It’s Back To The Drawing Board

To the Editor:
Finally, Election Day is almost here. Locally, we have a choice to make on Issue 2 that extends beyond rental properties here in Maumee.
At the end of the day, I feel that this ordinance is a key component to the city’s plan on discouraging rental properties in Maumee. Is this why the city is fighting it tooth and nail, including using our tax dollars to advertise and promote its position? Do people not in a moderate- to high-income tax bracket not deserve to live in Maumee? Do my friends and my kids’ friends not deserve to go to Maumee City Schools because they are renters?
The bigger issue I see going on is the direction Maumee is headed. When my family moved here in 2013, it was because we wanted a nice town with great schools that didn’t break our bank account. We also wanted a relaxed community, without the pretentiousness that comes with living in a higher-priced suburb. What I see happening is Maumee being forcibly turned into the next “hip” suburb with what has been presented so far with the questionnaires we have been asked to fill out from Yard and Company.
I’m not opposed to improving or progressing, as the uptown looks much better and the state did a great job with the AW Trail. Of course we need to attract new people to our community, but we have to keep a sense of who we are and not force changing our identity for the sake of change.
The key issue I have with the non-owner-occupied ordinance is that it is government overreach at its finest. It is being pushed as “preserving property values.” That’s great, but if we are concerned about blight in Maumee, shouldn’t we be talking about all houses? According to the Census Bureau, there are 6,178 housing units (including apartments) in Maumee. Twenty-five percent of those units are rentals, so 1,154 units are rentals. Of those units, only 383 are single-family houses. Therefore, 6.2 percent of Maumee’s housing stock are single-family rentals. Let’s say that 15 percent of those owners are “slumlords” (which is being very pessimistic). That equates to 57 potential problem properties.
Also, how is this ordinance going to be interpreted and enforced? Ordinance 20-2024 for the sewers looked pretty innocent on paper until people started getting quotes for the repairs. (Source: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSCP5Y2022.CP04?q=apartment&t=Housing%20Units&g=160XX00US39 48342.)
So, we’re going to go after all rentals, because there could be a problem with approximately 57 houses? What about the eyesores that are owner-occupied that neighbors will happily tell you about? If we are serious about preserving property values, we should be going after all homeowners to keep up their properties. We can’t do that for many obvious reasons: Seniors on fixed income, sandwich-generation parents, etc. So, let’s go after the rentals! Well, here’s the other problem: Most housing providers aren’t swimming in cash. These are long-term investments that they have typically poured a lot of money into to give someone a decent place to live. If we tack on extra costs to all housing providers, rents are going to have to go up for people to stay in business.
Yes, the evil word, “business.” They need to be regulated! Well, they already are. It’s called the Lucas County Health Department and the Fair Housing Center, as well as all current city, county and state ordinances regarding the upkeep of rental properties. If any resident has an issue that their rental unit (house or apartment) is not being kept up properly, they can reach out to either or both of those organizations, and the process begins that can end up in rent being held in escrow. The safeguards for renters are already in place.
This is a very slippery slope, in that if the city can force inspections of rental properties (though they have never published what specifically they will be inspecting), the next logical step is point-of-sale inspections on all properties in Maumee. Whether it was intentional or not, the city essentially tried this in the scrapped Ordinance 19-2024 that was never brought to council to vote on.
With all of that being said, I am voting no on Issue 2. Just like with the failed Ordinance 20-2024, let’s send this one back to the drawing board, and work with housing providers in finding a solution that addresses the city’s concern about blight in a more sensible way.
Dave Poeppelmeier
Maumee