GREENFIELD — After months of research and a few more rounds of revisions since the ordinance last went before City Council, Vice President John Garrett is hoping his proposal to create a rental registry will finally cross the finish line next week.
If adopted by City Council, the ordinance would require landlords in the city to register all rental units with the Health Department and renew their registration annually for $30 per unit. Landlords must complete a self-inspection of each residence upon turnover to new tenants, and the Health Department will conduct inspections of properties that have more than six units at least once every five years.
Over the summer, City Council tabled a vote on the proposed ordinance so the city’s attorney could weigh in on whether Greenfield could create a separate revolving fund to hold any fees or fines that the Health Department collects under the rental registry ordinance. The attorney agreed, and Garrett, who is spearheading the ordinance, drafted changes to the proposal explicitly stating that any fees and fines collected will be placed into this new account, which the Health Department will then be able to use to cover inspection costs. At the end of each fiscal year, any remaining money in the revolving fund would be transferred to the city’s general fund.
With the changes made, the Appointments and Ordinances Committee held another public hearing on the rental registry proposal on Wednesday, and voted unanimously to recommend it be adopted by the full council.
“I’m hoping, I’m beyond hope, that we can get this passed and it can make a difference in some people’s lives in a positive way,” Garrett said. “People deserve to have a roof over their heads that is sanitary and safe, and the Health Department deserves to have the supports to do this.”
The ordinance outlines how tenants can submit a complaint to the Health Department, various fines for violations and how landlords can file appeals of the department’s decisions. It also notes that “problem properties” would be subject to yearly inspections, instead of once every five years.
During Wednesday’s public hearing, the committee heard arguments both for and against the proposal. Susan Worgaftik, the coordinator of the advocacy organization Housing Greenfield who assisted Garrett in conducting research and drafting the ordinance, said the creation of a rental registry is “not designed to punish landlords,” but to ensure tenants have safe living conditions.
“It’s an effort to ensure that tenants in Greenfield live in apartments that meet basic health and safety standards,” Worgaftik said.
She said the ordinance was drafted while drawing inspiration from similar regulations in Boston, Northampton and Amherst.
“The $30 per unit registration fee funds the work of an additional inspector who will be able to deal with housing problems and assist landlords in understanding what their health and safety responsibilities are,” Worgaftik said. “This fee amounts to $2.50 per month. We expect that this can be paid by most landlords as part of the cost of doing business.”
Allen Constantine, a Gill resident who owns rental properties in Greenfield and serves as president of the Landlords Business Association, said the proposal is “unnecessary” and would put an undue burden on small landlords.
“Every year you have to fill out an annual income expense report as it is, and this is just one more thing,” Constantine said. “I’m troubled by this and I don’t think it’s necessary.”
He added that he is particularly concerned about Section J, outlining problem properties. The section mentions that locations that police have been asked to respond to four or more times within a year can be classified as problem properties. Constantine said this is unfair considering that sometimes police response is due to tenant actions.
“The problem property thing is wrong. … When I had two difficult tenants, and they beat each other up, and they’re husband and wife, and all I could do was evict them, and they did it time and time again, the police were there,” Constantine said.
Garrett noted that he spoke with the Greenfield Tenants Union, which had some additional suggestions about the ordinance, and that if the city’s attorney reviews them and determines that the changes are non-substantive and would not require another public hearing to be held, he would like to add the changes to the draft. Among those changes, language would be added to clarify that a property can be deemed a “problem property” if complaints are substantiated by the Health Department.
Other changes include adding language outlining that the self-inspections — which in the previous draft only occurred during tenant turnover — would also need to happen upon a substantial change in the condition of the property. A revision would also clarify that tenants can request copies of their unit inspections.
Garrett added that an attorney representing the Landlords Business Association sent a 10-page letter outlining concerns the association had, which was received Wednesday afternoon before the public hearing. He said the city’s attorney will review the document and its concerns, including a question as to whether City Council has the jurisdiction to institute a rental registry.
Garrett emphasized that the city’s attorney has vetted the ordinance several times and that it is based on existing regulations in other communities. He added that the severability clause in the ordinance allows that if any sections are deemed to be invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the ordinance would still go into effect.
“The goal is to ensure safe and sanitary conditions in Greenfield’s rental housing stock, point-blank, period,” Garrett said. “That’s our purpose, and there is a problem because not every unit in the city is in that condition.”
Appointments and Ordinances Committee members expressed their support for the ordinance, and said it will help tip a power imbalance and ensure landlords are fulfilling their legal obligations to provide safe, clean conditions to their tenants.
“I am very much in support of this, and I will be voting ‘yes’ on it,” Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon said. “I do sympathize with the concerns of landlords, and I appreciate how the landlords in Greenfield really are just trying to do right by their tenants. … I’ll just point out, no matter how hardworking a landlord is, how tight their finances are, they’re just inherently in a more powerful position.”
Precinct 1 Councilor Katherine Golub shared that she is currently a renter and is considering purchasing the building she lives in, which has led her to look at the ordinance from multiple perspectives — both as a renter and as a potential landlord. She said she understands that the registry would take time and paperwork for landlords, but she feels it is still an important step for the city to take.
“I don’t take lightly the concerns about time and cost … but weighing all of those concerns, I come out on the side of, this is worth it,” Golub said. “There’s a cost there, and for me, this is worth it.”
The ordinance will go to City Council for review and a potential vote during its monthly meeting slated for Oct. 21.
Gender identity protection
The Appointments and Ordinances Committee also held a hearing on Wednesday on a proposed “Ordinance to Protect and Affirm the Gender of All Individuals.” If adopted by City Council, the ordinance would require that “city agents shall treat all employees, applicants, contractors and members of the public with dignity and respect, regardless of gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation or LGBTQIA+ status.”
The ordinance includes provisions that state the city shall not initiate investigations or take law enforcement action on the basis of an individual seeking or providing gender-affirming healthcare; the city shall respect the names and pronouns of all individuals; and any future buildings the city constructs must include at least one single-stall, gender-neutral bathroom.
The committee heard from community members who said the ordinance is a good way to support queer, trans and gender-diverse residents who have been seeing more places across the nation adopt anti-transgender legislation.
On the other hand, Golub said she has heard feedback from citizens who feel the ordinance is not necessary, and that the council is pushing a national political agenda onto the city. Still, she believes that because there are gender-diverse people living in Greenfield, it is important the city take steps to support them.
“We have trans employees, we have gender-diverse employees all over our beautiful city, and they all deserve protection,” Golub said. “We are passing this law to protect people locally.”
“It’s a no-brainer,” added Precinct 7 Councilor Sarah Bolduc.
The committee voted unanimously to recommend the ordinance be adopted by the full City Council. The plan is for the measure to go before the council in November.
