IKE Home

  About IKE

  Priority Projects

  Publications

  Right to Know

  Contact Us

  Search IKE

Photo courtesy John Winters

Thanks to The Boren Foundation,
and Jack and Karen Kay Leonard
for making this website possible. 

 

Follow us on:

 

Major Initiatives:

 

Rental Housing Quality in Marion County:

Moving Beyond Complaints and Canaries

Report by IKE’s Tom Neltner on November 22, 2005

Back to Main Indy Rental Housing Quality Page

Fact Sheet in pdf

Thanks to

Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust, and

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and

Alliance for Healthy Homes

for providing funding and guidance that made this research possible.

 

According to the 2000 Census, Marion County has 133,901 rental units – 41.3% of all homes.  Most of these rental units are in excellent shape.  Thousands of good landlords who care about their customers and their properties exceed the minimum standards set by the Marion County housing code and comply with Indiana’s landlord-tenant law. 

 

Unfortunately, Marion County has no systematic method to ensure that all landlords meet the minimum legal requirements.  Marion County Health Department (MCHD) – the agency that enforces the housing code – relies on complaints, lead poisoning investigations, and occasional systematic enforcement of specific apartment complexes to identify compliance problems.  This reactive approach has serious shortcomings that research by IKE has made clear threatens the health and well-being of Marion County renters, especially children.

 

The vast majority of MCHD’s housing code enforcement resources are invested in rental and contract sales property.  IKE analyzed MCHD’s housing code orders from January 1, 2000 to June 10, 2004.  See the table below for the results.  IKE found that MCHD took action against 3,282 unique address (including individual rental/contract sale units and hotel rooms).  85% of those addresses were rental or contract sale properties.  Since 2002 the percentage increased to 89% as enforcement against motels and hotels dropped dramatically.   

 

 

Indianapolis Housing Code Enforcement

By Marion County Health Department

 

Number of Unique Addresses/Units by Type of Occupancy

From January 1, 2000 to June 10, 2004

Occupancy

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

(to 6/10)

Total

% of Total

Env. Court

Lead

Hazards

Hotel / Motel

0

297

106

1

0

404

12%

0

0

Owner-Occupied

15

44

29

14

4

106

3%

19

3

Rental / Contract Sales

323

879

637

631

302

2772

85%

342

293

Total

338

1220

772

646

406

3282

100%

361

296

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The burden of problem landlords and contract sale situations on MCHD is made worse since 95% of the appeals to the environmental court are by landlords or contract sellers & buyers.  They challenge 12.3% of the repair orders.   It is their right to do so, but it is still a drain on MCHD’s limited resources and our tax dollars.

 

Meridian Street Apartment Buildings

Between 30th and 38th Streets

No. of Buildings

25

No. with Lead Hazards*

24

Location of Lead Hazards

 

  • Exterior Paint

21

  • Interior Paint

19

  • Windows

15

  • Soil

9

Severity of Lead in Soil Hazards

 

  • Standard Set by EPA**

1200 ppm

  • Average Level

689 ppm

  • Highest Level

8610 ppm

Severity of Lead Dust Levels on Floor in Common Areas

 

  • Standard Set by EPA**

40 µg/ft2

  • Average

57 µg/ft2

  • Maximum

639 µg/ft2

*     From July to September 2004 as a result of MCHD Investigations of IKE’s Complaints.  Only five of the 25 buildings had previously been cited for lead hazards.

**   Only the New Yorker Building at 3707 N. Meridian did not have lead hazards identified.

*** 40 CFR 765.65

Regarding the lead-based paint and lead hazards, MCHD identified lead hazards on 296 of the homes – 9% of the total.  Surprisingly, 99% of these homes with lead hazards were rental and contract sales property.  This is far worse than national estimates. 

 

Most of the homes with lead hazards were identified through investigations of lead poisoned children to identify how they were poisoned.  This approach uses our children as lead hazard detectors – essentially treating them in the same way that miners used canaries centuries ago.

 

In June 2004, IKE began filing complaints about the apartment buildings along Meridian Street between 30th and 38th Streets to MCHD.  Thousands of Marion County’s rental properties are along this nine-block corridor.  The results of MCHD’s investigations are described in the table on the right.  24 of the 25 apartment buildings had lead hazards – primarily deteriorated lead-based paint – and were ordered to eliminate the hazards.  

 

Lead dust on the floor is the most likely way children are lead poisoned.  The highest lead dust level measured was 639 µg/ft2 – almost 16 times the EPA standard.  The average highest level of lead dust on the floors in each building was 57 µg/ft2 – well over the EPA standard of 40 µg/ft2.  The highest level of lead in the soil was 8610 ppm.  This means that the soil around that apartment building was 0.86% lead!  MCHD previously identified lead hazards in only five of these 25 apartment buildings. 

 

Clearly renters are being unwittingly and unknowingly being exposed to lead hazards.  Lead causes permanent brain damage in children lowering IQ levels and contributing to violent behavior and learning problems such as attention deficit hyperactive disorders. 

 

In cooperation with the Concerned Clergy and the Citizen’s Multi-Service Center, IKE coordinated the Citizen’s Healthy Homes Initiative (CHHI).  As part of CHHI, the partners prepared 25 community residents to take samples for a variety of environmental threats to children.  Most of these residents where youth from the Kennedy-King Park Neighborhood.

 

Sampling of Homes in High-Risk Neighborhoods

By Citizen’s Healthy Homes Initiative*

from January 2003 to June 2004

No. of Homes Sampled

108

Percentage of Rental Homes

65%

No. of Homes with Children

55

No. of Children Tested for Lead Poisoning

10

Lead Hazards**

 

  • No. with deteriorated paint

50

  • No. with lead dust hazards on floor

54

  • No. with lead dust hazards on window sills

36

  • No. with lead in soil hazards in playarea or dripline.

18

Other Hazards

 

  • Cockroaches

22

  • Rodents

17

  • Mold or Mildew Evident

38

  • Strong Musty Smell

28

  • Unvented Gas Appliances

24

*     A collaborative project of the Concerned Clergy, Improving Kids’ Environment and Citizen’s Multi-Service Center.  Sampling primarily conducted by trained neighborhood youth and licensed neighborhood residents.  Most of homes are in Kennedy-King Park neighborhood.

**   40 CFR 765.65

 

The residents evaluated 108 homes from January 2003 to April 2004.  The results of the evaluation are described below.  Cockroaches and rodents pose many threats but their debris triggers asthma attacks.  Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences recently found that dampness in homes contributes to asthma attacks.  Mold, mildew and a strong musty smell are symptoms of dampness.  Unvented gas appliances generate carbon monoxide that

makes residents sick at levels when the CO alarm does not sound.  The CO alarm only goes off under life-threatening conditions. 

 

The CHHI team also evaluated a entire neighborhood to determine how many housing code violations could be see from the street.  It evaluated every one of 446 homes in the Kennedy-King Park neighborhood.  The results are described below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most common serious problems were:

·        Windows – 25% of the homes have broken or seriously damaged windows that allow water get into the home and the walls.  Water rots the wood and plaster, peels paint (including lead-based paint), and leads to mold and cockroaches.  An additional 29% are in poor condition.

·        Gutter – 20% of the homes have hanging or missing gutters or downspouts that let water get into the home or can damage the roof.  An additional 17% are in poor condition.

Indiana’s Requirements for Landlords and Tenants

From Indiana Code IC 32-31-8-5

A landlord shall do the following:

(1)     Deliver the rental premises to a tenant in compliance with the rental agreement, and in a safe, clean, and habitable condition.

(2)     Comply with all health and housing codes applicable to the rental premises.

(3)     Make all reasonable efforts to keep common areas of a rental premises in a clean and proper condition.

(4)     Provide and maintain the following items in a rental premises in good and safe working condition, if provided on the premises at the time the rental agreement is entered into:

(a)     Electrical systems.

(b)     Plumbing systems sufficient to accommodate a reasonable supply of hot and cold running water at all times.

(c)     Sanitary systems.

(d)     Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems. A heating system must be sufficient to adequately supply heat at all times.

(e)     Elevators, if provided.

(f)      Appliances supplied as an inducement to the rental agreement.

From Indiana Code 32-31-7-5

A tenant shall do the following:

(1)     Comply with all obligations imposed primarily on a tenant by applicable provisions of health and housing codes.

(2)     Keep the areas of the rental premises occupied or used by the tenant reasonably clean.

(3)     Use the following in a reasonable manner:

(a)     Electrical systems.

(b)     Plumbing.

(c)     Sanitary systems.

(d)     Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems.

(e)     Elevators, if provided.

(f)      Facilities and appliances of the rental premises.

(4)     Refrain from defacing, damaging, destroying, impairing, or removing any part of the rental premises.

(5)     Comply with all reasonable rules and regulations in existence at the time a rental agreement is entered into. A tenant shall also comply with amended rules and regulations as provided in the rental agreement.

 

·        Paint – 17% of the homes have extensive amounts of exterior peeling paint with bare wood exposed.  Since most of the homes were built before 1960, the exterior paint is probably lead-based paint that contaminates the soil and the home to poison children.  An additional 28% of the homes have significant amounts of peeling paint.

·        Siding – 17% of the homes have extensive damaged or missing siding that is most likely letting water get into the home and walls.  An additional 22% of the homes have some damaged siding that will get worse if not repaired.

·        Roofing – 10% of the homes have a roof that is damaged or sagging.  This problem will let water gets into the home and walls.  An additional 15% have damaged shingles or facing boards.  

 

Early and proactive intervention can fix the little housing code violations before they become overwhelming and threaten the integrity of the home.  This approach could keep these homes safer, healthier, and more affordable – and prevent them from being abandoned.

 

MCHD as a Property Manager:  Finally, IKE has found that 20 landlords owned more than 20% of the rental or contract sales property that was subject to housing code enforcement.  These landlords were essentially using MCHD as its property manager.  As one landlord told IKE’s Tom Neltner, if there are no investigations there are no problems. 

 

This approach puts the good landlords who actively manage their property at a serious competitive disadvantage to the problem landlords that rely on MCHD and taxpayer money to keep the property in proper condition – when those conditions get bad enough to be the subject of a complaint or a lead poisoning investigation.

 

What Marion County Needs Now?

 

IKE does not believe we need stronger standards at this time.  Marion County’s housing code sets standards that are generally sufficient to protect the health and safety of residents.  And Indiana adopted a landlord-tenant law (see box on previous page) in 2002 that established sufficient requirements for landlords and tenants. 

 

What is missing is a proactive system to identify rental contract sales property and ensure that landlords comply with the housing code and landlord-tenant law. 

 

Our current system relies on

·        Complaints – Unfortunately tenants often don’t complain to MCHD until the problem has gotten severe or they are giving up and moving out.  Many low-income or immigrant tenants are unlikely to complain out of fear of retaliation by the landlord.  In addition, complaints are of little help on hidden hazards such as lead dust and carbon monoxide.

·        Lead Poisoning Investigations – MCHD investigates each residence of a lead poisoned child for lead hazards and orders those hazards eliminated when they find them.  Unfortunately, this approach relies on children to detect the lead hazards.  Children become our modern equivalent of a miner’s canary alerting miners to dangers.  While an essential public health activity, lead poisoning investigation react to rather than prevent a poisoning.

·        Systematic Inspections – When MCHD gets many complaints about a particular apartment complex, it conducts a thorough inspection of all units.  This approach is important but still relies on complaints to initiate the process. 

 

This system essentially puts MCHD in the position of being a de facto property manager for the problem landlords that do not care for their tenants or their property. 

 

IKE believes that Marion County needs a proactive system with the following features:

·        Allows MCHD to readily identify rental and contract sales properties and who to contact if problems arise;

·        Requires landlords to certify to MCHD that they are in compliance with the existing housing code and landlord-tenant law;

·        Ensures that both landlords and tenants as well as contract sellers and buyers know their rights and responsibilities by requiring landlords and contract sellers to give tenants a door hanger prepared by MCHD that concisely and clearly describes the law;

·        Gives MCHD the right to charge landlords a fair fee for the second complaint about a rental property when housing code violations are found;

·        Protects tenants from retaliation for reasonable complaints about housing code violations to MCHD or enforcement of the landlord-tenant law; and

·        Assigns a portion of any fees and fines to the Indianapolis Housing Trust Fund to help landlords improve the quality of their rental property to the benefit of their tenants.

 

 

 

Thanks to the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust, the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Alliance for Healthy Homes for providing funding and guidance that made this research and this report possible.