LENORE SCHLOMING
‘Totally chaotic’
At a time when many people are still reeling from the tragic nightclub blaze in Rhode Island that claimed nearly 100 lives, a proposal that would require Medford landlords to get their apartments inspected before new tenants move in or face hefty fines has riled some property owners.
Medford officials held a public hearing last week to discuss an inspection ordinance that was proposed shortly after a deadly fire in the city. The January fire claimed the life of a Tufts University student.
If the ordinance is approved, landlords would be required to pay $75 to have their rental units inspected for smoke detectors, proper exits and entrances and the number of occupants. The inspections would have to be done before a new tenant moves into a vacant apartment or else landlords face a $100 fine for each day the apartment is occupied without an inspection. Owner-occupied two- and three-family homes would be exempted from the rule.
“It is not a full building-code inspection,” said City Solicitor Mark E. Rumley, explaining the purpose of the inspection. “The idea is to be able to inspect swiftly with an eye on very specific matters.”
But some landlords argue that the ordinance calls for excessive fines and will spark headaches for property owners in Medford, where many college students rent apartments and tenant turnovers occur at least twice a year.
“The worst thing about this proposal is that it [calls for] a pre-occupancy inspection,” said Lenore Schloming, president of the Small Property Owners Association.
Property owners and tenants won’t be able to pinpoint a move-in date because an apartment will have to be vacant until it’s inspected, said Schloming, and that could be tough in a college community like Medford where the vast majority of moves occur during the same months in early summer or fall.
“It’s just going to make it totally chaotic,” said Schloming, adding that cities already are allowed to inspect properties for safety and health issues every five years under the state building code.
‘Professional Ethics’
Schloming, who owns two six-unit properties in Somerville, argued that it is pointless to check the same apartment for proper exits several times a year. She also criticized the ordinance for requiring a landlord to state the number of occupants while the apartment is vacant.
“That’s not much of a check. They’ll have to take a landlord’s word on that [occupancy],” she said. “The landlord really does not have control over the number of occupants.”
Schloming said SPOA would be willing to work with the city officials and Tufts University to educate students, landlords and tenants about fire safety. In a letter to Medford and Somerville officials, SPOA pointed out that the inspections could highlight violations beyond those pertaining to fire safety.
“Can the inspections reasonably be limited to just the three items in the Medford draft proposal [exits, smoke detectors and number of occupants]?” wrote Skip Schloming, SPOA’s executive director. “We do not think they can be limited in this way. The state building code requires any inspector to report any possible violations seen at a site to the appropriate inspectional authority to which the possible violations relate … In addition, the professional ethics under which any and all inspectors presumably operate would require such reporting.”
Rumley, the city solicitor, said the ordinance is modeled after laws already in place in cities like Boston and Methuen.
Boston passed an ordinance in 1984 that requires landlords to pay $50 to have an inspection done within 30 days of renting an apartment to a new tenant. The inspector checks for various building code requirements, including adequate exits and working smoke detectors. Apartments that have been inspected within the last year, single- and two-family homes and owner-occupied properties with three- to six-units are exempt from the inspection requirement. However, in February, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino filed an amendment to expand the inspection requirement to non-owner-occupied one- and two-family homes and to increase the inspection fee to $75.
As of last Tuesday, before the public hearing in Medford, Rumley said he had heard from only one local landlord who was concerned about the proposal, in addition to receiving a letter from SPOA.
Medford Mayor Michael J. McGlynn proposed the ordinance in January after a fire in an illegal apartment located above a garage killed a 20-year-old Tufts student. The apartment had only one exit, which is a violation of the state building code. An improperly discarded cigarette was ruled to be the cause of the fire.
Medford officials have filed a civil lawsuit and also sought a criminal complaint against the owner of the apartment building. The community development board held a hearing last Wednesday to discuss the ordinance, and the City Council is expected to vote on the measure in coming weeks.
