Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Predatory Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawrence committee opens study of 'predatory' rental purchases, residents press for inspections and caps
Summary
City of Lawrence committee heard residents, housing experts and councilors describe how out-of-state investors buying homes for cash can raise rents, increase evictions and reduce owner-occupied housing; panel agreed to gather data and return with possible next steps.
The City of Lawrence Common Council Code and Rules Committee on March 25 opened a public discussion on what speakers called “predatory” purchases of single-family homes by investor landlords and large rental corporations, and on local steps the city might take to limit harm to renters and long-term homeowners.
The session, attended by councilors and residents, featured extended remarks from Ali Brown, Indianapolis District 10 councilor, who described investors buying homes for cash, converting them to rentals and reducing opportunities for first-time buyers. "It is very difficult ... to even compete or think about buying a home in Lawrence," Brown said, adding that many renters “give back to the city in numerous ways” and that the problem is worsening since 2019.
Housing policy specialist Allison Cole urged the committee to treat the issue as part of a national shift of capital into housing markets. "Wall Street is literally coming in and plundering our housing stock," Cole said, citing a National Community Reinvestment Coalition analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data and research showing falling owner-occupant mortgage applications and elevated eviction rates among some large corporate landlords.
Longtime resident and Oakland and Meadows Homeowners Association President Debbie Hughes described neighborhood-level effects in Lawrence: "I have over 25% of our community with 131 homes. 25% of them are rental properties," Hughes said, and urged the city to consider stronger enforcement, more frequent bulky-trash pickup and a registry or inspection program so owners of out-of-state properties respond to maintenance complaints.
Councilor Terrell Giles, who participated in the discussion, cautioned that city rules must balance competing interests and that some solutions require state or federal action. "Sometimes a good politician does nothing," Giles said, noting that proposals such as restricting who may buy property raise legal and practical questions.
Speakers discussed a range of options other cities and states have tried: landlord registries, mandatory inspection programs with penalties, limits on the share of rentals in a subdivision, public financing or land trusts to increase long-term affordable ownership, tenant-repair grants tied to voucher acceptance (a program Vermont piloted during the COVID period), and efforts to increase Section 8 voucher availability. Cole suggested commissioning targeted data analysis (for example, eviction and owner-occupied/rental mapping using Eviction Lab data) before adopting local ordinances.
Committee members did not introduce or vote on any ordinance or motion at the meeting. Instead the committee concluded by asking staff and participants to compile information and return with options and data for future action. "We have not solved the problem... but we will gather and determine what our next step is," the presiding committee member said at adjournment.
The discussion repeatedly distinguished between discussion items (data-gathering, possible policy options), nonbinding direction (committee request to collect more information), and formal action (none taken). Attendees pressed for stronger enforcement of existing codes — including faster response to long-standing nuisances — and for an evidence-based review of ordinances used elsewhere that have teeth and are compatible with Indiana law.
The committee asked several housing advocates and experts to return with more detailed studies and examples, including models from other jurisdictions (noted examples in Pittsburgh, Vermont and select municipal programs) and proposals that can work within the legal limits of state law. Several speakers recommended exploring funding sources for tenant repairs, landlord incentives for accepting vouchers, and ways to increase affordable housing production if sewer and infrastructure capacity allow.
No binding policy, ordinance, or vote was adopted at the March 25 meeting; the committee’s next steps are limited to gathering information and exploring options for future consideration.
