Stowsentry.com - Our View: Forget landlord fees in Stow -- things are tough enough

The city of Stow is considering instituting fees and mandating city inspections for rental properties and vacant commercial properties. Mayor Karen Fritschel says this is an idea that has been discussed for many years and is now before Council to decide. The fees could be anywhere from $40 to $150, according to the legislation Council is reviewing.

While ensuring rental properties are kept up and vacant buildings are maintained for safety reasons is an admirable goal, we have to wonder if now is the time to hit property owners with an additional expense.

Landlords definitely feel the crunch during these tough economic times, with some tenants struggling to pay their rent as a result of layoffs and lost jobs. Any fee imposed on a landlord would likely be passed on to tenants, increasing their rent and compounding financial difficulties. This would be especially true in properties with multiple units.

Most tenants sign a lease, which is a legal, binding agreement between the renter and the landlord. Usually those agreements already include a requirement that the property is maintained with safety in mind. The city also has laws in place that demand properties are kept up.

With that in mind, why the rush to get these fees instituted? The city can't point to a substantial increase in violations or complaints, so city involvement should be unnecessary. Focusing on enforcing current statutes should be the primary task.

On Commerce Drive, visitors can see what we see from our building -- vacant commercial and industrial buildings with "For Sale" signs. For these already struggling businesses, the city is proposing a registration fee for buildings vacant for at least 30 days and then a change of occupancy fee if a new business moves in. We don't see this as a productive way to encourage businesses to come to Stow.

City administrators have stated the city will be able to conduct these inspections without adding personnel. The fees will be funneled into the building department to pay the employees who will do the inspections and for administrative costs. According to the mayor, those employees are currently paid from construction fees, but with no major construction taking place, that revenue is disappearing.

We wonder, is the goal of the mayor and her administration truly safety, or is it to patch a hole in the city's revenue stream? The mayor also says the fees proposed will be "definitely" lowered. If that's the case, how were these fees and their need originally determined?

It's disappointing that the city leaders didn't include input from landlords and property owners before drafting the legislation. We would encourage those with affected properties to attend the public hearing on March 4 at 5:30 p.m. and voice their thoughts.

AS WE SEE IT, times are tough enough these days without the city creating a questionable service that looks to do nothing more but line the city's pockets.