Hey, there! Log in / Register
City says landlords can register properties online, but only if they have a Windows PC
By adamg on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 12:40pm
So, seems landlords have until tomorrow to register their apartments with the city (and pay $25 for each one). The city says, no probs, you can register them online, easy peasey, but the page on which landlords are supposed to do this has this warning:
Please use Internet Explorer on a Windows PC to complete Rental Inspection Registration online. Users have reported issues submitting applications from Chrome, Firefox, and Safari.
H/t Penny Cherubino.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
QA much?
F**king amateurs
Check out their web address
http://www.cityofboston.gov/isd/housing/rental.asp
.asp? Jeebuz, I haven't seen that extension for years. They're using a proprietary Microsoft language/environment from the early 2000s to build an outward facing municipal website?
Who architected this dinosaur?
it's just really, really
it's just really, really dumb.
Here's an idea:
City of Boston needs a website. They ask local colleges to get their CS programs to have the site as a final project in a related class. Class is broken into teams of x, who work on the design and code to the CoB's specifications (re, design guidelines, language, etc etc). At the end of the semester, each team presents their work to the CoB stakeholders. Stakeholders then work with 'winning' team to implement it, having CoB employees vet the students' work.
resume building experience for students, potentially quality, cheap work for CoB. win win, no? Maybe the students would even have an idea that hasn't been thought of yet...
The reason why so many sites
The reason why so many sites are terrible already is that so many people think its so easy any undergraduate who's taken a CS class could make one. They should pony up the money for a professional site that meets current standards for function and security.
They're using a proprietary
Um, there's no reason why a website built in ASP can't be compatible with any browser out there. All it does is render HTML that is returned to the browser. Don't blame their incompetence on ASP.
And how is this different
than the MBTA rolling out smartphone apps that are only good on iPhony and Adnoid?
Answer - It's not, and it's social discrimination.
The City's restriction is just another example of why the practice of allowing multiple operating systems for what is supposed to be an unified communications system is so inefficent, wasteful, and costly.
"Social discrimination?"
"Social discrimination?" Really?
iOS and Android are the two largest most used mobile operating systems, it's not like they can make something unified over both unless it's web based and having an app is much more convenient. Who is this inconveniencing, anyway? Random people who have some bizarre Chinese knockoff phone or the 2% of people who suffer using Windows Phone? I think you can even get some terrible battery life android phone with food stamps now, even.
Also it costs next to nothing to build an app. Nothing costly about it.
Last time I checked, the data was available to 3rd party devs
So if someone wants to make an app for the BB10 / Windows Phone markets, they certainly can.
The T just decided to focus its resources on 91%+ of the market. Which is the sane way to go about it.
MBTAinfo
MBTAinfo provides data on both buses and subways - and has versions that should work on just about anything (even if not as slick as native I-phone and Android apps).
And in fact
If one looks at the MBTA Apps Showcase page, there are already several independently written apps for Windows Phone and Blackberry.
The only MBTA-written apps I see, in fact, are the mTicket app for commuter rail passengers, and the See Say app for reporting stuff to the MBTA police.
it costs next to nothing to
fixed it for you
Don't bother calling ISD Housing
617-635-5300. They don't pick up. If you own a two-family, live on one floor and have your home-office/studio/workspace/storage on the other, do you need to register? If you live with extended family in a two-family and only one name is on the deed do you need to register? It seems like lots of non-landlords are likely to be swept up in this registration process which leads me to conclude this is a money grab.
Yup. backstory: My
Yup.
backstory: My girlfriend's roommates moved out of their apt a month before the lease was up. My GF and I went to pack up her stuff a week before the lease was up. Got halfway through, and left to come back a couple days later (three days before 7/1).
When we returned, the landlord had come in and bagged everythign of hers up in trash bags with no discrimination. Plungers with her pillows, swept trash with her clothes. They broke apart her armoire to get it out of her room. Trashed all her school work, her personal mementos, etc etc etc.
Called ISD, no pickup. Left a message, no call back. Called her landlord, no pickup, left a message, no call back. Called the police, they came and we filed a police report.
She was distraught. Somebody had come in and violated her personal space and basically destroyed all her things, including her irreplaceable items, little things, like a wine bottle she and her best friend had drank when studying abroad in Prague.
There was NO recourse, because the damages were less than a lawyers fee. Totally fucked up system, even with the 'protections' for renters.
Sorry for the unrelated rant, but I just got a bit worked up
Small claims court?
What about small claims court as a recourse?
We both have no real idea
We both have no real idea about this stuff, and the landlord is a lawyer, so I feel like it's a futile effort without professional help.
Your renters insurance should
Your renters insurance should cover this.
I'm the girlfriend. Greenline
I'm the girlfriend. Greenline and I got renter's insurance for our new place right away. Never again!
What your landlord did sounds
What your landlord did sounds like the possible makings of a 93A case, the name for the Massachusetts Consumer Protection statute. That can enable triple damages if you follow the correct process. Depending on your girlfriend's income level, she may qualify for free legal assistance as well from Harvard Legal Aid Bureau or others. I am an attorney and do housing law btw. A judge would not look kindly on a landlord who did this.
Call the AG
The Attorney General investigates/mediates consumer protection complaints, and landlord/tenant issues fall under that description. 617-727-8400.
http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/consume...
Good luck.
Sounds like trespassing at
Sounds like trespassing at the least. The police should have filed it as tresspassing. I would definitely file a claim in small claims court (was it combined with Boston Municipal Court?) for all of her damages and losses. No need for a lawyer. It's an "informal" process that takes a little time, but worth doing.
Globe says no...
Owner-occupied buildings with six or less units are exempt.
http://www.boston.com/2013/08/30/students-return-c...
Exempt from inspection, not registration.
You own a house, it is zoned as two family but you use it as a one family, ISD says pay up or face fines and points in the 'Chronic Offender' point system for non-compliance. Just wait, someone is going to sue city hall over this shakedown and 14th amendment violation.
Those buildings must register
Those buildings must register but are exempt from the inspection requirement.
This law serves a purpose - so the city, charged with enforcing the sanitary and building codes under state law, knows which units in the city are rental and owned by whom. Believe it or not, prior to this, the city really did not know in many instances. Additionally, the prior requirement was for each unit to be inspected upon tenancy turnover. But few landlords ever complied with this. Now, instead, there is a mandatory once-in-five year inspection and annual registration.
Bottom line: it is not THAT onerous a burden on landlords. And actually is less onerous in terms of mandated inspection, except that no one complied with the prior law so they didn't care about it. Some tweeks are necessary, example being the situation here with one family occupying entire home with no rent being paid etc, they probably shouldn't have to register since it's not a rental in the first place. But overall the reasoning of the law is sound.
The bigger issue is ISD's capacity to actually handle this. As the tech problems indicate, could be problematic...
Reasoning is sound
But the guidance and blanket application of the rule to all owners of multi-family houses is completely bogus. The city is in effect forcing owners who don't want to be extorted to add another name to the deed so they have extra legal protection when the lawsuits start rolling in. Might as well require all property owners to register because they can rent out individual rooms in their houses.
Living in a 2-family
We reached ISD. They told us yes, we still need to register, even though we live as a single family in the entire 2-family house and don't intend to rent out the so-called "rental unit."
Insane
That is extortion. Just wait til they start hassling you over the lead-paint certificate and misc. permits. The only thing I will register is my disgust with City Hall.
You should file an injunction against ISD
This clearly violates the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.
That is quite a
That is quite a stretch.
Seems like rezoning the house to a single family home would solve the problem.
and then
have to re-zone it back if you have to. that is an unnecessary burden.
Can't have it all
Either it is a rental property and thus should pay the fee, or it is not and they should re-zone. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
ISD droid you spoke to was mistaken
If you live in the entire house (ie the other unit is not vacant), then you don't need to register. If you decide to rent out that unit you'll have to register of course.
From the (easily found) FAQ (note the added emphasis):
So it's within ISD's purview
to determine if you sufficiently occupy the other units? If I use it for storage I don't need to register? If it is empty or has some furniture than I do?
Why this?
Setting aside the technical difficulties - Why was this particular form put online? From my experiences with Boston city government, you need to visit City Hall and go to a half-dozen offices before you can get anything done. Why not put parking permit applications online, or moving permits?
In related news, Adam is
In related news, Adam is planning 2014's April Fools Day prank by requiring all commenters to login using AOL keyword: UHub.
Also, don't forget to add adamg to your buddy lists.
Worked today...
For whatever it's worth, it just worked for me on a Mac using Firefox. No problems paying the fee, either. Guess when it comes to grubbing $25, they can find a quick patch...
Thank you all very much
As spokesman for all Boston residents, thank you landlords for paying this $4 million
taxfee so that our mayor can than hand it over to corporations like JP Morgan, State Street, and Liberty Mutual in the form of tax breaks.Have a nice day!
Don't forget to vote!
Don't forget to vote!
Yes, thank you!
Just like John, I (a Boston resident and taxpayer who does not own a rental property), didn't appreciate having to be a predominant subsidizer of the system to makes sure you landlords aren't abusing tenants/creating unsafe conditions that could jeopardize my house and family. Glad to see you're being asked to contribute your fair share.
(Although unlike John, I think many of the tax breaks that big corps have gotten by city hall are unfair and ineffective at their stated purpose. Not sure why John tried to link the new rental prop registry with this completely separate issue, but maybe he has a hard time understanding that a large governing body isn't going to get everything right all the time, so he felt compelled to make that fallacious association in order to make both things seem good.)
Not Speaking For Me
You do realize that $25 a unit does not even begin to cover the cost of inspections. The city needs to do something, however inadequate, to cover the costs that actually inspecting units is going to cost. As opposed to the old system where there were only a handful of inspectors who only came when asked for. They will likely need to hire at least several more, if not dozens, of inspectors.
The other issues regarding corporate handouts are completely separate from this.
I welcome this new infrastructure and set of requirements as one of the only viable ways to locate and penalize slumlords for substandard conditions and illegal units. And any landlord who uses this as an excuse to raise your rent should have their property seized. $25/12 months = slightly over $2 a month. When they are already making out like bandits with over-inflated rents they have no leg to stand on.
Trying to clarify
I wrote that comment very quickly so maybe I wasn't being clear.
This new tax will do very little to improve the condition of most of the apartments in the city. Search for the Bay State Banner article about Charles Yancey and his questions about the new regulation - it explains why it's a flawed law.
This was simply an attempt by the City Council to "don't just sit there, do something" even though there was an existing regulation that required landlords to have their apartments inspected anytime new tenants moved in. Thing was, this regulation was never enforced. So, the city simply passed another rule.
Yes, maybe this issue is separate from the tax breaks issue, but I was trying to link the two by saying that the city needs to bring in extra millions someway to offset the millions they are losing due to tax breaks to billion dollar corporations.
Yeah, not enforced
Various people in our neighborhood group have called about slumlords around here, thinking that the unregistered rental units would at least get them on someone's radar. They don't seem to actually enforce the law.
John, you might know this...does any part of the city's registration/inspection look at whether an owner in a condominium is allowed to rent the unit or allowed to rent it in the manner they're trying to? This would also actually be helpful in the fight against sketchy slumlords, because as I'm sure you know, condo documents are legally binding, but the only recourse generally is suing the person. It could also help to have a third party who doesn't have to live right near the slumlord citing them for violating condo docs in the manner in which they're renting their place out -- might cut down on all these slumlords who buy condos and then do whatever the hell they want.
Condos being rented rather than occupied by owner
I was just wondering that myself, Eeka. There are a number of three families here in my section of Dorchester that got converted to condos, which were then bought by "flippers" rather than owner occupants, who quickly discovered that there wasn't really much of a market for condos here. These ended up just becoming rental units with absentee landlords -- often with three landlords per building rather than just one.
Sorry, no
Sorry but I don't know.
11am Mon 16 September Hearing
from: The Office of Councillor Yancey councillor-yancey at listserv.cityofboston.gov
reply-to: Kenneth.Yarbrough at cityofboston.gov
date: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:43 PM
subject: Boston's Rental Inspection Program receives Boston City Council hearing
signed-by: listserv.cityofboston.gov
Charles C. Yancey
Boston City Councillor
Press Release
Contact: Kenneth Yarbrough - Chief Information Officer
(617) 635-3131 Fax (617) 635-3067 Page (617) 461-5548
For Immediate Release Thursday, September 5, 2013
Boston’s new rental inspection program receives City Council hearing
Boston City Hall (September 5, 2013) – The Boston City Council’s Committee on City, Neighborhood Services and Veteran Affairs will hold a public hearing regarding Boston’s new rental registration and inspection program, ordinance CBC 9-1.3, on Monday, September 16, 2013, 11:00 a.m. in the Iannella Chamber, fifth floor, at Boston City Hall.
Boston City Councillor Charles C. Yancey ordered the public hearing last month following a closed meeting with representatives of Boston’s Inspectional Services Department in which he was dissatisfied with the administration’s responses to questions regarding the new ordinance. Yancey called for a public hearing to be held immediately at an appropriate time and place so that all Boston residents can fully understand the purpose behind, and complexities contained within, the ordinance.
“There are many lingering and unanswered questions that need to be answered. We need to have a public dialogue for all of Boston to attend so they can get the answers they need from the officials who will be enforcing this order,” he said.
The program required all property owners of private rental units to register their properties with the City of Boston by August 31, 2013 at an initial registration fee of $25 per unit. The cost for registration fee after the initial year will be $15 per unit. In addition to the registration fee, the ordinance also requires private nonexempt rental units to be inspected on a 5-year cycle starting January 2014.
Councillor Yancey also urged Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino to immediately suspend the program until a public hearing can be held. “It is a shame that residents were expected to comply with an ordinance they didn’t fully understand before August 31, 2013. It’s unreasonable to pursue the current deadline until there is absolute clarity and transparency concerning all aspects of this ordinance. It’s not fair to the citizens of Boston and they deserve better,” he said.
In a letter published by the Dorchester Reporter on August 29, 2013, Councillor Yancey questioned the logic of placing financial burden on responsible landlords to identify landlords of problem properties. “Most landlords take care of their properties and address the needs of their tenants, often paying out of their own pockets,” he said.
Members of the public are cordially invited to attend and testify. Please bring 15 copies of any written documentation you wish to present at the hearing. Written comments may be made part of the record and available to all Councillors by sending them by email, fax or mail to arrive before the hearing.
Please mail comments to the Boston City Council, One City Hall Plaza, Boston, MA 02201 or Fax (617) 635-4203. You may also email comments to juan.lopez at cityofboston.gov.
###
One City Hall Square • Boston • Massachusetts • 02201 (617) 635-3131
https://www.facebook.com/charles.c.yancey
http://www.charlesyancey.org