Brookfield village trustees recently revisited a presentation by the Rental Registration Ordinance sponsor. They respectfully listened to many local landlords (and the one tenant) in attendance with comments in opposition to this proposal. They asked some genuinely good questions and had some thought-provoking comments. However, what was completely absent from the proposal was any justification to even suggest there is an issue here that needs fixing. Presented was no data. No justification. No complaint counts.
More “research” seemed to have gone in to the list of 20+ municipalities that have instituted some form of Rental Registration. Just because others have does not mean we should. Please stand up and ask the question! What is the justification? Why is the current “reactive” process of a tenant complaint and subsequent targeted (bad, derelict landlord) corrective action insufficient? How many true, rental-specific bona-fide life-safety complaints are registered with village authorities each week, month, year?
The proposal’s unsupported, actionable buzzwords mention rental properties meeting basic housing, sanitation and life-safety standards – all those landlords in attendance couldn’t agree more. But inspections? Annual registrations, a tax/fee? Come on! If life, health & safety is the goal, then this should apply to all residental units in the village. Why is it thought that only renters are owed this duty and are at some disadvantage to warrant government intervention?
Why are we targeting and discriminating a subset of Brookfield residents – only renters? Why are we making a distinction of only one “class” of people, those who for whatever reason chose not to or could not afford to own in the village? Why doesn’t the village owe all residents the same goal of ensuring their health and safety via registration and inspections? Plain and simple, because it’s over-reach. This ordinance is not warranted, it is not needed, it is not welcomed.
Interior inspections of living units? Come on! Annual exterior and interior ‘common-area’ inspections. Not warranted, no data, discriminatory. Will this be of every large condo building? Every single-family home?
Why exactly does the village need to know how many rental units exist? What will they do with the data once they know? We can only hope it’s for good, productive, transparent use. Why do we even need to wait for the EDC or Community Development to come back with a re-tooled, scaled-down version of this proposal? Can someone please just say stop?
How about if the village tries to be on the side of embracing and encouraging good landlords, owners or managers to continue to provide safe, desirable, efficient and affordable housing to folks who want to live in Brookfield but cannot otherwise afford to purchase – by not overburdening, overtaxing and over-reaching.
Robert Lietz, Brookfield