Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to let counties petition courts to appoint receivers for seriously substandard rental properties draws both support and warnings
Summary
Assembly Bill 211 would authorize county or city action and limited nonprofit petitions to have a district court declare residential rental properties substandard and appoint a receiver to rehabilitate them; Clark County backed the measure but contractors, property owners and some municipal associations raised due‑process and takings concerns.
Assembly Bill 211 would create a statutory process allowing a county or city — and in amended form certain nonprofits working with local code enforcement — to petition a district court to declare a residential rental property “substandard,” obtain an order requiring repairs or abatement, and in extreme cases appoint a receiver to manage and rehabilitate the property under court oversight.
Sponsor Venetia Considine said the measure was an “extreme response to an extreme situation” and is intended for properties where code enforcement has exhausted administrative remedies and health and safety hazards persist. Under the bill, a court may appoint a receiver after finding that violations of habitability, building or fire codes present a substantial danger to residents or the public; receivers would be required to report periodically to the court and the local governing body and would be discharged once repairs are complete.
Clark County staff and cities testified in support, saying the tool is needed to address buildings with persistent, severe hazards where owners are unresponsive or outside the state. The sponsor and county said they would narrow standing so only municipalities and nonprofits can petition (rather than individual tenants) and would add reporting requirements and limits to avoid abuse.
Opposition testimony came from the Apartment Association, Associated General Contractors, mechanical contractors, and signatory and open‑shop contractors. Opponents warned of compliance and administrative burdens, the difficulty of enforcing receivership requirements in multi‑project fabrication shops, potential loss of competitiveness, and that the bill as drafted could sweep in single‑family owner‑occupied dwellings. Several speakers asked the committee to ensure the bill applies only to rental properties and does not create an easier path to deprive homeowners of property without adequate due process or clear duty of care for receivers.
Sponsors said they would work to tighten definitions and limit the measure to rental properties; they also emphasized reporting and transparency measures to the legislature. No vote was taken in the hearing.
