LETTER TO THE EDITOR By: Brad Linzy
I would like to take this opportunity to come out in stark opposition to ORDINANCE NO.-G–2013–3-introduced by Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley, also known as An Ordinance Providing for Licensing of Residential Rental Buildings in the City of Evansville, Indiana.
The reasons for my opposition are simple and are based on an analysis of the causes of the behavior and circumstances the Ordinance seeks to curb, along with a critical examination of the stated purpose of the proposed Ordinance through the lens of economic principles.
According to the preamble for this Ordinance, the purpose is as follows: “…To increase the quality of life of residents by partnering the City with landlords and property managers to decrease the incidents of public safety violations and criminal activity in Residential Rental Buildings…†Let us unpack this sentence carefully so as not to be confused about what “problems†this Ordinance claims to solve. Firstly, I fail to see how placing an additional economic and bureaucratic hurdle in front of landlords will in any way achieve the stated aim of “increasing the quality of life of residentsâ€. Indeed, how will charging a landlord a fee for licensure to exercise what should be his right – to join in a private contractual arrangement in a free market exchange – bring about the imagined scenario wherein he will suddenly wish to invest more capital into an Evansville property? It is more likely the case that such requirements will drive out capital rather than invite it in, and already his capital has diminished to the tune of $50 for the year.
Now some of my contemporaries might say, and indeed have said, that such licensure is necessary to stop the evil, so-called “slumlords†from taking advantage of the poor souls with whom they do business. Even if this did have the effect of lessening the presence of “slumlordsâ€, which it very well could, that would not be an altogether good thing for several reasons.
The truth of the matter is the types of residences we are talking about here that get lumped into the “slum†category, are often the only kinds of housing the people who live in them can afford. The less than ideal conditions that often accompany such places are a direct result of the lack of investment capital the owner has put into them for things like central air, new paint, new windows, etc. If the owner had invested more money for repairs and better provisions, the rent would need to increase in a proportional manner to offset the capital investment, effectively pricing this segment of society out of the market.
The net effect of driving these so-called “slumlords†out of business would be that more low income people would be forced into larger, more easily segregated public housing complexes and the old properties of the slumlords will fall into such disrepair without any tenants that the City can then either condemn the buildings through code violations and tear them down, or they will be given the opportunity to buy them up for pennies on the dollar and gentrify the area. One reason police might tend to like, and back, such schemes is that this policy will tend to concentrate their problem areas into the large, easy to patrol public housing units.
Now let’s look at the other stated goal in the preamble to this Ordinance: “to decrease the incidents of public safety violations and criminal activityâ€.
Proponents of this measure use the argument that partnership between police and landlords will teach the landlords how to how to evict unruly tenants by making contractual clauses of “one strike, you’re out†and weed out potential problem tenants during the application process. This they argue will make a participating complex or neighborhood safer. While there might be a measure of truth to that argument, one cannot forget that refusing to house a bad apple in one particular complex does not extinguish the problem. The bad apple will still need housing elsewhere in the City. This hardly reduces criminal activity. It merely moves its epicenter.
Under a scheme of gentrification such as this, the bad apples will coalesce largely within aforementioned public housing complexes, effectively turning them into concentrated gangland areas or prisons with no walls. The other effect that often goes completely unnoticed is the effect on children forced to grow up in these conditions. As victims of circumstances which are no fault of their own, they are forced to grow up in the new public housing slums government has created for them with a higher concentration of bad apples surrounding them than they ever would have experienced under the old “slumlord†paradigm. At least under the “slumlord†scheme, they had a reasonable chance at living in a single family home in a half decent neighborhood. Not so under this government enforced gentrification scheme disguised as “licensingâ€.
The final argument against such a scheme is that this is simply an abridgment of the freedoms of the people of the City of Evansville to choose for themselves which type of dwelling they prefer to live in – a public housing project, or a single family home some might consider a “slumâ€. In the final analysis, government is deciding what’s best for people and limiting their options. Whether this is done with the ultimate aim of gentrification in mind, or whether it is done out of a sincere desire to do what’s best for their constituents, the end result will be the same. Due to the additional hurdles imposed, private capital investment in housing will drop in this City, requiring even more government interventions in the local housing market in the future, and that thing which should be the bane of poor and working class people everywhere will rear its ugly head in the City of Evansville – gentrification.
FOOTNOTE: A hearing will be held on this measure on Wednesday, February 27th. I urge all City Council Members to strike this measure down and reaffirm to their constituents they do indeed carry their best interests at heart. I urge all citizens to call upon your elected officials to say “no†to gentrification in your communities and “yes†to your freedom to choose.
CITY COUNTY OBSERVER EDITOR WANTS TO STRESS WE HAVE POSTED THIS LETTER SENT TO THE US MR. LINZY WITHOUT OPINION, EDITING OR BIAS!