Note: These are the views and opinions of one person and generally not the entire Board of Directors

Currently, in our community, we have 118 homes. Sixteen of those homes are rentals. Approximately 14% of our community is now compromised of rentals. Of those 16 homes, 12 are owned by corporate landlords. “Ma and Pa” landlords own the rest. Those twelve homes are divided among seven different corporations. Do we want more corporate landlords in the community? Here are a few reasons I have for limiting the number of rentals, especially corporate-owned ones.

Corporate landlords are very slow, if not apathetic, towards repairs to their properties. Much of my evidence is anecdotal and relayed from people I know who rented from them. I have read and been told of properties with flooded basements lasting weeks, broken windows not being fixed, and general disrepair. As homeowners, we know that occupied homes need constant attention to keep ahead of repairs. For some reason, corporate landlords seem reluctant to do that except where necessary. Most likely, they are concerned about their balance sheets rather than keeping the home looking good, inside and out. Even worse, corporate homes very rarely return to private ownership. Do you want twelve or more homes in permanent disrepair in your community? Do you want THIS occurring in Lawrence Woods? Consequently, the landlord who owns the home in this post owns one in our community.

Is anyone concerned about a voting block? Every homeowner is entitled to one vote for any initiative. Currently, twelve of them are tied up with a corporate entity that has, as of yet, never responded to anything sent to them. Those are twelve votes that are gone and will never return. For example, what if many owners wanted to change our governing documents to allow yard gazing balls? The interested party must gather 75% positive votes for the change. Due to the ownership issue, twelve votes will not be involved in the effort.

I believe sooner or later, either on the local or federal level (or both), landlords will be required to provide a portion of their portfolio to low-income housing. Municipalities require new home builders to set aside a portion for “section 8” or similar programs. There are wide-ranging studies that can demonstrate a correlation between low-income housing and crime. There are also contrary studies that prove otherwise. Take your pick, which one to subscribe to based on your observations.

What happened to Winding Ridge? Winding Ridge is a significantly large community south of us. I used to live there from 1998-2004. I loved the area, the homes, and the people. I still think about my time there. Something has changed in the past many years. The community suffers from rampant crime, from larceny to fights and shootings. Things got so bad during the summer of 2023 that their community pool was temporarily shut down. An emergency community meeting was scheduled with Lawrence law enforcement attending. I suspect the community is overrun with rentals. During and after the 2008 housing crash, whole swaths of rentals were snapped up by investors. How many of them were purchased by corporate landlords? I am willing to wager a significant portion of them.

Lastly, I am well aware of several concerns with the current language in the rental initiative. The writing is not perfect. Some of those concerns range from being unable to rent rooms in the home to having to have additional oversite with written leases. I believe those concerns outweigh the current situation unfolding in our community. Variances for certain restrictions in our governing documents can and have been made. I urge everyone to consider the current situation and our attempts to stop the hemorrhaging before it is too late.