'Slumlords' the scapegoat for slumtenants.

A slumlord is defined in the dictionary as an owner of slum property, especially one that overcharges tenants and allows the property to deteriorate. This definition has some flaws that must be addressed.

Anyone involved in owning residential property in low income areas will disagree with this definition because the attributes of a property are not always caused by the person or entity that owns it.

It is not uncommon for properties to deteriorate because of the actions of the tenants.

Many investors will buy neglected property with the purpose of upgrading it to a higher standard and quality from which it came. They certainly should not be blamed for the neglect caused by tenants or former ownerships that may have given up in despair.

Sadly, many oftbese properties may have become neglected because of the tenants not the owners! It is no secret that there is such a thing as troublesome tenants.

While discriminating against landlords has become politically correct, if anyone ever breathed the word "slumtenants," the hysteria would be unprecedented.

However, in order to resolve the disparity between the two, we must view both sides fairly. There is a basis for an owner of real property to be labeled a slumlord. The word would never have gained in popularity if there never existed a landlord who took advantage of tenants. However, the roles have become reversed with the majority of tenants now taking advantage of their landlords.

It is also no secret that housing courts are tenant-friendly and do allow tenants great leeway in defending their rights not to pay rent. Tenants have many means of retaliation against a perceived misconduct by a landlord. They can file complaints causing a property to be penalized with expensive violations and court appearances by its owner.

Taken to the extreme, tenants can become activists against a particular landlord engaging political and community leaders to become involved. This can lead to a myriad of problems for the landlord with virtually no consequences for the tenant.

When the cause of a building problem is the tenant, a landlord has little or no recourse except for eviction proceedings which almost always leads to strained relations thus fulfilling the age-old conflict of landlords versus tenants, not to mention the added costs of legal expenses.

The city council recently passed a bill call the Safe Housing Act, which would give the city the right to go after landlords whose buildings have serious building code violations.

The Department of Housing Preservation and Development would be responsible for identifying 200 buildings every year, which have a history of uncorrected violations. It will then force those owners to make the repairs. In cases where the owners fail to do so, the city will take it upon itself to do the work and bill the owner for the cost. If the owners do not pay the cost, they will be threatened with the potential risk of losing their properties to liens, fines or property confiscation.

In addition, the city will now have the authority to not only make the repairs but also go so far as to replace entire building systems, if that is what they believe is necessary to correct the problem.

Now, if only the city would enforce a landlord's right to collect rent payments from tenants who refuse to pay their rent for a variety of reasons, ranging from the truly deserving to the truly far-fetched.

What is not being addressed is the fact that many violations are tenant originated. Any landlord of middle income properties will attest to how difficult it is to gain access to a tenant's apartment. Without access, there is no easy way to resolve problems. In addition, if the violation is the tenant's fault, there is no way to ensure it will not reoccur. It becomes a never ending battle.

The bill states it is interested in targeting slumlords, however how fair is it to label an owner of a building in a low income area, riddled with illegal tenants, as a slumlord when we can't give the same title to the tenants who may have originated the deteriorating conditions?

While there are a small percentage of owners who actually do neglect their properties, with or without reason, there is a vast majority fighting to keep up with the damages inflicted by their tenants.

This new bill, ironically called the Safe Housing Act, will target 200 properties every year with the worst histories of uncorrected violations and will force the owners to do the repairs or be billed for any work the city does. However, if legislation was passed that monitored tenant crimes, it would be considered discriminatory.

The city council must be unprejudiced against landlords in order for this bill to be fair. If there are regular tenant-manifested problems, then it cannot place all of the responsibility on the landlord. If the city would give landlords half the rights tenants have, then there is a real chance at a level playing field.

Perhaps a good starting point would be to give tenants a violation for any complaint which is frivolous or unmerited.

Only then will the city be able to truly focus on real problems.

BY ADELAIDE POLSINELLI, SENIOR EXECUTIVE BROKER, PLATINUM TEAM, BESEN & ASSOCIATES