WORCESTER—They say the devil is in the details, an apt description perhaps for the state of the city’s proposed Rental Registration Program, which continues to bedevil Worcester City Councilors as they grapple with the scope of a policy both praised and pilloried.
Enacted in March after nearly five years of discussion, the registration program was almost immediately beset by issues, particularly around potential fines and privacy concerns.
Some have questioned whether the policy unfairly targets low-income residents while others have wondered about the costs incurred with a steep increase in health and safety inspections, and what might happen to landlords whose tenants refuse inspections of their apartments, as allowed under state law.
For now, a mild form of stalemate has evolved, as all sides await a legal ruling from city lawyers as to the legality and constitutionality of the program before discussions can resume.
This week, another layer of waiting has been added, with city councilors requesting through City Manager Eric Batista’s office a bevy of reports related to the rental registry effort.
Many of the requested reports focus on efforts to make the program more amenable to those affected by it, in particular small multi-family unit owners who live on-site, and the residents themselves. For these individuals, taking a day off work to attend an inspection poses a significant financial strain.
Councilors asked for reports on possibly exempting owner-occupied units of certain sizes from the registration program (as cities, including Boston, with similar programs have done) and not holding landlords and property owners liable when their tenants refuse an inspection.
Another requested a report explaining city policy on dealing with so-called “problem properties,” those with histories of code and health violations, and possibly outsourcing some of the health and safety inspections to private companies.
Some councilors expressed frustration over the requests.
Etel Haxhiaj, District 5 city councilor, for example, was particularly irked by what she saw as an incessant chipping away at the intent of the program.
“I cannot express how frustrating this conversation has turned into since we started looking at this rental registry, as a way to weaken it, dilute it, make it less effective than it should be,” she said.
For her part, Haxhiaj requested a follow-up to her earlier request about the number of rental properties owned by LLCs (limited liability companies), whose corporate structure often makes ownership hard to track, thus making it harder for the city to pinpoint who owns what.
The councilor’s earlier request showed the city has 3,073 units owned by LLCs, and this week Haxhiaj asked for a count on how many of those would be considered blighted.
One order failed to garner enough support from the council, that being District 3 City Councilor George Russell’s suggestion that the city mimic some portions of Boston’s existing rental registration program, allow exemptions for buildings with fewer than six units and in which the owner also resided, and to allow independent inspections of the homes, paid for by the property owners themselves.
Russell’s argument centered on the idea that building owners who live in their buildings would have heightened levels of self-interest enough that the issues the registration program is meant to address wouldn’t exist.
“I think that, when we’re worried about hoarders and we’re worried about fire hazards, I would think that we could trust a person who’s sleeping in the house that they don’t want to have a fire hazard,” he said.
Russell also touched on one of the undercurrents present in most debates about the program, that being who will be most impacted by the imposition of mandatory city inspections of rental properties.
The Boston ordinance, allowing for exemptions for owner-occupied buildings with fewer than six units, isn’t solely about trusting landlords, Russell said, it’s also about fairness.
“In Boston…[they decided not to inspect these units because] they could trust those owner-occupied to do it, no more than they’re going to come into my house…where I live, in my single-family house, and go through my kitchen cabinets to see how I keep my kitchen neat, or see what’s a fire hazard in my house.”
Morris A. Bergman, councilor-at-large, agreed with the “common sense” idea that rental properties are safer when owner-occupied, and he also saw an efficiency in exempting the units as proposed by Russell.
“I not only think that doesn’t weaken the ordinance, I think it strengthens the ordinance,” he said, “because the properties that are not owner-occupied, that I would argue are more dangerous, are going to get addressed much quicker if the various departments that are doing the inspection don’t have to go to the properties that are owner occupied.”
Councilor-At-Large Khrystian King worried that this proposal threatened to create “two separate standards for housing: one for poor people, one for rich people.”
King warned tenants might be loath to report issues or comply with inspections because it could mean losing their housing.
“We don’t want people choosing between complaining about their cold water and a shelter,” he said. “To some folks, that’s what it comes down to.”
Ultimately, Russell’s order was shot down, 8-3, with Russell, Bergman, and Councilor-At-Large Donna Colorio voting yes.
The program has its roots in discussions from 2019 after several city tragedies and was formally proposed in 2022 and rolled out in March of this year.
Since then, opposition has arisen from property owners over the cost of the program in terms of fees for registration and potential fines for non-compliance. Additionally, some have questioned privacy concerns over mandatory health and safety property inspections. Earlier this spring Batista proposed lowering the proposed fine for failing to register a property from $300 per day to a single fine doubling the registration fee, and the proposed fine for noncompliance with inspections was lowered also $300 per day to $200 per month.
For now, the council awaits the city’s pending legal opinion while the program itself remains in limbo.
FY 2025 budget proposal Unveiled
Officially marking opening day in the annual budget process, Batista presented the proposed $893 million city budget this week, which the council promptly sent to the Finance Committee without comment.
This is sure to be an interesting and challenging year, with the Worcester Public Schools already staring down a $22 million budget gap.
Batista’s proposal represents a three percent increase over FY2024, and includes fixed costs such as the $533 million slated for education, $47 million in debt service, and a total of $101 million for pensions, health insurance, and the city’s financial integrity plan.
The budget also proposes a three percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase in pay.
Batista highlighted increases in funding to education (5.3 percent), public safety (3.6 percent), and public works (0.7 percent), with all other city operations seeing an overall increase of 7.5 percent.
Batista said the proposed budget “has some constraints, but it has also provided some opportunities in this current year for us to be creative and do things to support our staff and really build on the consistency of investing in equity, on talent, and the culture of our folks here in the city.”
The first public hearing on the budget is expected at the May 14 city council meeting.
Ted Flanagan is a journalist, novelist, and paramedic from central Massachusetts. During his time as a newspaper reporter he covered courts and crime for the Eagle-Tribune in Lawrence and was a general assignment reporter in the Fitchburg Bureau of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. He can be reached at ted@tedflanagan.com
As the Worcester Guardian marks more than half a year of delivering free, independent digital news to our city, our dedication to this mission strengthens. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to support our ongoing commitment to providing hyperlocal news coverage to Worcester.
