Updated at 6:45am Tuesday:
Rent-to-own ordinance faces revision -QCTimes
So Lynn wants to "fix" the ordinance himself, now that he was caught in the act. Unfortunately, his "fix" doesn't fix any of the real problems with this ordinance. It only requires that these contracts be recorded, so now there will be proof that they can't be inspected as rentals. I don't see how this really makes the situation better at all, but I'm sure some landlords will be on here to attempt to explain it any minute. If they had honest intentions here, they'd just add contract sales to the inspections without subtracting rent-to-owns. Unfortunately, not many of us think there are honest intentions involved here.
Rent-to-own homes avoid inspections under ordinance -QCTimes
Thanks to Tory Brecht for bring this out into the open for the non-blogging public to read about. The letter to the FD with a list of properties that no longer need inspecting is VERY telling. This seems to have a high rate of disapproval from the people who know about these things, police and firefighting rental inspectors. From what I'm hearing it was slipped past into the consent agenda without all Aldermen knowing the implications. Shame on some of them for not reading closely, but shame on Alderman Lynn for bowing to landlords once again.
If the ordinance was really to "increase inspections" as claimed in the article, why not just add contract sales without eliminating rent-to-own inspections?
Also, I'm going to ban any accusations of being Dan or Wally on this thread. I don't know if I'll really delete violations, but I'll definitely consider it.