Cedar Rapids looks to crack down on absentee landlords by changing nuisance property policy

CEDAR RAPIDS — In a 7-2 vote Tuesday, the Cedar Rapids City Council advanced proposed changes to a nuisance abatement policy that would crack down on absentee landlords who don’t show up for inspections or otherwise neglect their properties — after several landlords spoke against the changes, largely for fear that a one-time failure to make an inspection or plow snow will land their properties on the list.

Among several proposed amendments to Chapter 22A, the ordinance outlining regulations for nuisance properties, is a change that would allow one “no show” trip, where a property owner fails to appear for an inspection scheduled by the city, to result in a nuisance property designation. The city currently allows for two “no show” trips before a property gets on the nuisance list.

Amanda Grieder, manager of the Safe CR program, said inspections are a key part of property maintenance for tenants, property owners, property managers and neighbors, and are vital to ensuring safety. The Building Services department imposes a “no show” fee on property owners who are habitually unresponsive and absent from inspections, Grieder said. In 2021, Safe CR sent 10 owners notices of violation for no-show trip fees.

“It's not something that Building Services is issuing without warning,” Grieder said. “It's not something that Building Services is issuing for somebody who maybe had a child care issue or maybe they were sick, so they're really looking at those property owners who are habitually violating that section of their ordinance and not showing up for their inspections due to just being an absentee landlord.”

Under the proposed changes, a property also would be deemed a nuisance if, within a 12-month period, the city has to clear snow, mow lawns or remove junk, debris and/or solid waste one time.

Grieder said Safe CR is not implementing additional fees for these types of activities, but a nuisance property designation affords the city additional opportunities to communicate with these property owners to check whether they need assistance, such as referrals to social service agencies that could help them mow the lawn.

The city would have to abate the nuisance at the property before it becomes a nuisance property, Grieder said.

The proposed changes also clarify that conviction of a case is not needed for the city to deem a property a nuisance. Changes also clarify that the nuisance ordinance is not intended to penalize victims of crime or domestic violence, or those calling on their behalf, when they seek law enforcement assistance.

Changes will come before council for a second and possible third consideration at a future meeting. That could be at its Dec. 21 meeting or a January meeting.

Several landlords spoke in opposition Tuesday, supporting most changes but taking issue with those regulating “Tier D” activities with inspections and snow or debris removal. Several said that allowing just a one-time occurrence of these activities before receiving a nuisance designation was unreasonable.

Robert Mitchell, a board member of Landlords of Linn County, said he was not speaking for the group but noted its members felt they had not had enough time to review the changes, nor sufficient engagement with staff after learning of the proposal in November.

Of the landlords and owners Mitchell said he spoke with, “every one of us has missed a meeting, even city inspectors,” and felt this was a “harsh” proposal.

Darryl High, founder of High Properties, said he has bought properties and later learned they had never been registered with the city and had never been inspected, seemingly not because of any ill intent. He felt the city should think of other ways to encourage property registration.

“If you're me, and you're paying about $25,000 a year, not just in Linn County but in other places to have your properties, you're trying to play by the rules, trying to do the right thing,” High said. “I would just ask the City Council before we add a list of rules, of which some are probably reasonable, but this might be an opportunity for us to urge staff to go, ‘How are we making sure that all the properties within our city limits are registered?’”

Council member Ashley Vanorny praised the work with social service agencies on the amendments and said the city learned through its response to last year’s derecho that too many property owners are not responsive.

“We want to make sure that we’re always protecting our most vulnerable citizens, and we’re doing that with these amendments,” Vanorny said.

Council member Dale Todd, also a landlord and developer, said the city absorbs a cost to abate nuisances, and he felt taxpayers should not subsidize the cost of property owners not showing for an inspection of plowing their sidewalks.

“The city is not in the business of babysitting and mowing and shoveling private landlords’ properties,” Todd said.

If property owners incur charges as a result and it stems from a tenant’s activity, Todd suggested landlords incorporate it into the lease so that tenants pay. Some landlords had suggested this will force them to raise rents at a time the city already faces an affordable housing shortage.

“We’re here today because there’s a segment of the landlord population that continues to disregard the code, disregard the rights and responsibilities of the neighbors adjacent their properties, they continue to thumb their nose at city staff, at what we’re trying to do, all the time and energy we’re trying to do to stabilize these neighborhoods,” Todd said. “And we’re still working with the same people time and time again.”

Council members Marty Hoeger and Pat Loeffler voted against the changes. Hoeger said there could be an issue where a property owner doesn’t receive a notice of inspection on time, or someone forgot an appointment. He took issue with the one-time allowance and wanted to see property owners given more leeway, so long as they do not habitually miss inspections.

“I also think we’re incentivizing people to not register their property by doing something like this,” Hoeger said. “If I own a four-plex and I hear about this and I read about it in the paper, what is my incentive to register this property with the city knowing that if I miss an appointment, I will now be deemed a nuisance property?”

The council also advanced a proposal to expand standards for accessory dwelling units on a second reading, with Todd voting against it. A third consideration will be held later.

Comments: (319) 398-8494; marissa.payne@thegazette.com