In the post-911 world, where do we draw the line on gathering information? Quakertown council, frequently the target of criticism for avoiding the tough issues, could now be the focus of the war on terror, illegal immigration, and America's civil liberties. There is a fight brewing in town, because there is finally a proposed ordinance worth fighting for.
This controversy started innocently enough as a measure to insure the safety of the borough's aging rental properties, modeled after a law that has been successful in Souderton since 2003. It would require inspections of all residential and commercial rentals, to verify that they meet the applicable regulations, including the fire, construction, and electrical codes. This would focus on safety items like wiring, plumbing, smoke detectors, fire alarms, and handrails. This seems like a no-brainer, especially in a town where an amazing 35 percent of all residences are leased.
But there is a group that opposes the ordinance: the Suburban Realtors Alliance. The folks who make their livings promoting the buying and selling of buildings - or being landlords themselves. The folks who might have to remedy substandard and illegal conditions.
The SRA has already suggested that they might fight the ordinance, including the proposed inspection fee of $100 every two years. And one local realtor, who owns property in the borough, even warned that the ordinance could induce "good" owners to move away, presumably leaving us at the mercy of less-good landlords. Scare. Scare. Scare.
Never fear. Realtors threatened to fight the ordinance in Souderton, but did nothing. Objections to Qtown's fee are baseless: four dollars per month would not bankrupt either the landlord, or the tenant (if the cost is added to the rent). As for the absurd complaint that the town could be successfully sued if an inspected unit later has a fire - nonsense! If that was so, nothing would ever be inspected, anywhere, for anything. In fact, since the borough is well aware of problems, they might be found negligent for not inspecting! And, of course, there is the race card. Council is accused of targeting Latinos. Ay caramba! Council members have a few faults, but racism is surely not one of them.
Councilman David Zaiser is willing to listen. "I can understand the landlords' point of view, however, I am not sure they understand the safety issues that council is concerned with. We need a working dialogue between council members, tenants, and landlords who are willing to work with council to come up with a good ordinance."
The key here is "landlords willing to work with council". Many buildings, even in the downtown area that Quakertown Alive is now trying so hard to rehabilitate, have been allowed to deteriorate because no one ever pressed the owners to do anything about them. With little demand for nicer apartments, some landlords saw no reason to renovate. They collected what they could, and did the minimum. Or less.
But, after decades of inaction, council is finally embracing the future. With over $900,000 in grants to begin our much-overdue facelift, there is hope for reversing the long downtown slide. But government can not do it alone. Private property owners must join in. Council can't force them to upgrade, but we must at least make sure that the buildings are safe, and that landlords aren't risking a catastrophe by ignoring necessary repairs.
And despite scare-scare-scare claims that the ordinance might drive out good landlords, the likelihood is that regular inspections, and borough improvements, will actually encourage those good landlords, who probably already comply. Council candidate John Flynn has first-hand experience. "When I had a rental property in Bethlehem I was for the rental ordinance they had. It made me feel that other properties in the area were being kept up to code, and would help maintain a safe living environment for the tenants as well as keeping property values at a decent level."
And candidate Ed Scholl offered the most compelling argument: "We must protect those who need protecting. The landlords have their organization. But who is speaking for the tenants? That is our job, as well as providing an incentive for landlords to do business in our borough."
But council has also gone beyond the bricks and mortar, venturing into the murky waters of individual privacy. The proposed ordinance would require landlords to register all residential units, and disclose the name of every occupant. There are good reasons: insure that the number of people in each unit does not exceed the legal maximum, and see that all tenants pay Earned Income Tax. To do so, Quakertown would catalog the names of several thousand renters.
But what's the big deal? There are already similar compilations - telephone books, voter registrations, tax rolls, school directories, home ownership records. Why not a list of renters? We might even learn which landlords tend to have problem tenants, along with their problem buildings. Hey, some of those supposedly "good" landlords may not be so good after all.
Depending on your point of view, collecting information is either very helpful, or very destructive. Homeland Security, law enforcement, and the tax collector would be in the first column. Presumably it would be more difficult for anyone, including sex offenders, bail jumpers, deadbeat parents, or illegal aliens, to hide here if their identities are readily available. As council candidate Michele Scarborough observed, "The general concept of the proposed ordinance has raised council's awareness of its responsibility to promote the health, safety, welfare and quality of life for our residents."
So, does the "good" outweigh the "bad" in forcing landlords to register their tenants? Or are we again chipping away at our personal liberties in the name of security? Council VP Jim Roberts is rightfully cautious: "Do we want to create an atmosphere of that kind of control in a community like ours - or any American community for that matter? Hopefully, council (which has never been good with confrontation) will not cave in to pressure from any group. This ordinance is worth fighting for.