GREENFIELD — There were barely any open seats in the Jon Zon Community Center on Wednesday night as residents filled the room to watch City Council vote to adopt a rental registry ordinance.
After hearing from community members and considering a few amendments, the council passed the ordinance 10-1, with Precinct 4 Councilor John Bottomley casting the sole “no” vote. At-Large Councilor Wahab Minhas abstained and Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon was absent.
According to Vice President John Garrett, who sponsored the ordinance, the proposal has been in the works for years.
“This is not the first attempt to do a rental registry in the city’s history,” Garrett said. “There’s been a long history of, as in any community, of rental units not always meeting the conditions that are mandated by the Board of Health and the state housing code and the state health code.”
Garrett said he believes the solution to the city’s housing crisis is to build more housing and he has advocated for zoning changes to make it easier to construct residences, but he has faced pushback along the way.
“One of the major concerns that I heard over and over again is, ‘Hey, if you build more housing, slumlords are just going to come in and ruin people’s lives,'” Garrett said. “Big investors from the outside are going to abuse the people of Greenfield. And I took that seriously and I wanted to make sure that in my time on the council, we addressed that.”
He said the rental registry aims to address that concern and ensure landlords maintain their properties.
Amendments
The language presented to the council on Wednesday stated that landlords must register all rental units with the Health Department and renew their registration annually for $30 per unit. Landlords must self-inspect each residence upon turnover to new tenants, and the Health Department will inspect properties owned by landlords who have more than six units at least once every five years. Landlords owning six units or fewer will just have to fill out the registration and self-inspection form.
Garrett proposed a few amendments to the draft language, which he said came following further conversation with area landlords and the Greenfield Tenants Union.
The amendments, which councilors unanimously agreed with, included noting that tenants can request copies of the most recent self-inspection form; landlords will not be held liable if tenants refuse entry for inspection; the Health Department’s phone number, rather than the landlord’s, must be posted somewhere on the property; and deleting Section J1A, which called for properties that saw repeated response from law enforcement to be considered “problem properties” and subject to yearly inspections, rather than once every five years.
“This is based on feedback from the tenants union, the letter we got from one of the landlords today, and conversations I had with another landlord earlier today as well,” Garrett explained. “The tenants union and several landlords had concerns about the problem properties involving the police, and at this point I thought it was wiser to simply remove it than to try to battle it out on the council floor and figure out a way to make it work.”
Bottomley also proposed an amendment, suggesting that Section L, which called for the creation of a revolving fund to hold fees and fines collected through the ordinance, was not necessary.
“I believe there’s enough administrative burden on the city currently, and I don’t believe this is needed,” Bottomley said.
Bottomley explained he feels it’s unnecessary for every department and initiative to have its own revolving fund, and he believes doing so makes the proposal more complicated than it needs to be.
Precinct 1 Councilor Katherine Golub said she requested the revolving fund be added to ensure the ordinance has a funding mechanism.
“This is a proposal that I brought forward and I feel it’s extremely important that we include this. There has to be a funding mechanism,” Golub said. “This actually came from public comment from people who are here today saying we need to make sure that there are dedicated funds to this.”
Councilors discussed the pros and cons of the revolving fund, agreeing that they do not want to add administrative burden on the city’s staff, but they also felt it was important to make it explicit that the ordinance is a funded mandate.
“I think it’s important that when you enact any kind of legislation, it has to have teeth,” Precinct 6 Councilor Patricia Williams said. “And if it can’t be implemented, it’s useless.”
Ultimately, the amendment failed 7-4, with Garrett abstaining, and the revolving fund stayed in the final language of the ordinance.
Community members weigh in
During public comment, councilors heard from several community members, both for and against the measure.
Kat Miller of the Greenfield Tenants Union shared that she has been a renter in Greenfield for 17 years. She detailed how she has coped with the side door on her house rotting and letting water in for years despite complaints to the landlord, and said that having a rental registry would force landlords to take care of their properties and their tenants.
“The rental registry is not designed to punish landlords, especially those who have been responsible for the health and welfare of their tenants,” Miller said. “Rather, it’s an effort to ensure tenants in Greenfield live in apartments that meet basic health and safety standards.”
“It feels like a real no-brainer,” said resident Molly Merrett. “This registry and inspection ordinance would make things better for tenants who are often at the mercy of their landlords and fear getting kicked out if they speak up.”
Wendy Sibbison has been a landlord in Greenfield for more than a decade. She, too, urged the council to pass the ordinance.
“I support the rental registry,” Sibbison said. “I think it’s a bare-bones start to protect tenants’ basic health and safety.”
The council also heard from people expressing concerns about the proposal.
Allen Constantine, a Gill resident who owns rental properties in Greenfield and serves as president of the Landlords Business Association, said the ordinance “villainized landlords.” He also questioned its legality.
“This ordinance puts undue pressure on the good guys and the small guys to clean up their buildings when they’re already doing it,” Constantine said. “It’s unneeded.”
Dawn Ruffini lives in Palmer and spoke on behalf of the Realtor Association of Pioneer Valley. She said the association has the same goal as the council: to ensure there is safe, well-maintained and affordable housing in Greenfield. However, she questioned whether the rental registry is the correct mechanism to achieve this. She suggested the costs of fees and paperwork would be passed on to tenants through higher rents.
“Are we actually solving a housing problem or are we creating another one?” Ruffini asked. “Greenfield’s already facing a housing shortage. … At a time when housing affordability is already in a crisis, why would we adopt a policy that could make housing more expensive or less available?”
Rental registry passes
After hearing from community members and making changes to the language, the council weighed the ordinance as a whole and overwhelmingly voiced support.
“I’m a small landlord. I’m happy to do this and abide by this,” said Precinct 5 Councilor Marianne Bullock. “I was a renter when I first moved to Greenfield and saw some of the states that rental properties were in. And I think this really removes the burden from the tenant to have to do that negotiating with a landlord over fixing basic habitability of a unit.”
Bottomley said he supports the idea, but he would have liked to see the city attorney’s response to the Landlord Business Association’s 10-page letter outlining its concerns.
“I know they just sent it at the last minute, but I would have felt more comfortable if the lawyer had reviewed their specific points,” Bottomley said.
Minhas also questioned the cost of the fees in the ordinance. The ordinance charges a $30 per-unit fee annually to register rental units, and after the first year, a $75 fee for inspecting each unit. Inspections must occur at least once every five years. The ordinance also outlines fines for violations, including $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second violation and $300 for a third or more violations.
Garrett said Health Director Michael Theroux calculated the fees to account for the cost of hiring another inspector.
Having been passed by the council, the city’s Health Department will now be tasked with implementing the rental registry. Under the ordinance, the department will notify landlords within the month, and owners have 35 days from the date the Health Department mails the new owner the registration form to return it completed. The city will not issue fines to landlords who fail to register within the first year, allowing for a grace period.
Garrett said he wants the registry to succeed and meet Greenfield’s needs. He urged anyone with questions, concerns or suggestions to reach out.
“I am deeply committed to making this work. And whatever it takes to make it work, we’re gonna do this,” Garrett said. “If there are parts of it that aren’t functional or need to work better, or there are better ideas, the fees are too high or the fees are too low, we can do this as a community and make this better. So, feel free to be in touch.”
