Content

 

About Building Blocks

 

Search

 

Building Awareness and Public Support

Building Capacity for Lead Safety

Collaborations, Partnerships, and Incentives

Financing and Subsidies

Lead Safety and Healthy Homes Standards

Targeting High Risk Homes

Using Code Enforcement and Other Systems

 

 

Appendices

 

 

Building Blocks Full Text [PDF]

 

 

CDC-Funded Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs

 

 

Produced by the Alliance for Healthy Homes and the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

 

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 


Acknowledgements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Building Blocks | Search Building Blocks for Primary Prevention

Using Code Enforcement and Other Systems

 

Preclude Owners from Renting Units that have been Cited for Hazards

 

Click here for PDF version or MS Word version

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGY

Prohibiting owners from renting dwellings that have been cited for lead hazards provides a strong incentive for owners to address the hazards. A jurisdiction can issue an order to vacate (or even cite the unit as unfit for human occupancy) and declare those units uninhabitable. Jurisdictions that require rental licenses or certificates of occupancy can revoke them for cited units to achieve the same end. A prohibition of occupancy must be coupled with measures to protect tenants from eviction, offer relocation assistance when absolutely necessary, and safeguard against possible loss of affordable housing due to gentrification.   

 

BENEFITS

Immediate/Direct Results:  With the potential loss of rental income, property owners will be motivated to remediate hazards.

 

Public Health Benefits:  Hazards will be removed and fewer children will be poisoned. Rental housing will meet minimum standards, resulting in healthier and safer housing.

 

Other Indirect/Collateral Benefits: More public awareness regarding lead hazards, lead poisoning, and lead poisoning prevention.

 

Scope of Potential Impact

City - or - County - Wide

Neighborhood/Community

 

PRIMARY ACTOR(S)
KEY PARTNER(S)
Building or Code Inspection Agency
Housing Agency
Federal Agencies

 

CRITICAL ELEMENTS

Staff requirements: Additional staffing may be needed to process paperwork such as notices and placards, re-inspect units, and, after violations are cured, approve properties for reoccupancy.

 

Other resource requirements:

 

Institutional capacity required:   Local code must stipulate that a certificate of occupancy is required for all rental property and contingent on compliance with minimum property maintenance standards.

 

Cost considerations:

 

Timing issues: Officials must be realistic about the start-up time needed for initial inspections and certifications.

 

Feasibility of Implementation:  It is helpful for the local jurisdiction to have funding for grants and low-cost loans available to help owners make repairs. Also, partnerships with community organizations to provide outreach and educational materials for property owners can help landlords come into compliance before inspections, thereby minimizing tenant displacement.  

 

Potential Obstacles/Barriers

Without funding for grants and loans and in the absence of local community group partnerships to provide education and outreach to property owners, code enforcement officials may issue a great deal of citations initially, which may increase tensions with property owners. Also, whatever database is used to identify rental units must be current in order to reach as many properties as possible.  

 

Additional Resources

1.

ICC International Property Code §301.1 and §304.3

 

 

 

ILLUSTRATION OF STRATEGY IN PRACTICE

As of January 2004, Greensboro requires all residential property owners to acquire and maintain a valid Rental Unit Certificate of Occupancy (CO) before the property can be rented or leased. Units that meet the International Property Maintenance Code minimum standards on the first inspection (or re-inspection within 45 days) get a free five-year CO. Units that do not meet the standards within 45 days must be vacated until the unit is brought into compliance; at this point, owners must pay $250 for the CO. With additional complaints, the costs rise. Once the unit has a CO, if a complaint inspection results in a violation, the unit must be vacated. Owners must then repair within 45 days and pay $500 to restore the CO. The next verified complaint also results in a revoked CO and a vacated unit, but restoring the CO will cost $500 plus $25 for each day that the unit is out of compliance. The IPMC lists peeling and deteriorating paint as a violation. When an inspector cites a property for paint violations, the owner is referred to the housing and community development program to apply for a lead hazard control grant. A local non-profit, the Greensboro Housing Coalition (GHC), also provides outreach to landlords to educate them about minimum standards and help them find solutions for rental property problems. GHC is also prepared to assist displaced tenants.

 

Jurisdiction or Target Area
Greensboro, NC

 

Primary Actor

Greensboro, NC, Engineering & Inspections Department, Local Ordinance Enforcement (LOE) program


Staffing utilized

Greensboro implemented the RUCO program with existing staff, but added one full-time program assistant; three part-time inspectors were also brought on to take over other department projects. Six full-time inspectors average between eight and 10 inspections per day; they expect to inspect the city’s 45,000 rental units by 2009.

 

Other resources utilized

The Greensboro code enforcement program used this opportunity to revamp software and purchase new notepad computers for mobile operations.  

 

Factors essential to implementation

A requirement that all rental property receive a certificate of occupancy that is dependent on property maintenance code compliance.

 

Limitations/challenges/problems encountered

Greensboro’s existing rental unit database was not current, so they had to develop a new database. The number of requests by property owners for inspections, in lieu of waiting until the inspectors reach that area of the city, exceeded the city’s expectations.

 

Magnitude of Impact/Potential Impact

Greensboro implemented RUCO in January 2004, so the actual impact cannot yet be measured. However, prior to RUCO, there were no negative consequences for landlords who do not respond promptly to repair orders. With a real tracking system in place with very clear consequences (i.e. loss of rental income), local code enforcers believe there will be a dramatic and permanent change in Greensboro rental housing.

 

Potential for Replication

Once the ordinance was passed, there were no significant additional burdens to overcome, making this a simple yet effective strategy to replicate.

 

Contact for Specific Information
Dan Reynolds
Inspections Division Manager
336-412-6216
dan.reynolds@greensboro-nc.gov
Beth McKee-Huger
Greensboro Housing Coalition
336-691-9521
rachelltv@aol.com

 

References for additional information
1. - Greensboro, NC, Code of Ordinances §11-40 (1961) (effective Jan. 1, 2004)

 

Previous Building Block
Inform Rental Property Owners of Federal Lead Hazard Disclosure Requirements
Next Building Block
Report Problem Rental Property Owners to HUD and EPA for Disclosure Enforcement