Salt Lake City raises the cost of rental housing…by raising the cost of owning rental property.

I’m no fan of slum landlords, but does the government have to make it more costly to profit from property ownership?

In Salt Lake City, apparently the answer is “yes.”

Since 2009, Salt Lake City has required owners of three or more properties to get a business license. But on Sept. 1, a new rule expanded that requirement to people with only one or two units. All property owners will have to get a business license for $110. In addition, they’ll pay $342 per unit.

Does it count if you live in one of the units?

The article goes on to state that the purpose is to get owners to take part in a training on how to be better landlords. A great idea, but a necessarily imposed one?

All good intentions aside (and I do see that there are good intentions here), the cost will only filter down to the tenants in the form of higher rents and fees. With the recession prolonging, housing ownership more difficult, and rental demand high, this only imposes further burdens on those who can afford it least.

Wouldn’t it be more fair to tenants if they, not the city, decided whether they will pay more for a better landlord or less for a lazy slumlord?

(And this is from the same well-meaning people who don’t want you to idle your engine for more than two minutes…)

[KSL]

Related articles

• New program in Salt Lake requires all landlords purchase business license ()
• Utah wants rescue gone from rental home (upi.com)
• Occupy Salt Lake protests treatment of homeless at Pioneer Park ()
• Salt Lake City may outlaw excessive idling ()