Letter to the Editor: ‘Good’ landlords own vast majority of Springfield rental properties

Editor’s note: This letter was sent to Springfield City Council and is reprinted in Springfield Business Journal with the author’s permission. One paragraph has been added for publication.

As president of the board of directors for the Springfield Apartment and Housing Association, I wanted to follow up on a few things related to the rental housing inspection ordinance and comments made at last Monday’s [Nov. 3] City Council meeting.  I was pleased to hear the thought input of citizens.  It is always positive to have our community engaged.

The rental inspection program stems from the idea that Springfield has a nuisance property problem.  As mentioned by several on council during the hearing, this discussion has been ongoing for a few years. Councilman [Brandon] Jenson, however, seemed unclear on what some speakers referenced as a “study” conducted on nuisance properties in Springfield. In August 2023, Springfield City Council passed a resolution requiring quarterly reports on nuisance and blighted properties. From this, it would appear the intent was to “study” nuisance and blighted properties to capture subsequent data and use the findings to make decisions going forward. The Springfield Business Journal published an article in November of that same year providing details on those findings. In fact, Mr. Jenson was quoted in this article. Hopefully, this jogs his memory.

We can all agree that there are nuisance properties in Springfield, and those property owners should be held accountable. But the data told a very different story than that of a significant problem. On June 26, 2024, the Community Involvement Committee’s meeting agenda included Brock Rowe (former Building Development Services director) speaking on the “Nuisance Property Work Group Final Recommendations” where he talked about the issues and possible recommended solutions. I attended the meeting. Ironically, Rusty Worley referenced this Nuisance Property Work Group when he spoke on Monday night. Unfortunately, while representing half of the rental units in Springfield, no one from our organization was asked to participate and we weren’t made aware of these results until they were made public.

One of the slides from Mr. Rowe’s presentation illustrated the breakdown for a 12-month period showing 254 Section 26 violations that refer to property maintenance for rental units. The remaining slides clearly indicated, among other things, that the number of units cited for these violations during this timeframe was only 0.58% of the overall rental properties in the Springfield market or 254 out of 43,716. Based on this information, it certainly doesn’t seem like Springfield has a significant nuisance property problem.

Mr. Jenson also seemed to want a few speakers to publicly name the “bad” landlords.  This information came from the same study, and they are listed below. These owners (and property addresses) were also published in the article mentioned above. The good news is that the study itself shined a light on the “bad landlords” so we can address the real problem here: PM Care LC; TC Portfolio LLC; JDP Partners LLC; Barrett Fisk Investment LLC; PKG 8 Springfield LLC; Apple Wagon II LLC; Rensch, George E. TR; Bart Ellison; Historic Commercial Developments LLC; George Rensch; Reed Enterprises LLC; Cowherd Properties IV LLC; Portfolio Wealth LLC; Chappell, Theresa A. TR; Warren Investment Properties LLC; Lurvey Associates; KSA Properties LLC; Batista Invests LLC; JNE Holdings LLC; and RRRowden LLC.

It is important to note that some of the names on this list purchased blighted properties for the purpose of improving those properties and did not create or allow a nuisance condition to occur on the reported property but were still named on the list.  To our knowledge, those names have never been removed. [Editor’s note: The previous paragraph was added for this publication.]

It was mentioned several times by speakers and a few council members that good landlords should want this program because it separates the “bad landlords” from those of us doing our job. However, the statistics from the study have already done so. We now know who the “bad landlords” are as indicated in the list above. My concern is that the “good landlords” are ultimately going to pay for this program for the very small percentage of those that aren’t in compliance. Based on the number of units we represent, our membership collectively will end up paying $700,000/year to fund a program to fix the bad landlords.

I am also curious why no one asked the speakers complaining about landlords for more details.  I would like to know who these landlords are and what, specifically, is happening. It felt like some speakers who were not in favor of the ordinance in its current form were being cross-examined by Mr. Jenson, yet council didn’t press those logging complaints. For context, one of the speakers complaining that “nobody cared” about her issues recently lost her case and her appeal in court with the court finding absolutely no wrongdoing on the part of her landlord. This was a simple case of nonpayment, which makes up over 90% of all eviction filings/proceedings. I would have appreciated council asking some questions so the facts could have been flushed to the surface. Ultimately, our association exists to help landlords operate the right way. Through member education, vendor connection and other various resources available through the state and national association, we work to be the gold standard in rental housing. We will continue working hard to provide clean, safe housing for our residents. We hope council will consider the facts when making decisions going forward and not accommodate those talking the loudest simply because of the volume of their voice.

We appreciate the work City Council has done and is doing to make our city the best it can be for everyone.

—Brent T. Brown, president of the Springfield Apartment and Housing Association