Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #55 - Discussion Itemk. ORbINANCt NO. _ A14 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA Dt- CLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A HOUSING EMERGENCY, CONTAINING A TITLE; PROVIDING A DEFINITION PROVISION; REGULATING INCREASES IN RENT FOR CERTAIN RENTAL APARTMENTS; EXEMPTING CERTAIN RENTAL UNITS; PROVIDING FOR REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND No,rIFICATION OF CONTROL STATUS; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN PENT I"CREASES; PROVIDING FOR CIVIL REMEDIES; PROHIBITING CERTAIN CONDUCT; SUBMITTING THIS ORDIiiANCE TO THE ELECTORATE AT THE NEXT MUNICIPAL ELECTION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE; DATE AND DURATION PERIOD; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION; PRESERVING CAUSES OF ACTION OR REMEDIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. 1 MEAS, the recent increase in conversions of existing °°. apartments from rental to condominiums has resulted in a scarcity of available rental units; and WHEREAS, the deterioration and demolition of existing housing; an insufficient supply of new housing; and the existing economic inflationary spiral have resulted in a substantial and critical shortage of safe, decent and reasonably priced housing accommodations as evidenced by the low vacancy rates prevailing in the City; and WHEREAS, there are a large number of persons living within the City of Miami on fixed or loci incomes, who are therefore, particularly sensitive to the effects of inflation in general and large increases in rent in particular; and K ' MiEREAS, a grave and serious Public emergency exists with respect to the housing of citizens of Miami as exacerbated' 4;�Y by the recent population increase; and qr� 1111ERFAS, such emergency has Produced a serious threat to 4�t the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens µ of Miami, Florida; and WHEREAS, this emergency cannot be dealt with effectively : dl by the ordinary operations of the private rental housing market, and unless rent increases are regulated; and tktASj the tegislatute of the State of Floridaj tecocj- fitihq the right of municipalities to deal with and attempt to alleviate housing emergencies such as the one now facing the City of Miami, has set forth guidelines under which emergency rent legislation can be adopted by municipalities in 5166.043, Florida Statutes (1979); WHEREAS, the Ordinance is based solely upon local con- ditions unique to the City of Miami and does not be conflict with State law; and WHEREAS, the Commission of the City of Miami seeks to com- ply with each and every legal and constitutional requirement in dealing with its housing emergency; WHEREAS, it is not the intention of the City Commission, in dealing with the crisis in low cost rental housing in Miami, to create disincentives to the investment in and ownership of rental apartment housing; 1,1O11, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NIAHI, FLORIDA: Section 1. Declaration and Findings. The City Commis- sion finds that a housing emergency exists in the City so grave as to constitute a serious menace to the general public. The City Commission has determined that this emergency has been substantially caused by a shortage of dwellings resulting in abnormal increases in rents and that this condition has created, a substantial shortage in affordable rental housing. To combat this serious menace to the general public, ameliorative r, action through enactment of this ordinance by the City Commission { r: n is imperative and as a temporary measure. n Section 2. Short Title. This Ordinance shall be knownf�r, and may be cited as the City of Miami Rent Stabilization Ordinance, Section 3. Definitions, Unless a different meaning clear- ' appears g ], 1 a cars from the context, the following terms shall Mean �r and include; ns a,) Administration - City Manager or his designee, 2 if ! f; ttntal units residential unit in any residential = ,... building containing four. or More {firth I iF k fental units in which said units are occur or intended to be occupied by one or 't pied ' More as a residence, together the land and buildings appurtenant faith thereto; and all services, privileges, furniture and facilities ,t furnishings, tiv f , xn supplied in connection with the occupation garage e and parking thereof, including g g t facilities. u - Consideration, including any bonust Rent benefit or ,ratuity demanded or received for or in connection with the use or occur panty of rental units. (d) Landlord - An owner,lessor, sublessor, assign- or other person receiving or entitled to nee receive rent for the use or occupancy of any i rental unit or an agent of any of the foregoing. 5 fz i o{tr lessee, sub- i Us a H Tenant - A tenant, subtenant, entitled to the posses- lessee or other person z lion, use or occupancy of any rental unit. All Section 4. Rental Units Controlled by this Measure. ,. _ rental apartment buildings with four or units in residential the aggregrate rent due on a monthly basis more units, where rental units on or after January 1, 1977, divided by I from all the number of units was $250.00 or less. 5. Rental Units Specifically Not Affected by section ,f measure. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this j section, no controls shall be imposed on rents I f�ti tAt for accommodation used or offered for resi- any dential purposes as a seasonal or tourist unit, Ys m j it i 4 I i S ,, t v e J k l fit. t 3 " f 4 10 tents for dwelling second housing unit, of on luxury apartment buildings. For us x units located in luxury apartment of. this section, a Y Y 1 the purposes S 1 1977 the aggregate January one wherein on Y basis from all dwelling C �yi t rent clue on a monthly 1k r existing leases or rent lists ` units as stated in divided by the number of dwelling on that date - exceeded $250.00. rL units ;{ monastery# hospital, convent, in an �O Rental units Y facility, asylum, non-profit i Y; yf i F i extended nedical-care or dormitory owned and n, �facility for the age. , institution of education, hotels, operated of an boarding houses or units motels, rooming and n to seasonal guests* ,L rented primarily ' a overnmental unit, agency a ) Rental units which g in which operates, manages, or owns►! �5=>{ or authority tenants reside. governmentally subsidized in buildings Co nstructed after the ' ":{d) Rent al units effective of this ordinance. Statements and Notifi- Section 6. Ellin o£ Rc istration landlord with four (4) or cation o f Control Status. (a) Every thirty days after the effective its shall, within rental units m ore the administration of the City r date of this ordinance, file with by the administration of tliami, registration statements prepared ification of rents charged on or after January 1, setting forth ver shall hc considered necessary to j'. 1977, and such other data as covered by this Ordinance to ildins are determine whether bug Such registration statements effectuate the purposes herein. shall be accompanied by a certified audit. t D ministration shall promptly notify landlords as to their his ordinance. (c) Landlords shall building's status antler t disclose to all tenants of controlled units that their units are controlled and shall further inform them of the r'►onthly rents charged for their units as of January 1, 1982— 4 , •' i c ' , _, ( E " r i 777 o ti o11:ec1 7: e t i s,s%ble Rent..,..Inctesses in...... ged tiofi tJfii.tS � the rent charged to a tenant of a control' _ led rental unit as defined in Section 4 be increased by no more than above, may during the duration of 10% (ten percent) or by actual costs as this ordinance ,t audit to t}Ze admin� evidence by certified during the one year duration of istration this ordinanceAt tenants with leases with escal- z ) Landlords and into prior to the effect•- fk ator clauses entered rs this ordinance which nab exceed ve date of. shall not be in violation the r�%zfimu►7 increase of this ordinance. A tenant who has paid section 8. Civil Remedies. under this ordinance shall rent in excess of the rent authorized where such overcharge a right to recover such overcharge, and have intentional, the tenant shall he entitled to is willful and Jurisdiction all appropriate action in a court of competent a > > institute it of the legal maximum rent* rentals collected in excess to recover be entitled to recover re asonable The prevailing party shall ion must be brought within two (2 ) Such act X� attorney s � fees• years from �P the date of the overcharge. „ Section 9. Prohibitions. -r be unlawful for any person to do (a) It shall 3Y € yi in violation of any r or on to do any act Y i or the requirements under regulation, order solicit, attempt this ordinance or to offer, or agree to do any of the foregoing. R } for any person to willfully w i ' (b) It shall be unlawful false statement or entry in any document ; make any .2 before the administration or or report submitted 5'u or+regulation, order, or requirement thereunderr . or to willfully omit or neglect to make any Material statement or entry required to be made in any such document or report. ate This eoton 10. Submissionof_ Ordinance tc l.lector • sure shall be submitted to the voters of the City of Miami at mea llowing its adoption by the City the next municipal election fo Commission. Section 11. Effective Date and Duration. This neasure, once adopted by the City Commission and ratified by the voters of the City of tliami, shall take effect on January 1, 1982 for a period of one year. Section 12. Penalty Any person who willfully violates an provision of this ordinance shall, be subject to a fine not y p to exceed five hundred (500) dollars; and/or imprisonment for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days. Section 13. l?cdieS S3Ved All causes of action or remedies ac cruel under this ordinance during its duration shall survive ter- mination. . If any provision Section 14. Severabilityof this ordinance, provision to any or the application of suchperson or circumstance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this ordinance, it being the intent of the City Commission {Be that the ��rovisons of this ordinance shall be doomed severable. �;! k� y PASSEL) ON FIJ�ST READING By 'rI`:LE ONLY this 4, day of AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE +� PASSED r day of 1981 • ah s 011LY this C7 Up A �.. EE I r��X© FtALpil G, ONC IE CITY CLERK. 6 Y �t fi i I k 7 Ut r•'-7 I t.:t►► I I: II tNttO-OFFtGt "+Mtt .JORANOUM Howard V, Gary May 84 1981 City Manager pent Control Director City Commission Agenda Dena Spillman, May 15, 1981 Department of Community Development As you are aware, rent control will be one of the subjects of discussion at the May 15 City Commission meeting. For the many reasons set forth in the January 15, 1981 staff report on the subject, a copy of which is attached, we continue to be opposed to the initiation of a rent control program in the City of Miami. Review of the proposed ordinance on rent control prepared by the Law Department further reveals that the state enabling legislation on this subject is constrictive, to the point that a viable rent control program would be extremely difficult to implement administratively and would not provide the immediate relief to the housing problem which would be the purpose of the program. The following problems are inherent in such a program: 1. State law requires that if a rent control referendum passes, all units that rented for S250/month or less as of January 1, 1977, would currently be subject to con- trolled rents. The task of ascertaining rent levels for all rental apartments in the City as of that date would be extremely time-consuming and would require an extraordinary commitment of staff. It is also impossible to ascertain the number of units that would be affected by this program, as such data is not available; there., fore making planning for implementation of the program extremely difficult. 2. If rent control were passed by referendum in November of 1981 (the next municipal election), to take effect January 1, 1982, several immediate implementation prob- lems would result. Given City Civil Service requirements, it would take a mini- mum of two months to hire staff. As a result, appropriate staff would not be available as of the start date of the program. Further, the data collection and verification process would be so complicated that it would not be completed before April 1, 1982. As a result, the program would not be operational until four to six months after the date of passage. Because, under State law, the program is only in effect for one year (until January, 1982), the effectiveness of such a program would be severely diminished. F_ i ,.10 h? �1 •r Howard V. Gary Page two may $, 1981 3+ Implementation of a rent control program would seriously exacerbate an already serious housing problem. If rent control was to pass on referendum, landlords could be expected to immediately raise rents in anticipation of enactment of the program, causing severe hardship on existing tenants. 4+ As stated in our previous memo on this subject, this program could be extremely expensive for the City. Other cities, in dealing with this problem, have initiated filing fees for owners of rental units upon submission of required data. Owners of rent controlled units may feel such a fee is unfair in light of what they will consider enforced low rent ceilings. 5. The Law Department has raised a potential liability problem which could result from implementation of the program. Rent control inspectors, upon visiting a unit, would be obligated to report to the proper authorites any apparent vio- lations of local zoning and housing codes. Owners required to correct such violations might choose to abandon their rental properties rather than make mandated repairs. If these repairs were made, rent increases would certainly be justified. Such increases would place additional economic burdens on the lower income tenants of the buildings. Certainly, a grave housing situation exists in the City of Miami. While rent control would seem to respond to the rental problem, in part, other more viable approaches to resolve the problem are available. The scattered site rental housing program intended to increase the housing supply is one such approach. u - In October of lgc0, the City Commission was presented with a proposed ordinance for local rent control. The sponsor of the proposal urged its adoption by the Commission as a measure to eliminate "rent proffteering" by avners of rental property seeking to capitalize on the City's shortage of rental housing. An opinion on the subject of rent control provided by the City Attorney's office (see attached copy) indicates it to be within the City's power to institute rent control measures and impose rent restrictions on owners of buildings with average rents of $250 per unit per month, subject to certain procedural requirements and a referendu.;. by-i•liami's voters. Pricr to an, action by the City Co:r.missicn with respect to rent control, the positive and negative aspects of instituting such measures should be considered. The proponents of rent control maintain that rent regulations effectively prevent unscrupulous rental entreprenuers from "rent oouging", particularly during periods when rental housing resources are in scarce supply. Supporters of rent control also argue that controlled rents protect lower income fa:,ilies on fixed incon:es from rental rate increases caused by inflated market conditions. The argu,rents ,enerally advanced by those individuals and organizations opposed to local rent control are many and varied. To a greater or lesser extent, depending upon the eccromic factors at work in a given coir.,,mnity, they are valid. Among them are: Rent control discourages reinvestment in rental property by owners who decrease capital expenditures for building maintenance to maintain "reasonable" profit levels. - Rent control generally reduces a city's residential property tax income as rent receipts are used to calculate property taxes. - Rent control increases the incentive for avners to convert rental apartments to cordCminium avnership reducing the overall rental housing supply. -_ --.�- ....� .� .. .._.. _ . _ .._ _ ... „�. : +v.. � � l Y 4 l 4 1 ; 4 � i r 1 -,+� s-•.16+�uiW. rF4 .i TY ..i 6'� ...�......�..� • 5 r r t ' r r Richard L. Fosmoen Page two __. January 15, 1981 L Pent ccntrol acts as an additional disihcehtive to developers of new retrtal housing discouraging production of units to meet increased demand: Nevertheless, over two hundred local governments have adopted rent control legis- lation and are instituting rent control programs. Mlany other cities are new con- sidering rent control measures. The extent to which rent control has effectively served the lcl•rer i nccr7e families in cities ',ri th such programs is the subject of a -great deal of debate. Critics claim that rent control does not serve the poor and reduces incentives for new rental housing develcps-,ent. Supporters argue that these programs serve their intended purpose and are necessary to preserve the welfare of -- the economically' disadvantac;ed. Accurate statistical data supporting the views of the antagonists in this issue are difficult to obtain, and results are subject to the unique social and economic factors at play in a given community. Therefore, the imerits and disadvantages of implementing a rent control program in Miami must be viewed within the context of local conditions. With the extreme shortage of available rental housing in Miami (o:' rental vacancy rate), it is reasonable to assume that some o:rners of rental property are taking advantage of the situation through rent profiteering. However, beyond those few ; instances that have recently cone to the attention of city gcvernment, the extent s- of the prc5lem is unknown. To a certain extent, all of Fliami's renter fam.i1ies are experiencing the impact of l both national and local inflationary factors. Rental rates, like the costs of other services and corr•modities, are increasing. NaturaIIy, families cn fixed g. incomes and those on the l orer rungs of the economic ladder are most affected. f In considering the ir:pleirentati cn of measures to control the impact of inflation on hcusin, costs and prevent "rent gouging", the City must be mindful of the effect such measures might have on the existing housing inventory and the potential for development of new rental housing resources. Of equal importance, it should cen- sider whether or not rent control would actually serve those families and individuals for %•;high it is intended. Also, instituting measures to ccntrol rental rates on apartments in the S250 per month r n(.,e would not necessarily tenefit the poor exclusively. It is' -often the case that efficiencies in this rent ran,,, are occupied by younger pr'c1e—i0n,11S. M,111Y lOW inCOTM-1 fa111►lleS, Of COL -Se, are renting apart- ments aL rates %sell in excess of those that would fall under the City's jurisdiction in a rent control program. %•Many develc-,)ors of hou;in, in Miarli have expressed stronq opposition to the imple- mentation or local rent ccntrol measures indicating that they would present one more obstacle t0 the nela rental housing industry which has all but ceased as the result of inflated land, construction, financing and operational costs. Some owners of existing rental property in Miami have indicated that rent control and the "red tape" ir.:plicit in such a program would leave therm little choice but to seriously consider conversion of their property to ccr,derliniuT ownership, An opinion on the subject of rent control provided by the City Attorney's office (see attached copy) indicates it to be %githin the City's poe'r to institute rent control rneasur-2s and impose rent restrictions on a•rners of buildings with average �C unit rents of $2per re. per month , subject to certain procedural reIerendu;, by_�;iami's voters. iui rerr.ents and a Prior to any action by the City Commission with•respect to rent control, and negative aspects of instituting such measures should be considered th` positive The proponents of rent control maintain that rent regulations effectively prevent unscrupulous rental entreprenuers from "rent gouging", particularly during periods when rental housing resources are in scarce supply. Supporters of rent control also argue that controlled rents protect log-;er income families on fixed inco:r:es from rental rate increases cau:.ed by inflated market conditions. , The arguments generally advanced by those individuals and organizations opposed to local rent control are many and varied. To a greater or lesser extent, depending upon the economic factors at :•cork in a given community, they are valid. Among them are: - Rent control discourages reinvestment in rent,il property by owners who decrease capital expenditures for• building maintenance to maintain "reasonable" profit levels - Rent rent control receipts generally reduces a city's residential property tax income a are used to calculate property taxes. s - Rent to condominium control increases C-anership the incentive for earners to convert rents 1 apartments is reducing the overall rental housing supply, �: while the rent control measures proposed to the Commission recently would only ir'pact upon owners of rental properties with average rental rates of $250 per month, the point discussed above would seem irrelevant to the discussion. However, they must be considered. -- -- -- rear on the part of developers of hcusina and rental housing owners of the imple- rrentation of future rent control Treasures directly affecting their interests could cause im,rediate "across the spectrum" rent hikes, as well as investment of potential housing capital in other i nves *,-ent alternatives. Of more importance though is the effect that rent control micht have on the small properties directly affected by the rent control proposal and the cost of imple- .menting the program. The majority of small rental buildings in Fliami that would fall under rent ccntrol are at least 20 years old and, by today's cc�es, are sub- standard. In many instances, the desire of property cvners to maintain profit levels in the face of rising eperati nc c cr is has resulted in deferred mai r,tenance. These inflationary factors ca�bined with Only r,arcinal activity by the City in the area of code enfcrcenent are working in concert to reduce the quality of the Clty's existing renal housing inventory. Pent control without accelerated code enforcement could very ::el 1 hasten this decline. Furthermore, rent ccntrol could serve to decrease the City's c;2rating revenues as has hap^erred in r,„any cities ..,here rent receipts are used, in part, to calculate property taxes. Pent control pro,r:r cost considerations must also enter a discu�sicn of subject. A rent ccntrol program in Nliai;1i would require a bu:::et of approximately $200,000 pet, year. This, of course, could increase or decrease depending on the level of ' service necessary to ra?et actual de.marid. Finally, it should Le pointed cut that some amount of consideration is being liven by Reagan !d,;;ini;tration officials to the discontinuation of federal assistance to cities with rent control progrj,',s. Mayor Pete tJilson of San Diego, who heads President Urban Affairs Task Force, considers local rent control pro,raTrs unquali' i, d failures as rr'e(?-tires t0 insure equitable treatment of ranter families in the housing riao:et. The ner•r administration's concerns have began supported by a special study group Of the U.S: Depart:'�ent of HUD which recently ur;ed repeal of all local r•cnt control le,islaticn. SirTilar opposition to rent control has been expressed in Conr. ;ress. Cr'rtairrly, the loss of much needed federal assistance would have a ,-7a jor .rrpact or, the Ci ty's ability to carry out essential conaruni ty improverent activities. Richard L. P osroeh Page four - JahUary 16, 1981 1h su.7 dry, through rent control initiatives t provide sorre measure of relief ' the ty Would be in a a escalating rental housing to lower income residents nary confrontedwith �o escalating teers Qut the it costs, as well as those being victimize have a severe negative�irnaacon of such a program would be expensivedba vent profi- inventor L a t cn both the qualit, and could a catal inventory she City�s tax revenues. Fur' J of the existing rental rS" , cr �her;,ore, rent housing - core rental to condo inium control could serve as priv,:te investcent in rental housing conversions and further discourage whether or not rent control would actpallycbenefitit is also uncertain as to - to serve, hose families it is intended ,For these reasons, and due to the fact that the City 'between th rent control and federal grant ass istance in the neare9uture t0 choose reco ,;,ended that the City should not i ns s lute a l local this ii,;:e. t is rent control prcgra,;r at /rif - in i..-L- `1 :i•. I':ili•tJi'e: iF ', @. tr�r. i:)1. •• ...- -----.._.. _.._ ..s..._. .—..�.. ...�._—_---_. -- M z e�rou;� o,` Ccncerncd amity of c'ilcf11 resin hts hatt�coFosJ. _. that .the Citlt Cc, issloncrs of the Cit f �` iii r`11 c;iaet t .l This nroc)usJl cei-lt onl;i rcferr(,%; to �,:� a "rent, control" ordirta�cc. resel�ts tilu following lowing issues for the Clt,' Cor:1r.11SSLOn' S C �t1 ilG3r- I�.;'11: `1: t-JFJETIICR THE CITY OF f' IAMI FIi1:i M>;ER '10 Eiii:CT Tli:. R);'IT 'CONTROL OE.i?IN'4Ci;. '' t�ti.J 1, 12 .1 '! 1 Tc.� ��II:i:C�'..�VE r'i': ISSUE 12. (ISSU'kIL\C T} E v;E J v'T CI.t�Z.n T r• :TI`Ii:LY E;ir,CT SUC1I LI:�? Th; Suprcr.;C CCL:rt in C_tv �,_ -----� --- —=-=- =--_ { y ,; 1 t0 i�t. l .'S l il., �'r ��' i�'�:, -• , 1G � a� :. an t .. ^[r, )q..-1 L'.1: f-ontil.r }:C_'L J�+� t11J 3entQf; 4 t)�: - ! C C i T l" ' the .l It. ;I a :1:1:.�!:G of �,1::)l•L t ;1::L"mac :1 ' trol (fir: 1 :3.1�'_ V^ L -i"t 1; :�. - .. t 71)nc%.:'!at1.nCC�..:�CS. aue to a nc n�j �•:�rt_a �_ atli . , 111�1 t1'�u trli+i Court:: ruling 1:11,1t tho oLc11i; lnC(�,• :.i11'.I1 ll:?+ :' L�..- SiC:�'r� 2On '.:•::i LII�'ail J, an ap,'�N2,-11 th�r 1(�rG � CUr t. i1to itL 1Ca 1::5:.�: r•: i^lVl ' J\' l _ t7 F F for i��' S �l C0L1 t ; the !)c)t:.?t Fri I11C1: a rl?nt I:Cs ,on :1.11j the 1friL' (:'1f_• CC.'Irt fUll:lu 1~ til:!`l;.,l't1.1 '.�}1al is CO•'1` C)Il— ly cit''d it:i t11C "ii:Il:1Cl��al I1Qtll ltl-ll(' C�:Y.:''_C Act". rJl:ll:t'. 166.021(1), F �jLv•_:, 'c'1+�ri.l.l.l i'luilLctnc:ll.t1• tho no-'_ S.';'1 rl' �JO':l+:r to I1e1Ct rt 'it CJ111 L.�1 le�+jL:il t1C)n. Chi. ( f•r '+: '....11: �.. t1CnC U' tag'' L"''fl l: Ct'il t:r01.1111, C1J r . I 11 pal Ilovic I?Il ll: A hll1�� 1::i ct:. rc:co+j!1 i.:P,(0 •_ 1c t11,. > 1nliLn�1 tl:al: tht'� CLI::' O� 1i1.11a1 i1L�ll }1 )il:. i.:a�i(' i i1C` n [)o'acr I:O (:n.�ct rc`tlt-control 107+j1.slatlUtl, till UCC:lll.11l. t i }1+:I: 'Je- f (':. �ounJ Lo bu unC7t1'; 1:L tU.LC)t:�ll. u F in ruILilr r:lltlt `1'l'.: or,iinom ia(1C:ri;l:.:�t'i1:L��:•=%, 'i,G ��-'ICL arhi t: a nlal at - ti,�l�,l tll.lt: iL:i ;)r�)vi.:iic:n:� .Zn(i ��u:.tl•:1:: rtta..i�nc::31e and that It was Ci)1:=15.1��1'}' :111:1 1 (ic tl4l+ .�-�.•.+..•..c.►tiP�:"or'r;�nrem!.�.+.�.�.'!iecyC,'!�;*�;y�'��'�`•"t"'"'="�. -. ... 1'%.•.C..�.�iaK�.Ms*....rl.+.r:.r �. wrw+rn�.+..na..►�.i.r.w ..... ..: w..- .w� � ....:.• .� .... ,..,, ;,K ., .., •,-�.,,�:�,..:,...�.:....�..W ... ten.:,,. ;....,...,.,_......H.�.,. .�...,..�.... ,... __. 7rCLi'!a3. -hc C(iUrt found tiic tatl:icii�.'1.� aand ;i1iC4Cllrc3 for t;ie r c n t adI:11I11sICat0r W a 3 s0 ii::'=d cind 3r'!)i :•at7 clnCi1!1 such ex{'.ct pu'rccliFta;j(--S •Zfll c?;�.00I,tS-""^1S .Is�)L'(?'lO:lt the - - '-`a�3r" mist-nitor from allcc�'in7 a fal.'_` icZt(. Of 1:ctur l LI Clr.1 landlord. N3 St1Ct1 the ordinanCC as COniiscatol:y. The �-+ 7> >"^ ' hat �11C nir'::'� .:t_ cat_��J Ia1C, net annual CoU.. Gat , ..Erie':. - ` , r+ = rate O.F. return l;acc-d on ass'2sse:; val .at: On and the fciilutc to acc,,unt r..o:: tgag.- in crept as an C .+- evpens'.: w,2re aRcnq the major provisions of Ordinancc that 1`_,: to it:i tl?m p Ora1"�' C1Cat 'r:n0 1 . i1C'.JIlfal l In =nrt� ()'•:e '`i, su � a j the CLt': OF ii:a?fll c;C'aC11 CCiit:il5 ;Li}:1 ruturnuc] to tfit+ Clrat:l.`tr board to ('I13:~ a revises', ordin-,;lce ti'at cz�'sld 'o-sil�l,✓ stana it''i•11 Cti _.ii0ngc Z'r1Cs 01, casos LC;::1C.^.r liln ifi=tl SC(11o ni. ?-al_1:, 331 ^SC 2(i 232 Cl l CA) i^ �1976 al tic; ::(1C: i' � ii:� 1. i� 1'i ! Q ii2 (_.(. �• O i. i_�' _ '%:.: UC. i�l/ T' rr ,l: 1- ;1 3V.i Jo. a2.J, 5.7S \ �Z• a'J/O� / �.i1(� �.� _ �s �. ..1 t�i�i1 iG:..1u '_.0 1yC 11I1C:J1::iI:- t-u LonaI on t�ie '';' t t,l, �r :ti�"_ .-7 ,n� r,!" :�' .:1:... :itatL.t:v�• re^ .•.• (..:: �^..:1 a. t1i Z(i^t; ~ a `in r_: " •0:. 1s in, �: r'.i_� "I'C :�O C11 r �i L•l: c?o to Cvn: tit ltl a �,�•.•_n'l a fIL'ncZC._ to ti-_ Al recited in AS th'o C()1a1:t hold, .n its `iU^'"cZ :Grit CCI:_�v^^� 1�'�Ji:l,ltiUil:i lIi d L)r0).L .:��.1C� i3 OL M'..:1- G'•^.il:C'.1(�: L� C:<J::y U:iC'.t r tllt_' r'r�;�Cr Cc�:.ILt:.oli5. th+:.me .CJr1-".c~ Lmj thy' s'aries of Case:, c'-.a lcn 7 1.I:(1 ts' C Miami ue3Ci1 rent COntr:�l Ord ilianCe i5 t!ldt, thy' CL'::i:lanC�: Int1s:: .: ati(}nal lti• att:c-n1 ,t to r c l icvtl t;:c Cr�i:1C•Z1 ..;UI:L,I�jC OF rE'31.:0.(1t1a" ir`. using anal ciCC<?.1!?)h..At;On3 Which- )Untif-� Co prcl-io':C al -, C'.:U r:1 to Tlt':11 ♦r llU: .loll ::.1J1J�� (:C� ,- "..t': _, SuPra a t 7 f, Thr, lc,i i:,l'ajti•✓o l:o(ly (ails t Mike Af illc� ink t;lcz t .� m,ul is or cr- C}Cl1Cl 4'. t0 tll�_ Q%1:C!1.t that: iVI-1CC...I C 1'_(7i� i•:tl(l(1 T1C�C :���'.t tO OCC:''Iit .::;CICI)lt.lilt 1I1C1'� �1 iC:S Ltl r':nt 1.-'t,Ult- 1!1/J .1 tho L; :i•1.'. t1ma: 3110W land- lordo 1 Fair ankl return Upon Lh.cir investitlent-S. rqr�-c supra at 760. 10 osm _ell Not-.lithstanczincj the foti�-,c)i in jug tisl action, the Plori da Logislatu e has defined ,.hc spec: flc paralnt2Lur's nor mu211C1pc11 rent C011tr0l 1(':i.S'l�ltlona In i97(,, t1^,C cloda__._ -- -' hogislature on. zctcd Section 166.043, Florida Statutos of the Municipal}Io l•a Rule Po4:rs Fact. All local lcgialaticn Concerning r^_nt Cent. .`lS muSt with this provisiOft, tt,,requires the legislative fimling: "That such controls arc neccssar,> and prcpe to c11^linit�-, an ex-; sting housin'3 en"o-rt;t2ncy which is so grave as to constitute- a serious menace to the general public." Such let,151�`lv'' f1n�i. c",YY; ,s + nYys....,... f al .. 1. �. c... .. �. L.J l.tl'_ '+. .�...�. 1.. ioIl of L 11_.Y .i and placos the i)'_ir:1C_'n cn tiii: challoI;gin,3 party to rec..ut such finding. Scc--.on 166. 4'1(5) Fla. Stat., requ-rc_s ti:^ fo..D•-1n3 action'bcy taken in ore' k- F.naCt rent control le^L�latiOrl: (1) Lnoti .e and ; ubl is �:�_ci� ;on In �, n oL.:.�n. .cam o�.� Y:tr fin: 1.1; -- -ted (3) Fic cr.�.... L:1 1,2 ::1 t.li,ibl<� vot,2rs or the '�i _ of It Shotlltl :)•: nott_:: that the runt Cont-- ols I:o ` of , p:)1:c1- ble to r�c:;it;cnt�•-a acct_;7,mo:iltiJns used orcl:farc;i as �:7:,7i:,:1 or tou_ Est t1:11.+..:i, :C. :I11 11oe115in•.j Lill lts o:. (-1wo1llnc- units 1.)� cuted i.n aparti.ont buildings. Section 166.043 (4) . Fla. "tat. r In sum,-m-iry, the Commission of tllr- City of 1111a•.li is em-- po•.terct? to enact rent control legislation ;)roviacd such legislation does not contravene provisions of Section 1G6.0433 Clor. ida Sta tut.. s. t , �.�1•_n,.1.It_ AssisLar.t City Attorney iq1- discussion at the may 15, 1981 City CoTmtsslOnyr---- likely that the annual administrative costs associated with a local rent control program as well as the administrative arrangements for such a program will be discussed. I am of the opinion that should a local rent control program be established in miami., the Building & Zoning Inspections Department be charged with __ : -- n7M hP requested to AMP 1 t ` Y �iy i fat a RESOLUTION iV I ft AS, The Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce recognites is counterproductive towards improving the that rent control plight of tenants: and WHEREAS, the threats of rent control are continuing to deter builders and developers from constructing new rental units; and WHEREAS, rent control accelerates the process of conversion Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce