This is the Texas Association of Realtors Endorsement. Texas size.

Share Yesterday at 7:36am

Seen by 76 4 people like this.

John Murphy Wendy, thanks for your interest in the mayoral election in Richardson but I have to ask why realtors are coming out in support of weakening the Rental Registration and Inspection program which has been so popular with homeowners in our neighborhoods? The vast majority of Richardson's neighborhood associations have come out strongly in favor of

maintainig rental standards through a regular inspection program similiar to inspections of apartments. The program is designd to protect the tenants from the few landlords who cut corners on providing safe housing for rent. I'm surprised that folks in the business of selling homes would support eliminating or weakening a program designed to protect homeowners in the neighborhoods. Sounds like fees from investors come first to your assocaiation rather than community. Yesterday at 7:53am

Dave Chenoweth John, I think at the city council the realtors spoke against some of the aspects of the Rental Registration Program. I might be wrong, but that is what I remember. As for the HOA/NA an association being for or against, that doesnt mean much to me. What does mean something is the city required renter to be treated as second class citizens. Requiring the inspection to be done after a tenant moves in is wrong. As well intentioned as it might be, if I were a renter and the inspectors wanted to come in and inspection my home after I had already moved in, I wouldnt let them in the house. I think you would find far more violations in owner/occupied homes. If inspections, for the health safety and welfare of the people needed to be done, that is where it is most needed. You asked in another thread, Is it wise to have city codes or policies that apply only to a certain class of citizen or employee? Is this not exactly what the rental Inspection Program does? Your sentence that followed that question would be my answer: It seems the law would require equal treatment. Yesterday at 8:32am Edited 1

Cheri Duncan-Hubert John, that is so slanted in an improper way. It is a control mechanism to control the very, very few landlords who do not understand the Real Estate investor role. Thus far, how many homes have not passed the inspection? And of those that have not passed, what are the infringements? If it were really the importance you say, then put it to a vote of the entire city and see what support it will truly garner. Yesterday at 8:35am 1

Cheri Duncan-Hubert Please also put some truth in that this was put up as an ordinance in 2003 and never acted upon until recently. It is also a nationally implemented action that has been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court as an infringement of 4th Amendment rights. Garland for example got a big lesson in it's application. Anyone can google rental registration and find all kinds of information from state to state on the infractions. This ordinance has a much DIFFERENT PURPOSE because of legislation that is so strong between a landlord and tenant. A Landlord cannot infringe on a tenant in the manner this ordinance requires. Please do explain more, John! Yesterday at 8:47am Edited 1

Dave Chenoweth Last I knew, as reported in the paper, of 644 rental homes inspection, only one failed. I think Don Magner was quoted as saying that. Seems, based on those numbers, there may be better things to spend money on. Yesterday at 8:45am 1

David Farnham Mr. Murphy, if the city suspects that there are only a few landlords who dont provide safe housing, how does that justify intruding on the privacy of tenants? You understand, dont you, that landlords are being prosecuted in Richardson AFTER THEIR TENANTS REFUSE to admit inspectors, as is their right under the citys own rental registration/inspection ordinance and under the Constitution? 23 hours ago 2

Luke Lukas There are over 30,000 households in Richardson and this ordinance only applies to 2500 homes that happen to be occupied by a neighbor that happens to be a tenant. Free markets protect the tenant. If the home is not rentable they wont rent it. There are plenty of other ordinances that protect the neighborhood associations from a run down

home. Nuisance abatement, tall grass, illegal watering, parking one tire on my lawn, low trees, occupancy limits, over night parking, we dont need to register our neighbors. This ordinance is registering a certain class of people, tenants. I think they tried this in Germany a few years ago. People rent residential property to fit in to the neighborhood. How does registering and inspecting their home benefit that mind set?? The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 22 hours ago Edited

John Murphy David, Dave, Cheri and any others, my question was directed towards realtors not frequent commentors, investors or others owning rent houses and not liking the rules of renting in the ciy. I have no interest in debating the rule, only in why the realtors are opposed to a rule that strengthens the neighborhoods. 23 hours ago

Cheri Duncan-Hubert Well, you have access to one realtor who spoke to the Council about it. Ms Fredericks is still on the CPC, isn't she? I do not know her as well as you do, John. What about getting her to respond here? 23 hours ago Edited

John Murphy Great idea! Well, she is a member of this group and I always have valued her input. I think there may be a couple of others who still hold their real estate lics. in the group. 23 hours ago

Cheri Duncan-Hubert That is fabulous, John. Let's see who posts! But it appears the realtors assoc. has spoken loudly with their donations. 22 hours ago Edited

John Murphy I would like to say to Mr. Lukas that his points are well taken but I think he misunderstands the purpose of the ordinance. The ordinance is dircted towards the items inside the home that may not be evident to the renter. I'm talking about work done which requires an inspection such as electrical, plumbing, HVAC work which may have been done by unlicenced workers against code. The inspection was designed to insure health, safety and welfare of renters. 22 hours ago

Cheri Duncan-Hubert It just says you do not understand the real estate investor community, John. If you recall, I tried to get a collective meeting for our neighborhood years ago and the was told it was not possible. This ordinance is a great way to rally that community together. Not. 22 hours ago Edited 1

Luke Lukas I think that is a ruse, Mr. Murphy, to tax investors. The Texas property code already protects the tenants in these instances. If a landlord does not fix or comply with an unsafe or unhealthy dwelling, a judge would slap that landlord so hard up side his head hed be seeing 2 Tuesdays. For the health and safety of the community, let's register and inspect every

home in Richardson. 22 hours ago 1

Luke Lukas It's still a home even if it is occupied by a tenant. 22 hours ago 1

John Murphy No, Mr Lukas, it's health and safety of the "renter". The owner/occupier has a vested interested in keeping things safe around the house although some have made bad choices with electrical and gas repairs which have resulted in death. It comes down to a few bad investors that give the quality investors, such as yourself a bad name. But the city has made progress in finding them out. One thing I'm sure you know is that the council is very committed to keeping this valuable ordinance in place. Anything you've been promised or imagine will result by whoever is elected mayor,will not come to pass without 4 votes. As popular as this ordinance is with HOA, it's unlikely to be vacated. No pun intented 22 hours ago

Shelley Bebinger McCall Mr. Murphy, I think fees are what the city really wants out of this, in addition to control. Per the TAR in Austin, it it a violation against the : Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. Citizens do not need more "protection" by the government, but protection FROM the government. What's next? Vacation homes and then personal homes? A friend of mine recently has her kitchen remodeled. At the last inspection, after the inspector had checked her kitchen, he insisted upon looking at the rest of her house. She was too intimidated to stop him, but called me immediately after to tell be about it because she was so upset. I don't think it made her feel "more safe." Quite the contrary. 22 hours ago 1

Luke Lukas That is unbelievable Shelley; I wish she would have called you before letting the inspector look at the rest of her house. Most people don't want to stand up to the city in these instances. 21 hours ago 1

David Farnham Mr. Murphy, answer the question. If renters don't want city inspectors in their private domicile, what business does the city have in

forcing its way in by prosecuting the landlord? So you don't believe in renters' privacy rights under the Constitution? 20 hours ago

Mike Maczka Richardson deserves better... Vote Laura for mayor 19 hours ago via mobile

John Murphy Mr Farnham , the ordinance was written to only require inspection when there is a change in occupants. So, the answer to your question is to inspect before the new folks move in. That solves any right to privacy issues and as important give the landlord time to fix any problems before new renters move in. 19 hours ago via mobile

John Murphy Where are all the realtors today? Hope they're selling homes to owner occupants.

19 hours ago via mobile

Dave Chenoweth Tacky John, renters are people too. 19 hours ago via mobile 1

Dave Chenoweth I think I will pass on your suggestion Mike, but thanks 19 hours ago via mobile 1

Dave Chenoweth John, on the timing issue, unless I misread the ordinance, what is required is an inspection AFTER a person moves in, not before. Maybe I misread. 19 hours ago via mobile Edited 1

John Murphy If that's true then it's changed since I last reviewed it. If that's the case it does complicate. Might be worth councils time to review an fix timing to be more occupant friendly. If it changed then timing might have changed to accommodate the owner by not delaying tenant moving in. I'll look at it again. 19 hours ago via mobile

Dave Chenoweth John, I thought you were familiar with the current ordinance. Richardson revised its ordinance after Garland lost its case. The court ruled in the Dearborn case that inspection of rental properties cant be forced upon an empty property. Richardson revised its ordinance to do the inspection only after someone moved in, within 30 day. Currently, when a property owner setups up the inspection, if the tenant refuses entry, the property owner is charge with a crime for the tenants refusal to allow entry. That is hardly fair to be charge with a crime because of someone elses actions. Several cases have gone before the city court. I didnt going that far into detail before because I would have thought you would have known the current ordinance. Mistake on my part apparently. 19 hours ago 1

Dave Chenoweth Opps, Dearmore, not Dearborn (I think) 18 hours ago Edited

Luke Lukas Roy Dearmore is right. Thank you Dave. 18 hours ago

John Murphy Then I stand corrected. I knew Garland lost but did not realize it moved to occupied inspection with "right of refusal" without a mediation required. More work needed to resolve. But my original question of realtors still stands. Why are they twisted around this issue. It's not an issue stopping the sale of homes. It's a landlord city inspection. 18 hours ago via mobile

John Murphy Issue. 18 hours ago via mobile

Dave Chenoweth I see you have fat finger/small key syndrome also John Or at least that is what I call it 18 hours ago

John Murphy David, so who has responsibility if the tenant finds a problem with the property after they refused access to inspectors. I guess they deal directly with the landlord and, if called by the tenant just says sorry, cant help. Any cases yet you're aware of? 18 hours ago via mobile

John Murphy Yes I do. 18 hours ago via mobile 1

Dave Chenoweth The proceedure are set out this way: Propery nwer setup a time for inspection 2) inspector goes to the property to do the inspection 3) either the tenant allows or does not allow inspection. At that point, the city has two options, by ordiance the way I read it. They can go to Judge Noan

and get an administrative search warrant. That warrant has to be issued on probably cause and the refusal to allow entry does not consitute probably cause. Then the inspectors can go back out and use what ever force is needed to inspect the home. This is where thing get weird. What the city is doing, is not forcing their way in, but charging the property owner with the crime of not making the house available for inspection. That is the second problem I have with the ordinance, first, it is an inspection after someone moves in, then if the property owner does not force the tenant to allow the inspection, the property owner is charge with a crime, class c or a, something like that. I will get a link to the current ordinance and post it. 18 hours ago

Dave Chenoweth here is the richardson ordinance - http://graphics.dctm.com/RentalHomeInspections.pdf 18 hours ago Edited

Dave Chenoweth here is the garland case where it was rule inspections could not be done before a tenant moves in http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx? page=1&xmldoc=20051294400FSupp2d894_11226.xml&docbase=CSLWAR 2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7 18 hours ago

John Murphy Thanks David. 18 hours ago via mobile

Dave Chenoweth You are welcome John, any time 18 hours ago

Luke Lukas The landlord and the tenant have a signed binding contract/ a lease, if the landlord does not respond in a predetermined period of time, the landlord will be in big legal trouble. They have the city, a judge, a lawyer, and the Texas State Attorney General to go to. https://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/tenants.shtml 18 hours ago

Luke Lukas I can understand the city wanting to be proactive on this but to preempt anyones constitutional rights is beyond me. 18 hours ago

John Murphy Mr Lukas, anything in the rental agreement mandating access? I know apartment leases used to have access guaranteed for the landlord or if health and safety were involved. 18 hours ago via mobile

David Farnham Where is the evidence that the rental registration/inspection ordinance has widespread support among neighborhood associations? Was there a vote, or it just more anecdotal, untraceable, unprovable theory? When the ordinance was passed in 2003, more than one neighborhood association came out strongly against it. You dont want to discuss the rule, because the rule is indefensible. Any rational, reasonable person weve discussed this issue with has been startled to find that the program involves the city forcing its way into rental properties when tenants say no. Why havent we heard from you, John, since I asked you the question: What business does the city have forcing its way into rental properties over the objections of the tenants?

17 hours ago 1

John Murphy Apparently the answer is not clear and a solution is not been resolved to anyone's satisfaction. 17 hours ago via mobile 1

David Farnham That's why we, landlords and tenants, asked the city council to place it on the agenda so the problem could be discussed. This is the response we received from Mayor Townsend: "The City Council carefully considered this issue and provided numerous opportunities for public input throughout the program's development. In addition, we regularly receive updates on all of our code enforcement programs so that we can gauge their effectiveness." So, basically we got stonewalled. 17 hours ago

David Farnham "Mr Lukas, anything in the rental agreement mandating access?" Again what you're suggesting is that the inspections should occur over the tenants' objections, in violation of their Constitutional rights.

Explain how that is right. 17 hours ago

David Farnham John Murphy "so who has responsibility if the tenant finds a problem with the property after they refused access to inspectors. I guess they deal directly with the landlord and, if called by the tenant just says sorry, cant help." The landlord always has the responsibility! It's mandated by the Texas Property Code and AG, not to mention the tenants themselves. So based on your logic, after the rental property blows up after it passes a city inspection, is the city going to assume liability? 17 hours ago 2

John Murphy New ball game next week either way. Ask for further review. And the info on neighbor support ca be heard at most HOA meeting when council is present. The inspection program was created along with several other neighborhood vitality related ordinances to deal with issues residents and realtors told the council were not helping the looks of neighborhoods when homes were being placed on the market. 17 hours ago via mobile 1

John Murphy Not in this country. 17 hours ago via mobile

David Farnham John Murphy The program was conceived in 2003 when some residents on Dearborn complained about street parking. Several HOAs voiced opposition to the program at council meetings in 2003 right before it was approved. I have a copy of the minutes. " issues residents and realtors told the council were not helping the looks of neighborhoods" What does the "looks of neighborhoods have to do with the city forcing its way inside rental properties? Again, this just reinforces the idea that the tenant safety is just a ruse for government intrusions on the rights of property owners and tenants. 16 hours ago 1

Cheri Duncan-Hubert John, where do some of these ideas really come from? As with so many ordinances, this one in particular appears to have come out of the Municipal League woodwork all over the country simultaneously vs

being a topic of concern in this city. And it is the Municipal Leagues pushing the efforts that confuses a lot of residents as to whether you and other Council members are living in the same city we are. Many of these topics do not come from a large selection of the community. Remember the RV ordinance? That was one little lady on Parkview. If the Council really had questions there would be more active discussion. Though local government code expresses the Council has the discretion to put ANYTHING on the ballot if there is a question on a topic. Direct election has proven the disparity in the Council and it's unspoken agenda and the majority of the citizens in this city. 16 hours ago 1

Shelley Bebinger McCall Mr. Murphy, speaking as a Realtor, I am against any law that takes rights away from owners or tenants. I think Metrotex made it clear that they do too. As I stated before, it is a 4th Amendment issue.It is really none of the governments business what is inside the home. Realtors have a fiduciary duty to their clients, whether an investor or not. Investors are not 2nd class citizens. This is how many make their living, and for that reason take really good care of the houses they buy. 16 hours ago 2

David Farnham Thanks, Shelley Bebinger McCall John Murphy In case you

don't know, most of the time it's investors who buy the mostly owneroccupant eyesore properties that fall into foreclosure and disrepair and turn them into nice homes again, whether rental or owner-occupied. We invest our own money to help "the looks of neighborhoods." 16 hours ago 1

Cheri Duncan-Hubert Shelley, you are familiar with TREC's standard rental leases. Is there anything in a lease that does not cover the responsibility of the landlord to maintain a property optimally? 16 hours ago Edited 1

Cheri Duncan-Hubert John, is there anything not addressed in the current code of ordinances that requires this very selective ordinance? 15 hours ago Edited 1

Luke Lukas Regarding the Lease; Unhappy tenant means no tenant....

This is in our contract: B. NOTICE: If Landlord fails to repair a condition that materially affects the physical health or safety of an ordinary tenant as required by this lease or the Property Code, Tenant may be entitled to exercise remedies under 92.056 and 92.0561 of the Property Code. 15 hours ago

Cheri Duncan-Hubert That is what I thought Luke. It has been a long time since I signed a lease to remember. At the LWV forum, a question was asked if Richardson government was too big or small. They both said just the right size. But the neighborhood integrity department has grown significantly in the last few years. This may be one area the local government has over stepped the boundaries of what is already in place. As I recall I was given some pamphlet a long time ago on tenants rights. If the issue is already addressed in great depth, what is the reason for this ordinance? Once again we have to state the government's job is to be the protector of our rights and liberties. 15 hours ago Edited 1

Shelley Bebinger McCall Luke, that is exactly correct. There are protections for the tenant in the contract. 15 hours ago 1

Luke Lukas To be continued... I am sure. about an hour ago