Second Hearing on Proposed City Rental Registry (Oct 27, 2025)

Councilmember Bankston convened the second hearing on the proposed creation of a city-wide rental registry for residential units in Columbus. The Department of Building and Zoning and the Department of Development presented a revised framework based on feedback received during the initial September 16th hearing and ongoing stakeholder engagement. Councilmember Bankston emphasized that no legislation or predetermined outcome currently exists, and the city remains in the stakeholder engagement phase while finalizing the program's budget and details.

Consent Calendar

• [None]

Public Comments & Testimony

• Opposition to the Registry:

  • Steve Glatman (Columbus Apartment Association): Expressed full opposition to the separate city registry, arguing it is duplicative of the county registry and unnecessary. He stated the proposed $20 per unit fee is excessive and not tied to documented costs. He positioned the net "too wide," arguing the policy penalizes responsible owners who receive orders for minor issues but comply quickly, rather than focusing solely on non-compliance or unresolved orders. He questioned the lack of a specific budget and the fairness of requiring compliant landlords to subsidize program operations.
  • Deb Krantz (Central Ohio Real Estate Entrepreneurs, individual landlord): Expressed strong opposition, stating the regulation makes Columbus less attractive for small investors. She positioned the proposal as adding unnecessary bureaucracy and costs that will be passed to tenants through rent increases. She urged the council to improve the existing county registry enforcement rather than creating a duplicate city system.
  • Mamadou Samuel Diofa (Real Estate Agent/Investor): Opposed the proposal based on experiences in Cleveland, arguing it creates bureaucratic obstacles for small investors trying to build wealth. He expressed concern that costs will rise and lead to higher rents, making it harder for residents to create wealth.
  • Christopher Jackson (601 West Companies): Stated strong opposition, arguing the registry adds bureaucracy that undermines affordability and duplicates existing enforcement tools. He positioned the initiative as failing to address root causes like aging infrastructure and called for investment and collaboration rather than increased penalties.
  • Daryl Jacobs (Solo Landlord): Expressed opposition to blanket fees, arguing they disproportionately burden "mom and pop" landlords compared to commercial owners. He requested that the city not demonize landlords and ensure small operators are included in future discussions.
  • Rosalyn Bay (Housing Provider): Opposed the initiative, arguing that adding costs to landlords inevitably increases rents and harms affordability. She positioned the majority of landlords as responsible individuals owning few properties to subsidize their retirement and requested that the city stop collectively punishing this group.
  • Dimitri Hotsifotinos (Willis Law Firm, representing Oakwood Management, Harbor Group, etc.): Expressed strong opposition to the fees and conditional inspection mechanisms. He argued the registry is legally preempted in many cases and poses an invasion of privacy for tenants of large compliant properties. He positioned the current proposal as a potential burden on 99% of compliant landlords and suggested the city should rely on existing county data and code enforcement rather than a new registry with mandatory fees.

• Support for the Registry:

  • Daisy Chamberlain (BRED Organization): Expressed support for the original concept of proactive inspections but opposed the current revised proposal's reliance solely on self-attestation. She demanded clear outcome measures and insisted on proactive inspections for a representative sample of units to protect renters from retaliation and ensure safety.
  • Beth Fetzer Rice (Home for Families): Expressed full support for the registry as a critical tool to shift from reaction to prevention. She argued it protects families from negligent landlords and prevents the cycle of properties being sold to new owners to evade accountability, citing specific cases like Colonial Village and Latitude.
  • Aaron Sink (Local Landlord): Expressed support for targeting the "one percent" of bad actors more aggressively. While acknowledging the burden on good landlords, he argued for deeper penalties or special assessments for persistent non-compliers (e.g., vacant properties with unrepaired damage) rather than just the registry itself.
  • Remington Lyman (Reefco Real Estate): Correction: The transcript indicates Remington Lyman spoke in OPPOSITION, not support. He argued the registry adds fees and bureaucracy without fixing properties, would drive out small owners, and increase rents. He opposed self-attestation as ineffective against bad actors.
  • Michael Edwards (Legal Aid): Expressed support for the general goal of tenant protection but criticized the exclusive reliance on self-attestation. He proposed three options: random sampling of self-attested units, rolling inspections, or mandatory third-party inspections, arguing that affidavits alone are insufficient for safety. He also opposed the current "local operator" rule if it allows out-of-state operators to handle emergencies.
  • Nathaniel Wilkins: Expressed full support for the registry and advocated for significantly harsher penalties for bad actors, including jail time and increased fees.

Discussion Items

• Revisions to the Framework: Director Messer and Deputy Director Jones detailed changes made based on feedback. The new "conditional registration" status is triggered by 5 code orders (for 100 units or less) or 10 orders (for over 100 units) in a rolling 12-month period, targeting approximately 1% of properties. Conditional registrants must pay an additional fee and submit to third-party inspections and remediation plans.
• Fees and Costs: The proposed fee was revised down to $20 per unit with a $3,000 maximum (previously $40/unit, $5,000 max). Conditional registrants pay an extra $250 fee plus $20/unit. Deputy Director Jones clarified that fees are restricted to program costs (software, staff, enforcement) and cannot go into the general fund.
• Inspection Models: The revised proposal eliminates mandatory independent inspections for the 99% of non-conditional properties, allowing them to self-attest that major critical systems are working. Third-party inspections are reserved for the conditional tier.
• Local Operator Requirements: The city clarified that properties with 10 or fewer units do not need a formal local operator but must identify an emergency contact. Owners must identify a local operator within a 100-mile radius, though Ohio real estate license holders are exempt from the distance requirement due to state licensure accountability.
• County Registry Comparison: Staff and Councilmembers clarified that the city registry is not duplicative because the county registry lacks enforcement authority, has limited data collection capabilities (no emergency contacts for care/control), and operates under a different statute that precludes municipal enforcement mechanisms.
• Transfers of Ownership: A key change ensures that remediation plans and conditional status are inherited by new owners, preventing owners from evading accountability by transferring properties to new LLCs.
• Compliance Rates: Staff cited Cleveland's compliance rate at approximately 60% and projected lower initial compliance for small landlords (25%) but hoped for higher rates for large complexes (75%).

Key Outcomes

• No Final Decision Made: Councilmember Bankston confirmed no draft legislation or final budget is ready for a vote.
• Continuation of the Process: The council committed to a third hearing near the top of next year to review further revisions and potential draft legislation.
• Ongoing Dialogue: The council reaffirmed its commitment to continuing stakeholder engagement and listening to feedback from both proponents and opponents to strike a balance between tenant safety and landlord burden.
• Acknowledgment of Discrepancies: The council acknowledged the significant disagreement between the city's view of the "bad actor" threshold (orders vs. violations) and the landlords' view that the policy unfairly targets them, agreeing that more data correlation is needed to bridge the gap.
• Timeline Adjustment: Councilmember Bankston acknowledged he will not meet his original aggressive timeline due to the complexity of the feedback but committed to getting the policy "right" before implementation.