Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Tenant Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pine Bluff council rejects proposed tenant minimum-standards ordinance after heated public comment
Summary
After public testimony from landlords and tenants and a split council debate, Pine Bluff’s proposed ordinance to require minimum housing standards failed on a roll-call vote June 15. Supporters cited health and safety; opponents warned retrofit costs could force low‑income renters out of units.
The Pine Bluff City Council on June 15 rejected an ordinance that would have added Article 12 to the city code to establish minimum housing standards for rental units, following public comment from landlords and tenants and a divided council debate.
Supporters, led in the debate by Council Member Feals, said the measure focused on basic health-and-safety standards — hot water, plumbing and electrical service — and had been substantially revised to address landlord concerns. "We're not trying to get off into cosmetics… This is bare necessities that all housing units should have in the first place," Feals said, noting the ordinance had been changed to give landlords two months (rather than 30 days) to make required repairs, reduce and tier fines, and explicitly spell out tenant responsibilities.
Landlords who addressed the council argued the ordinance as written would impose large retrofit costs on older housing stock. "99.9% of the houses in Pine Bluff does not meet current code," landlord Lloyd Franklin told the council, adding an estimated $10,000 per property for upgrades and warning that the cumulative cost would be ruinous: "If this ordinance passes tonight, it'll cost me over a million dollars to upgrade all of my properties." Douglas Allen and Linda Sutton, who also identified themselves as local landlords, gave similar examples and said some units cannot practically accommodate modern equipment without major rebuilds; Allen estimated $10,000–$15,000 to add air-conditioning capacity in some units.
Tenants and tenant‑aligned commenters defended the proposal. Angela White‑Smith, who identified herself as both a realtor and a landlord, said many rental properties are "substandard" and that everyone deserves decent housing. "If we all agree that everyone deserves a decent place to live, I think we can agree that electricity, heat, air, and plumbing" should be required, she said.
After floor discussion and an initial voice vote, a roll-call vote was requested. The clerk recorded votes as follows: Council Member Mays — I; Council Member Hokanson — No; Council Member Brown — No; Council Member Lockett — No; Council Member Frazier — I; Council Member Brunton — No; Council Member Denton — No; Council Member Fail — I. By that tally the ordinance failed.
The ordinance, as presented to the council, included (per council discussion) a two‑month cure period for landlords, tiered fines reduced from earlier drafts, and explicit notice that landlords retain eviction remedies when tenants breach lease obligations. Council members who opposed the measure said they were concerned about costs to property owners and potential displacement of renters; supporters said the revisions balanced tenant safety with landlord protections.
The council did not set a new date to reconsider the ordinance during the June 15 session. The debate underscored a continuing local conflict over how to address aging rental housing stock, tenant safety, and the financial burden of compliance.
Next steps: the ordinance failed on the council floor; advocates and staff may continue to revise language and provide additional fiscal analysis before bringing a new draft back for consideration.
