
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, November 16, 1995                   TAG: 9511160031
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-16   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

GETTING TOUGH ON SLUMLORDS

THE FLEDGLING Roanoke Property Investors Association need not consist entirely of slumlords, or include very many or even any of them, for this to be true: Closed-minded opposition to the idea of regular inspections of rental property gives aid and comfort to the owners who are slumlords.

Inspections are hardly a novel concept. They are working well in places as diverse as Lynchburg and Virginia Beach. The association's opposition to any such program, never mind the details, at best bespeaks a blinkered view of the gravity of the problem of dilapidated housing in Roanoke's older neighborhoods. At worst, it bespeaks a fear of any inhibitions on profits to be made from human misery and urban deterioration.

Such misery arises when the owners of substandard property are perfectly willing to collect rents from tenants who occupy units with holes in the roof, or heating that doesn't work, or toilets that don't flush. The misery can be direct - as in the case, say, of an elderly tenant who lacks the knowledge, energy or material resources to battle an uncaring landlord and risk eviction. Or the misery can be indirect - as in the case, say, of neighbors who have to put up with the consequences when an unquestioning landlord rents a unit to drug users who couldn't care less about the property's condition.

The profit potential of dilapidation arises from various sources, some more amenable to reform than others. Among them: the workings of tax laws; some landlords' preference for current income over long-term capital gain or preservation; and how neighborhood deterioration encourages a shift from owner occupancy to high-density, multi-unit rentals, thereby expanding slumlord business opportunities.

Beware crocodile tears shed for inspections' allegedly adverse impact on homelessness and the poor. As Ted Edlich, president of Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke, noted nearly a year ago on our Commentary page, substandard housing doesn't help the poor, it hurts them. When inner-city neighborhoods are allowed to decline, for instance, that reduces the stock of affordable housing in secure areas for low- and moderate-income working families hoping to climb onto the home-ownership ladder.

Beware, too, nitpicking at program details that haven't been decided. Items like the frequency of inspections and the method of financing the program - whether by imposing an inspection fee on landlords, shifting spending priorities for federal community-development money, or using general tax revenues - are negotiable. In Lynchburg, such items were worked out to the general satisfaction of all parties, including the Lynchburg Property Managers Association.

Occupants, to be sure, often share blame for housing conditions. But a regular inspection program adds nothing to what landlords are supposed to be doing anyway. And it would provide a tool, not currently available in Roanoke, for enforcing the law; for helping to ensure that an apartment isn't a vermin-infested health hazard or a fire waiting to happen.

While it's true that all landlords shouldn't be tarred with the sins of a few, it's also true that somebody owns the hundreds of substandard dwellings in Roanoke and the hundreds more that are borderline. If meeting minimum safety and health standards is too much for some to bear, they should find another line of work.

by CNB