LANDLORDS NEED INCENTIVES TO BRING BUILDINGS UP TO PAR

Earlier this month, the Cape Girardeau City Council defeated a measure that would have required licensing of city boarding houses. What made the council's action curious was that the measure garnered first-round, unanimous approval in February.

But at its March 6 meeting, the council was deadlocked 3-3 on final approval of the licensing law, with Councilmen Richard Eggimann, Melvin Gateley and Jack Rickard voting against it. Mayor Al Spradling III and Councilmen Melvin Kasten and Tom Neumeyer voted for the plan. Gateley, Eggimann and Rickard called the boarding house licensing law an example of over-regulation by the city.

The licensing law was prompted by three fires in the past few months at boarding houses. Fire Chief Robert Ridgeway wanted the city to require licenses for operators of such businesses, which would enable the city to inspect the houses and make certain they aren't firetraps. The annual license would have cost only $1. City officials promised that inspections, which would come only once every two or three years, would focus only on safety issues to help assure tenants' safety. Inspections also would give firefighters information about the layout of the buildings, which would be useful if there was a fire.

The city already has a property maintenance code that sets a minimum standard for the condition of all commercial and residential property. That law, though, is enforced only on a complaint basis. The boarding room licensing law would have required inspections of all such buildings, whether or not there was a complaint.

Here is where many landlords agree with Gateley, Eggimann and Rickard: Good intentions aside, the licensing law would be just another notch in the ratcheting regulatory intrusion of city government into private affairs of business. Boarding houses today, apartment buildings tomorrow, and who knows what would be next. Or so the argument goes.

After all, the city already has a licensing law that has been on the books since 1967. That law hasn't been enforced, and few landlords ever applied for a city license. But that would have changed under the new licensing requirement.

There is merit to either passing a law aimed at reducing fire hazards in multiple-dwelling buildings or to enforcing an amended version of such a law that already exists. But even the most draconian licensing law can't remove every potential fire risk or environmental hazard. At some point the costs of such a measure -- upon landlords and, ultimately, on their tenants -- exceed the benefits.

The trick, then, is to try to draft a measure that provides an incentive for property owners to take it upon themselves to maintain the safety of their property. Perhaps the city could publish a "better rental property guide" for dissemination among students and other renters. The guide would list those buildings to which the owners voluntarily submitted to a city inspection. There likely are other ways to reward conscientious property owners. It is time for the city council to go back to the drawing board and come up with a few.