues such as electrical efficiency which has absolutely no bearing on the issue at all. I also am continually surprised by the fact that not once in the past five years or so that I have been working on this problem has anyone looked up any source or contact I suggested to find out precisely what does happen when an inspection program is in place. I suggested that to Alan in my comment above and I expect that he may actually do that before commenting further on this issue. I do my homework before I write and I expect others to do the same. If I am wrong, let me know but sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt as you have done in your comment does not advance a reasonable discussion of rental safety and health.

As someone who is often critical of the government policies that cause harm to our fellow citizens you are right we need to get the government out of the way and reduce the regulations that add to the costs of housing. It needs to be pointed out those regulations such as zoning laws and building codes have been used for the purposes of racial discrimination.

As some who cares about protecting the environment I will argue that government regulations such as zoning laws and building codes often harm the environment by contributing to sprawl.

Last but not least as a renter I do see a need for some sort of program to provide information on the quality of the facility being rented. My wife and I had to move last winter because the place we were in had a mold problem and it was making both of us ill, especially my wife. When we began the search for a new place I called the electric company to see if they could give us an idea as to how much electricity a place we had picked out would use. They could not do that.

If I buy a freezer or another appliance that uses electricity I can find out how energy efficient it is. There needs to be some sort of voluntary group that rates rental units for quality, cleanliness and other concerns.