Last night the Henderson City Council voted unanimously (with member Lonnie Davis absent due to illness) to hold a public hearing during its April 14 meeting regarding the Certificate of Occupancy ordinance.
Council member Mike Rainey’s motion and the subsequent vote came after a lengthy presentation by attorney Mike Satterwhite in opposition to the ordinance.
Satterwhite represents a group of landlords in the city of Henderson who are against Chapter 21C of the city code that creates a requirement for all rental dwellings to possess a certificate of occupancy.
The ordinance is set to take effect on April 1 of this year. It is unclear if it will be strictly enforced before the public hearing, which is set for the council’s next regular meeting on April 14, 2008, despite City Attorney Billy Strickland’s legal opinion that the ordinance cannot be put into abeyance.
Satterwhite’s argument before the council was a reiteration of past objections the attorney has made before the full council and the Community Development Committee, chaired by member Garry Daeke, that developed the legislation.
The landlord’s counsel maintained that the revisions to the city’s minimum housing code were successful and applied to all dwellings equally. He then argued that the ordinance requiring a certificate of occupancy was unfair because it targets only rental dwellings.
Satterwhite claimed that if all landlords came “tomorrow” and applied for a certificate of occupancy, the city would be unable to inspect the 3,500 to 4,000 rentals in the city and the extra-territorial jurisdiction.
The attorney argued that tenants’ constitutional rights of privacy would be invaded by the enforcement of 21C.
Satterwhite distributed a copy of the landlord’s proposal as a substitute for the certificate of occupancy ordinance called “Landlord Five Point Education and Enforcement Plan”, a copy of which was not distributed to Home in Henderson. The plan essentially said that landlords, tenants, and homeowners should be notified by the city of their rights and responsibilities under the minimum housing code.
“If you do that, no one has the right to complain,” Satterwhite said. He then requested that a council member move to have a public hearing on 21C [to revise or eliminate it].
Interim City Manager Ed Wyatt corrected Satterwhite, stating that rental units would only be inspected as they became vacant. He said he would be willing to meet with landlords on a monthly basis and make adjustments accordingly.
Satterwhite responded by arguing that 21C unfairly singles out renters.
Strickland responded that because renting dwellings is a commercial enterprise, it is subject to government regulation, whereas private ownership of a home is not. The city’s attorney said that his “passion for this is the liability issue”; the city’s liability for lack of enforcement [of minimum housing code].
Rainey argued that the tenant has responsibilities. Strickland countered that the landlord has an obligation to do certain things because of the commercial nature of the enterprise.
Rainey responded that it is the tenant’s responsibility to report landlord violations. Strickland said that one can only enforce one’s rights against retaliatory eviction if one has the resources to pay an attorney.
Rainey rejoined that “certain rights you have to do yourself”.