Background: George Sheetz was mandated to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee as a condition for obtaining a residential building permit, which he contested as an unlawful exaction under the Takings Clause.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Barrett, vacated the ruling of the California Court of Appeal. The decision clarified that the Takings Clause does not differentiate between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions, reinforcing property rights protections against arbitrary government exactions.
Legal Principles Invoked: The Court applied the tests from Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n and Dolan v. City of Tigard, emphasizing that permit conditions must both have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land-use interest and be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the proposed development.
Impact and Precedent: The ruling underscores the necessity for governmental authorities, whether legislative or administrative, to adhere strictly to constitutional principles when imposing conditions on building permits. This decision is a significant affirmation of property rights, setting a precedent that both legislative and administrative exactions are subject to the same constitutional scrutiny.
This decision marks a critical juncture in property law, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting individual property rights against overreach by local governments.
Supreme Court Decision: SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO
(Click below to view the entire decision)
On June 2, 2017, in a victory for landlords, St Louis County Circuit Court Judge Gloria Clark Reno declared St Louis County’s landlord license ordinance unconstitutional. The landlord license ordinance was passed by the St Louis County Council, with a surprise vote at the Council meeting on October 18, 2015 while the council members ignored the outcries from many private property rights advocates, including the St Louis Association of REALTORS, who questioned, among other things, the constitutionality of the ordinance. The ordinance went into effect on December 31, 2015 however, as a result of a lawsuit filed by the St Louis Association of REALTORS on December 29, 2015, Judge Reno issued a temporary restraining order on January 7, 2016 prohibiting St Louis County from enforcing the ordinance.
The St Louis County landlord license ordinance, landlords were required to obtain a license annually before renting out property in St Louis County. Many aspects of the ordinance appeared to be unconstitutional and to infringe upon the private property rights of landlords causing many groups to speak out against the ordinance.
The complete order by Judge Reno is below.
Search St Louis Homes For Sale HERE
See ALL Homes That Will Be Open In St Louis This Weekend
Find The Value Of Your Home In Under A Minute!
My headline is a rhetorical question and I personally don’t think landlords and tenants are bad people but, after seeing so many municipalities work so hard over the past few years passing ordinances that, in many cases, in my humble opinion, tramples the property rights of landlords as well as the rights of tenants, one would have to believe that landlords and tenants must be some pretty bad people. After all, if not, why would some municipalities work so hard to discourage them from entering their cities and work hard to chase them out?
For example, the most recent egregious example of this comes from the north-county city of Berkeley, where, last September, the city council passed an ordinance (#4320-bill can be seen at bottom) that put a “30-percent limitation of single-family rental homes per residential block“. Bill number 4456, which was the bill introduced that became the ordinance, gave the purpose of the new ordinance to be:
“The City (Berkeley) seeks to create a positive impact in city neighborhoods by creating an atmospher for residents to enjoy a good quality of life by creating a 30-percent limitation of single family rental homes per residential block”
Since the city of Berkeley seems to equate “a good quality of life” with a “limitation of single family rental homes‘ I think, by negative inference, we can come to the conclusion that Berkeley is saying rental homes, and I would guess either the people that own them, or the tenants that live in them, must negatively impact, or run counter to, “a good quality of life” in their neighborhoods which now brings us back to my initial question, are landlords and tenants bad people?
Search St Louis Homes For Sale HERE
How to Buy Foreclosures – Advice From a 2,000+ Home Investor
Find The Value Of Any Home In Under A Minute!
Continue reading “Are Landlords and Tenants Bad People?“
UPDATE February 3, 2017 –
Representative Gary Cross has introduced HB 705 which would repeal this legislation. Ironically, Rep Cross is the representative that first introduced the original legislation, HB 1862. I’m guessing he has come to realize the problems this legislation has caused, which I believe were unintended consequences, and has chosen to fix the issue which I praise him for!
##
This legislative session, the Missouri State Legislature passed HB. 1862, which modifies provisions relating to the existing landlord-tenant law in Missouri, specifically, it repeals sections 534.350, 534.360, 535.030, 535.110, 535.160 and 535.300 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri and replaces them with five new sections as described in the bill. The bill has been delivered to Governor Nixon and, if signed by him, will go into effect August 28th of this year.
Why This New Law May Force Landlords (even licensed real estate agents) To Use Property Managers:
While this bill has some good things in it, such as establishing some reasonable procedures and time lines for a landlord regaining possession of a property as well as doing a little housekeeping with regard to what can be deducted from a security deposit, the bill also makes, what I believe to be, a very damaging change to the law with regard to security deposits. With regard to security deposits held by landlords, the bill changes section 535.300 (2) to read (emphasis is mine):
Search St Louis Homes For Sale HERE
See ALL Homes That Will Be Open In St Louis This Weekend
Get a Market Report with LIVE up to date Home Sales, Prices and Inventory for ANY St Louis Area HERE
Yesterday, St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Gloria Reno granted a temporary restraining order against St Louis County to stop implementation of their recently adopted rental licensing ordinance. This is a huge victory for landlords, and property owners in general, as the new ordinance, as I wrote about previously, trampled property rights in many ways.
In response to the passage of the landlord licensing ordinance, the St Louis Association of REALTORS® file a lawsuit against St Louis County on December 29, 2015 in an effort to stop the legislation.
Hopefully, the temporary restraining order will be become a permanent injunction by the time the case comes to a close.
Search St Louis Homes For Sale HERE
Find Your Home’s Value Online NOW!
See ALL Homes That Will Be Open In St Louis This Weekend
Get The Latest LIVE St Louis Home Prices, Sales and Other Market Data HERE
My, how fast things change! Nine days ago I wrote about a bad piece of legislation St Louis Councilman Michael O’Mara had proposed with regard to the licensing of landlords and then, two days later, updated the article with the good news that the bill was voted down. Well, in a last minute move, reportedly just minutes before the 6:00 pm start time of the council meeting last night, Representative Michael O’Mara, according to an article in STLTODAY this morning, “seized on a procedural loophole to return the issue to the council agenda.”
While the bill that was introduced last night, Substitute Bill No. 3 for Bill no 204, was slightly different than the bill proposed the last time, it’s still littered with issues that affect private property rights of individuals and should concern everyone, not just the landlords and tenants that are the largest of this legislation.
“I thought it was a travesty of government.”
According to the STLTODAY article, St Louis County Councilman Mark Harder (and real estate broker) said “I thought it was a travesty of government. This bill was brought to us moments before we walked on the dais tonight, and that is not the way you handle a transparent government…We were steamrolled.”
THERE IS STILL TIME TO STOP THIS! The St Louis County Council will take the final vote on this bill on October 20th, so you still have time to be heard! If would like to voice your opinion on this bill, I would suggest contacting the bills sponsor, St Louis County Councilman Michael O’Mara as soon as possible. You can contact him through the St Louis County Council website here or you can email him at MOmara@stlouisco.com or call him at 314.615.5439.
UPDATE – October 7, 2015:
Thanks to Councilman Kevin O’Leary’s unexpected call for a vote on the bill at last nights St Louis County Council meeting, as well as the votes cast against the bill by Council members Kevin O’Leary, Mark Harder, Colleen Basinger and Hazel Erby, the Residential Rental Property Licensing Code bill died last night in a 4 to 3 vote defeating it. The council members that voted in favor of enacting the bill into an ordinance were Council members Michael O’Mara, Dr. Sam Page and Pat Dolan.It’s probably not over. Remember, last year the council was close to passing a similar bill and then took another shot at it this year. I firmly believe Councilman O’Mara will be back with this bill or a very similar one once the dust settles so be on the look out!
Last April I wrote an article about a bill in St Louis County introduced by Councilman Michael O’Mara which me, and a whole lot of other people and groups with interest in preserving private property rights, thought would trample on those rights. Fortunately, as I later reported, the St Louis County Council chose not to move forward with the bill at that time. However, St Louis County Councilman Michael O’Mara is back at it with a new proposed ordinance, Bill No. 204, which is pretty much the same as last years version.
St Louis County Bill No. 204 (known as the “Residential Rental Property Licensing Code“), like the similar Bill No. 73 last year, has met resistance again by people and organizations that feel the proposed legislation violates private property rights of property owners and may even be discriminatory. In a letter to Chairman Pat Dolan, and the members of the St louis County Council, Willie Jordan, Executive Director, and Zachary Schmook, Managing Attorney, for the Metropolitan St Louis Equal Housing & Opportunity Council (EHOC) stated the proposed bill “will have substantial negative, and potentially discriminatory, effects for tenants and vulnerable populations in St Louis County.” The EHOC letter goes on to cite six areas of major concern they have with the bill, many of which are the same, or similar, concerns I expressed last year in my article written when the legislation surfaced the first time.
Click Here to read the current version of the proposed Residential Rental Property Licensing Code
If you would like to voice your opinion on this bill, I would suggest contacting the bills sponsor, St Louis County Councilman Michael O’Mara as soon as possible. You can contact him through the St Louis County Council website here or you can email him at MOmara@stlouisco.com or call him at 314.615.5439.
Which St Louis County Council members ARE and ARE NOT supporting this legislation? A the August 25, 2015 meeting of the St Louis County Council a vote was taken to “prefect” the bill and four of the council members voted in favor of this legislation and 3 against it. The members are listed below:
Voted in favor of this legislation:
- Dr. Sam Page
- Michael O’Mara
- Pat Dolan
- Kevin O’Leary
Voted against this legislation;
- Mark Harder
- Colleen Wasinger
- Hazel Erby
Last month I wrote an article about a residential rental property licensing ordinance that was proposed in St Louis County by Councilman Michael O’Mara which I felt was a bad piece of legislation and an egregious violation of the private property rights of property owners. I heard from many readers that felt the same way I did and in fact, many of you turned out at the County Council meeting earlier this week to voice your opposition to the bill. I’m happy to say that the ordinance, which was on the agenda to be perfected, was in fact not voted upon by the council and therefore did not become law, yet. Hopefully, the outcry of opposition from the public as well as from organizations such as the St Louis Association of REALTORS and the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council, has convinced the members of the council to no longer pursue passage of bill 73.
See below for public comments that were made at the council meeting in opposition to the ordinance, as recorded in the St Louis County Council journal for the meeting of April.
A residential rental property licensing ordinance has been proposed in St Louis County by Councilman Michael O’Mara which would prohibit an owner of residential property in unincorporated St. Louis County from renting or leasing their property without first paying a fee and obtaining a residential rental license. The bill, which has been kept relatively quiet and is impossible to find on the website for the St Louis County Council other than listed on the agenda, will most likely be passed at the meeting of the St Louis County Council tomorrow evening.
While there are several municipalities in the St Louis area that currently require some sort of licensing or registration of rental property, and the issue of whether that is an infringement of property rights or not, is a topic I’m not going to address today. Instead, I will just focus on some of the things in this proposed legislation that I feel, in my humble opinion, are egregious violations of property owner’s private property rights. The bill, a draft of which can be read here, is bad in many ways, however below are the parts that violate private property rights the most. followed by my comments on each section:
Well, the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, in north St. Louis County, is back at it again. As some readers may recall, in February of last year I wrote about the appellant court declaring that an ordinance passed by the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors requiring property owners to apply for an inspection before advertising their home for sale violated their property rights and was unconstitutional. Then, the following month I wrote another article on the subject, this time about how, in spite of the decision of the appellant court, the city of Bellefontaine was still enforcing the ordinance.
So what are they up to? Well, this afternoon I found out that tomorrow, May 5th, the Bellefontaine Neighbors Board of Alderman will consider passing Bill No. 2233, “Pre-Sales Inspections”, which, if passed, would in my opinion be the City thumbing their noses at the Eastern District Court of Appeals decision since this bill is basically the same as the ordinance struck down by the court with the exception being that in this one instead of requiring an application for an inspection PRIOR to listing your home for sale it now says you have to apply within 3 days of advertising your home for sale. Yep, I’m serious….
While some of you may think this doesn’t affect you because you don’t own property in the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, think again…Ordinances tend to spread from one municipality to another, particularly in a case like this where the city attorney, Kevin O’Keefe, represents many other municipalities in the area.
So what can you do to try to prevent this? The St. Louis Association of REALTORS has set up a Call to Action and you can easily send a message to the Alderman of the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors encouraging them not to pass this bill by clicking on this link.
The National Association of Realtors® announced that it “strongly supports” the proposed guidance from the Federal Housing Finance Agency to prevent government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks from investing in mortgages encumbered by private transfer fee covenants.
In a letter sent to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), NAR reiterated its opposition to these covenants, which developers often attach to a property to require payment of fees back to that developer each time the property is resold. These covenanted mandates are often extremely difficult to reverse once in place, and in many cases are attached to a deed for up to 99 years. Continue reading “REALTORS® Support Proposal to End Private Transfer Fees“
Michigan couple awarded $600,000 judgment against Worth Township; Proof that you can fight city hall
Dennis Norman
Who says you can’t fight City Hall and win?
Well, it wasn’t easy, nor quick, but George and Margaret Paeth of the Worth Township in Michigan have”beat” City Hall and been awarded $600,000 by a Federal Court Judge. According to a press release by their attorney’s, Daniel P. Dalton and Pauline J. Pensler, this judgment is “one of the largest procedural due process and First Amendment retaliation verdicts in the nation, and the largest for the Eastern District of Michigan’s federal courts.” Continue reading “Michigan couple awarded $600,000 judgment against Worth Township; Proof that you can fight city hall“
First Amendment Versus Ballwin City Hall
Dennis Norman
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This morning I saw an article on STL Today about a retired art teacher that was sentenced to 20 days in jail after he refused to make changes to art he has displayed in his front yard that “court and city officials have deemed dangerous.”
According to the article, Lewis Greenberg was convicted in October in St. Louis County court of two counts of city ordinance violations – littering and storing hazardous materials. The judge told Greenberg to clean it up or face a penalty. Well, I gotta give it to this guy for standing up for what he believes in as apparently yesterday he showed up in court and told the judge “he had no plans to comply.” This prompted Judge Lawrence Permuter to sentence Greenberg to 20 days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine.
Continue reading “Property Owner Gets Jail Time over Yard Art“
Dennis Norman
Appellant Says Bellefontaine Ordinance is Unconstitutional but City Inspector Still Enforcing It
Last month I did a post about a decision handed down by the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District that was a significant victory for St. Louis property owners by striking down part of an ordinance that violates our property rights as well as our First Amendment Rights to free speech.
Unfortunately, it appears no one told the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors they lost the case, or if they did, some may be choosing to ignore the court’s decision. I say this because I heard that Mark Scatizzi, the local REALTOR® who brought the appeal after being cited and fined for failing to have a home inspected and obtain a certificate of compliance from the City prior to marketing the property for sale, and the second being for displaying a “for-sale” sign in the window, again without obtaining the inspection first, had another run-in with the City of Bellefontaine and it seems nothing has changed.
This time involves a house Scatizzi has listed that is owned by a bank. Scatizzi said a Bellefontaine Inspector, Ted Stocker, told Scatizzi’s property manager that they could not advertise the home without first getting a property inspection. Scatizzi’s property manager then referenced the recent appellant court decision (which said that part of the ordinance was unconstitutional) and the inspector’s response was “the decision did not pertain to him and that he would continue to enforce the city ordinance.” Shortly thereafter, Scattiz received two notices from the city indicating he would need to have the house inspected prior to advertising it for sale. Interesting thing is, according to Scatizzi, this all happened even prior to him actually listing the home for sale.
This morning I contacted the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors again to inquire about the status of their ordinance. I was referred to the Mayor, Marty Rudloff. When I referenced the appellant court decision in the case “City of Bellefontaine Neighbors vs Mark Scatizzi” he said he had no idea what I was talking about, “it must be an old case”. I told the Mayor that the appeals court decision came at the end of January and that the decision indicated part of their ordinance requiring a property inspection before advertising a property for sale was unconstitutional. Mayor Rudloff said even though he was not aware of the case that if that is what the appellant court said the City would abide by it. I then told him the story about his inspector Ted Stocker and he said what Stocker said was not the city’s position and he would look into it.
I had this post completed then decided in fairness to the inspector, Ted Stocker, I would try to reach him again. I had called this morning but he was out. This time when I called I was able to talk with Mr. Stocker, the building inspector. Mr. Stocker told me that he was aware of the appellant court decision (I’m not sure how he knows but not the mayor?) he denied the quote that was attributed to him above by Scatizziand and said that, since receiving the notice from their attorney about the court decision he has “stopped pulling for sale signs” from yards. He said that now, when he sees a for sale sign in a yard, he makes note of it and comes sends the property owner a letter advising them that they must obtain a compliance inspection before anyone new occupies the property. So I said, “basically a courtesy letter?” and he said that was correct. I then said “so in other words the city is not enforcing the part of the ordinance that requires a property owner to obtain an inspection PRIOR to advertising their property for sale” and Mr. Stocker said that was correct.
Now I’m Confused…
We have the mayor that has no knowledge of the lawsuit nor the decision of the appeals court but stresses the city would comply with the court’s ruling.
We have an inspector that DOES have knowledge of the lawsuit and the appellant court decision and says they are not enforcing the ordinance.
But then, I receive two letters from Mark Scatizzi which back up what he has told me. Both letters are on letterhead of the City of Bellefontaine neighbors and are from the Building Department. The first letter is dated February 22, 2010 (the appellant court decision was on January 26, 2010) and states that “The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors has a Property Maintenance Code which requires that a house inspetion be completed before properties are offered for sale, rental or changing tenants.” The letter then goes on to add “After the Inspection is completed, the property may be placed on the market.” Hmm, certainly sounds like they are still enforcing the ordinance…the letter does not say what Mr. Stocker told me the letters say. The second letter is dated March 2, 2010 and while, instead of appearing to be a “form letter” like the first letter, still says the same thing, that “The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors has a Property Maintenance Code which requires that a House Inspection be completed before properties are offered for sale, rental or the changing of tenants.”
I believe that Steve Murphy, Mark Scatizzi’s attorney, has been in contact with the attorney for the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors.
Ah, the fun never ends.
Dennis Norman
Update: March 23, 2010: In spite of the concern of many organizations including the St. Louis Association of REALTORS, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the Title Insurance folks, the Board of Alderman passed the vacant property ordinance on March 12th – Now that lenders and title companies are aware of potential title and lien issues with this bill I have no doubt investors, and even homeowners, are going to run into some roadblocks when trying to finance property in the City of St. Louis – 2/3 of the Alderman voted in favor of the bill:
The Following Aldermen Voted FOR the Bill: Troupe, Flowers, Bosley, Ford-Griffin, Triplett, Young, Kennedy, Davis, Schmid, French, Boyd, Cohn, Williamson,Carter, Krewson and President Reed.
Voting AGAINST the Bill and in favor of property rights were the following Aldermen: Ortmann, Villa, Heitert, Gregali, Baringer, Vaccaro and Waterhouse. – end of update
In about 2 hours the board of alderman for the City of St Louis will most likely vote to pass the “Vacant Property Registration” bill that I wrote about last week in a post, pointing out what I feel are serious issues the bill has. In spite of opposition by the St. Louis Association of REALTORS(R), The Mortgage Bankers Association, as well as many other property owners, reahbbers and investors, the Board of Alderman for the City of St. Louis will most likely pass the bill this morning. If that happens, Mayor Slay still has the opportunity to stop this bad piece of legislation by using his veto power, but, from what I hear, this won’t happen most likely, “it’s not the way city politics works”.
In the face of yet another layer of bureaucratic red tape and fees that stand between property owners and their property I thought now may be a good time to share a story of just how ridiculous some of these things are, as well as the risk of having “criminal penalties” (such as jail time) for “civil” matters, (such as regitering a vacant property).
Back in 2005 or early 2006 I was involved in the purchase of a vacant building in the city. The building was in bad condition, and in a neighborhood that was sort of rough, but we purchased it because we felt some nearby redevelopment may continue to spread into this area and make it cost effective to rehab and restore the building or, in the alternative, tear it down and build something new.
After we purchased it we did secure the building as required by ordinance, including boarding up windows and I think we removed a porch that was in bad condition….at one point we even put a new roof on the building to protect it and prevent further deterioration, even though by that time the real estate market was deteriorating and our hopes of rehabbing the property was no longer feasible.
Somewhere along the line the City issued us a couple of notices of violation on the property….one came from one arm of city governement and was a list of 9 or 10 building code violations they wanted addressed (one of which was the roof….my partner worked with the city and it was agreed that if we took care of the 5 or 6 “serious” violations then we could ignore the rest….the inspector realized at this point we were looking for a rehabber to buy the property…so, we took care of those items…..during the same time period, from another arm of the city, we received a condemnation notice on the building….it was being condemned for basically the same violations as we were dealing with the inspector on.
Now, here is where there was an error on our part, albeit an honest one, my partner who was dealing with the buidling inspector thought our “deal” with him over the violations was satisfying all issues with the city. After getting summoned to court over the violations on the condemnation notice it was evident there was something wrong. Thinking it was a simple miscommunication between two city offices, my partner did not panic but worked to get the confusion resolved. He was in contact with the inspector who kept assuring him everything was OK and would then tell the judge this on the next court appearance. Unfortunately it took him a while to figure out that the building inspector had nothing to do with the condemnation notice as it was handled by a different office. It was about this time that the judge started mentioning “Jail Time” (the ordinance provided for this, I think the wording is pretty much the same as the vacant property ordinance).
With the judge threatening jail time, we decided to abandone the idea of “saving” this building and tear down the building to comply with the condemnation order (which was a financial disaster). We obtained a bid to demolish the building and were scrambling to get it torn down before our next court date. The Judge had made it clear if the problem wasn’t resolved by the next court date “someone was going to jail“. Guess what happened though? The city would not issue a demolition permit! It wasn’t because the building was a historic building, nor even in a historic district, it was simply because of the age of the building they thought it had “architectural significance”.
So below is a recap of where things stood at the time:
- The City had condemned the building and told us to bring it to code (which was financially impossible) or tear it down by a dealine or they would tear it down.
- We applied for a demo permit and were declined by the City
- The municipal judge was going to “throw someone in jail” (the property was in a corporation name so we weren’t sure who that “someone” would be but we didn’t want to find out.
So they city said “tear it down“….and the city said “don’t tear it Down“…
Quite a plight…
Point of the story? Over-regulation and too many overlapping ordinances can not only cause confusion and contradiction, but can really make it almost impossible for even the most responsible property owner to comply with all laws, or maybe even figure out what they are being expected to comply with. Oh yeah, and the “jail time” they put in building ordinances, like the vacant property one, that the Alderman assures you “we would never use” (which begs the question, why not take it out of the bill then) does in fact get used and you could find yourself as I did, pretty well innocently in a spot where you are facing it.
The outcome? By the Grace of God, someone surfaced that was willing to buy the building (I use the term “buy” loosely, we basically gave it to him for all intents and purposes). When we showed up at court with the sale contract the judge continued the case for a month and demanded we come back and prove the deal closed. Fortunately the buyer closed, we went back to court, proved the sale to the judge and considered ourselves lucky.
Dennis Norman
This story is part of my ongoing series on how local laws negatively impact the property rights of property owners in the St. Louis area
Unfortunately I don’t have to try too hard to find examples of local laws that seriously impact the rights of property owners in the St. Louis area, particularly those property owners that are landlords or other investors.
My story today comes from a friend of mine, a St. Louis REALTOR(R) that buys homes for his rental portfolio. For the sake of the article, and to help him avoid retaliation from Velda City, I’m going to refer to this person as “Joe” in this article.
Joe’s story is interesting, and scary. Joe purchased a home in Velda City, a small municipalty of 1,600 people with an average household income of $35,745, and one of 91 municipalities in St. Louis County, Missouri. Joe’s plan to was to rehab the house and rent it.
Velda City has an ordinance that requires an inspection by the City of the home before not only someone can move into the home (which is sort of typical), but also before ANY work can be done to the property. This part of the ordinance is a little unusual…most municipalities allow a property owner to work on their property and try to bring it in compliance with all local building codes prior to having it inspected so long as the house is not occupied prior to being “passed” by the city.
In this case, my friend Joe went by the house he bought one day after buying it so that he could show a prospective tenant the house and describe the improvements he was going to make as well as to leave a few tools in the garage.
Joe was present at the home he had purchased for a total of about 15 minutes when the Velda City Police showed up. They questioned why he was “on” his property prior to getting the home inspected. He explained that he was just showing the house to someone and dropping off some tools in the garage and assured the officer that no work was being done to the property. Unfortunately Joes explanation didn’t matter, the officer wrote him a ticket for, basically being in the home he owned.
So Joe got a ticket for being present on his property basically.
Dennis Norman
UPDATE: March 8, 2010 – I found out today the bill that was actually perfected last Friday was a floor substitute…Unfortunately the changes made to the bill were minor- they changed the public data base so that you have to enter a property address in order to look up the owners personal information (including phone number and email address) and they changed the wording to no longer make real estate agents and property managers responsible for property they don’t own. So basically, just a little window dressing to try to appease the REALTORS(R)…The bill is still a bad….
UPDATE: March 5, 2010–In spite of opposition to the bill by the St. Louis Association of REALTORS and others, the Board of Alderman perfected the bill today by a vote of 16-7. The next steip is for the bill to get final approval by the Board of Alderman on March 12th. Hopefully this can still be stopped.
Well, if Kacie Starr Triplett, Alderwoman for the 6th ward of the City of St. Louis, has her way, then both will have their private information listed in a public, online database for the whole world to see. The big difference is one such group is made up of felons convicted of some of the most despicable crimes short of murder one could commit, and the other group is made up of a group of property owners that own a property that has not been occupied for 6 months and could have as little as one building code violation. Hmm…
Triplett has sponsored a bill, Board Bill No. 322, which, if passed by the board of Alderman, would establish a “St. Louis Vacant Building Online Database for public access.” The bill states “the property owner shall provide the property owner’s street address, phone number and email address.” So, in a nutshell, if you are a property owner in the City of St. Louis and fall into this category, your personal contact information, including your phone number and email address, will be in a public database maintained by the City of St. Louis for all to see, just like convicted sex offenders. Oh wait, no, now that I am reviewing the sex offender registry they only reveal the address, they don’t even have to give a phone number and email address! Not to mention the sex offenders ended up in that situation after being convicted, you ended up there just by owning property (and having as little as 1 outstanding building code violation).
Thinking you’ll just say NO?
So you say “it’s none of their business and I just won’t give them the info”…..whoa, not so fast, let me quote the penalty in Tripletts bill for failure to provide this personal information:
“any person found to be in violation of provision of Section Six of this ordinance (that is the section requiring the personal info for the data base) shall be subject to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or to a term of imprisonment of not more than ninety days (90) or to both a fine and imprisonment.”
Did you catch the part about prison? Yep, refuse to give them your unlisted phone number or email address and risk 90 days in city jail…fun. What happens if you don’t have an email address? I’m not sure…
There’s more….Lose your property over $400
If you fail to pay the fee for registering your property, which is $200 for every six-month period it is vacant, after one-year the fee becomes a lien and the city can foreclose. So, you could lose your property over $400, just like someone in the city did in the past two months under the current vacant property ordinance (current law does not have the public database).
There’s still more…Are you a property manager or maintenance person? Read this
Under the “Vacant Building Maintenance” heading, the bill states:
“The owner of any building that has become vacant, and any person maintaining, operating or collecting rent for any building that has been determined vacant shall, within thirty (30) days, do the following:
1. Enclose and secure the building, as defined under the St. Louis City Revised Code Chapter 25.01.030, Section 118.3.1 All doors must be properly secured and windows on all floors of the building be properly secured;
2. Maintain the building in a secure and closed condition until the building is again occupied or until repair or completion of the building has been undertaken.”
Wanna guess what the penalty is for failure to comply with the above? You probably guessed same penalty as for failure to give the personal information? Close….
“any person found to be in violation of provision of Section Seven of this ordinance shall be subject to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or to a term of imprisonment of not more than ninety days (90) or to both a fine and imprisonment.
Every day that a violation continues shall constitute a seperate and distinct offense“
Did you catch the “every day” part? So, lets just say you are a property manager, or I guess maintenance man (I guess that is what she is referring to when she names people “maintaining” the property) or an owner and you have a vacant unit and fail, for one reason or another to properly secure the building in compliance with the codes (which is rather subjective, of course) for say 30 days; what maximum penalties are you facing under this new ordinance? Let’s do the math:
- Fine, $500 x 30 days = $15,000 total fine
- Imprisonment, 90 days x 30 days=2,700 days imprisonment (7.5 years)
Is it just me, or does this seem harsh?
So what’s wrong with all this?
I know my diatribe is getting lengthy so I’m going to wrap things up with what I see as issues with this ordinance in bullet points below:
- Invitation for theft – One problem property owners face in the city, particularly with vacant buildings, is theft and vandalism. I have had many airconditioning units stolen just for the copper coils inside, plumbing ripped out of houses for the copper as well. What more could a theif want? An online database that shows him every vacant buidling in the city? Stealing copper will be almost as easy as shopping at Wal-Mart.
- Privacy issues – I don’t think most poeple would want their phone number and email address put online for anyone to access.
- Lack of notice/due process– I’m very concerned about the city’s ability to turn this fee into a lien and foreclose on the property.
- FORGET GETTING A LOAN ON AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY – In my opinion, if this bill passes, I think it will be hard, if not IMPOSSIBLE, to get financing on an investment property in the city…reason being, Tripletts bill says after fees become delinquent for a year they become a lien and subject to foreclosure “in the same manner as delinquent real property taxes“… I’m not sure how a court is going to interpret this, but in the City a sale for back property taxes wipes out ALL liens, even senior liens (such as first deeds of trust)…by the wording of her bill I think the case could be made that the foreclosure on the liens wipes out senior liens as well….if that is the case lenders are going to be very concerned about lending money on a building that may end up being subject to vacant property registration…
I need to say, I am not defending derelict buildings or irresponsible property owners, I just don’t feel this is the way to deal with them. Ordinances like this, in my opinion, assume you are guilty and treat you that way, plus trample on your rights.
If you don’t own property in the City you may think this doesn’t affect you, but that may be temporary. Municipalities copy what is done in other municipalities all the time. If this ordinance passes in the City of St. Louis I promise you it will appear in other places as well. Perhaps where you live or own property.
In addition, speaking from experience, cities don’t usually stop with just one ordinance once they have forged new territory. If the city gets this ordinance through and deems it a success in their eyes, you can bet they will start looking at other “problem areas” they can attack in the same way. Many cities see rental property as a problem and claim tenants cause more calls to police, create more problems than homeowners, etc. What if tenants are the next target? How about a public data base showing the tenants name, phone number and email address? Think about it. Where does it stop?
Tripletts bill has already been through a committee and is moving forward. If you would like to voice your opinion on it I would suggest you contact her, or your alderman if you live in the city or perhaps Lewis Reed, the President of the Board of Alderman. Their contact information is below:
Alfred Wessels, Jr wesselsa@stlouiscity.com 13th Ward
Antonio French frencha@stlouiscity.com 21st Ward
April Ford-Griffin griffina@stlouiscity.com 5th Ward
Charles Quincy Troupe troupec@stlouiscity.com 1st Ward
Craig Schmid schmidc@stlouiscity.com 20th Ward
Dionne Flowers flowersd@stlouiscity.com 2nd Ward
Donna Baringer baringerd@stlouiscity.com 16th Ward
Frank Williamson williamsonf@stlouiscity.com 26th ward
Fred Heitert heitertf@stlouiscity.com 12th Ward
Freeman Bosley, Sr. bosleyf@stlouiscity.com 3rd Ward
Greg Carter carterg@stlouiscity.com 27th ward
Jeffrey Boyd boydj@stlouiscity.com 22nd Ward
Jennifer Florida floridaj@stlouiscity.com 15th Ward
Joe Vaccaro vaccaroj@stlouiscity.com 23rd Ward
Joseph Roddy roddyj@stlouiscity.com 17th ward
Joseph Vollmer vollmerj@stlouiscity.com 10th Ward
Kacie Starr Triplett triplettk@stlouiscity.com 6th Ward
Ken Ortmann ortmannk@stlouiscity.com 9th Ward
Lewis Reed reedl@stlouiscity.com President
Lyda Krewson krewsonl@stlouiscity.com 28th Ward
Marlene Davis davisma@stlouiscity.com 19th Ward
Matt Villa villam@stlouiscity.com 11th Ward
Phyllis Young youngp@stlouiscity.com 7th Ward
Samuel Moore moores@stlouiscity.com 4th Ward
Shane Cohn cohns@stlouiscity.com 25th Ward
Stephen Conway conways@stlouiscity.com 8th Ward
Steve Gregali gregalis@stlouiscity.com 14th Ward
Terry Kennedy kennedyt@stlouiscity.com 18th ward
William Waterhouse waterhousew@stlouiscity.com 24th Ward
Dennis Norman
Appeals Court Strikes Down Bellefontaine’s Ordinance Affecting Real Estate For Sale Signs
At the end of January the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District handed down a decision on a case that I think is a significant victory for St. Louis property owners and strikes down part of an ordinance that violates our property rights as well as our First Amendment Rights to free speech.
The case involves Mark Scatizzi, a local REALTOR® who, after listing a home for sale at 1027 Addision, in the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, advertised the property for sale and posted a “for sale” sign in the window of the property, all without first applying for an inspection of the home by Bellefontaine Neighbors. The City then charged Scatizzi by information in municipal court with two ordinance violations, the first being failure to have the property inspected and obtain a certificate of compliance from the City prior to marketing theproperty for sale, and the second being for displaying a “for-sale” sign in the window, again without obtaining the inspection first. Ultimately one charge was dismissed and the lower court ruled in favor of the City on the remaining one and fined Scattizi $100. Scattizi appealed the decision and the Appellant Court just reversed the lower courts ruling.
What Mark Scatizzi had faced with the City of Bellefontaine was something that many of us St Louis REALTORS® have to deal with daily; local ordinances that are passed that either affect owner’s property rights, impede an owner’s ability to sell a property or in some cases discourage ownership of rental property. In the case of Bellefontaine Neighbors, the city has in their property maintenance code the following requirement:
(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner or lessor of any property subject to the provisions of this code, or their agent, to advertise in any way, or to list with a real estate agent or other broker, such property for the purpose of selling, leasing, renting or otherwise transferring its ownership or possession, without first applying for the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance by the code official.
In his appeal Scatizzi stated that he felt this ordinance was unconstitutional and limited his right to free speech, below is an excerpt from the decision with the comments on this claim by Judge Clifford Ahrens who wrote the opinion of the appellant court:
In his first point, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in enforcing section 112.4(a) of ordinance 2057 because it violates his right to free speech, his right to contract, and his right against unreasonable search and seizure.
3 Regarding speech, Defendant contends specifically that, by prohibiting an owner or agent from advertising property without first applying for a certificate of compliance, section 112.4(a) places an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. We agree.
Scatizzi also claimed that the Bellefontaine ordinance violation a Missouri State Law (67.317 RSMo) that was passed back in 1984 that states “No political subdivision of this state shall enact or enforce any ordinance which forbids or restricts the right of any owner of an interest in real property or his agent from displaying on the property a sign of reasonable dimensions, as may be determined by local ordinance, advertising:”.
The appellant court agreed with Scatizzi on this point as well addressing as follows:
In his second point, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in not finding that section 112.4(a) of ordinance 2057 violates section 67.317 RSMo, which prohibits municipalities from restricting the right of homeowners and their agents to erect signs advertising real property for sale except as to sign size….
Superimposing the plain language of section 112.4(a) of ordinance 2057 over that of section 67.317 RSMo compels the conclusion that the ordinance violates the statute. The Supreme Court of Missouri reached such a conclusion under similar facts in City of Dellwood v. Twyford, 912 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1995). There, the city’s ordinance required owners to submit an application and pay a fee before advertising real property for sale. Noting that section 67.317 does not authorize cities to impose any restrictions other than reasonable dimension restrictions, the Court held the ordinance invalid. Id. at 60. Likewise here, section 112.4(a) of ordinance 2057 purports to impose a restriction that section 67.317 expressly prohibits. As such, we hold it invalid. Point granted.
And finally the conclusion of the appellant court decision was:
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
I assumed that this decision by the appellant court would cause the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors to stop enforcing the part of their ordinance deemed unconstitutional and in violation of State Law by the appellant court, but it appears my assumption may be wrong, at least for now. I say this because I just called Bellefontaine to confirm they were not enforcing these parts of the ordinance and after speaking with Karen in the building department it appears the city is still enforcing the ordinance, in spite of the appellant court decision.
I asked Karen if I was a homeowner and called city hall saying that I wanted to put my home on the market and was it OK to advertise it and put up a for-sale sign what I would be told and she told me that I would be told that I need to come in and fill out a building inspection application, pay the fee, and then after the initial building inspection I could then advertise my home for sale and put up a sign. Hmm…not sure what they are thinking…..
