A Jim Thorpe Borough proposal to require annual safety inspections for all rental housing units sparked pushback from one landlord Thursday night who argued the measure would be expensive, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.

The borough’s planning commission originally drafted a safety checklist for short-term rentals but council later directed the commission to expand the list to include all rentals.

Council passed a motion Thursday to allow Bureau Veritas, the firm the borough uses for building code and zoning matters, to review the inspection item list.

The list included items planning commission members believe should be included in inspections such as the presence of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, stairs that are free of defects and safe for use, and exits that are free of obstructions.

Local landlord Jennifer Dages, speaking on behalf of herself and her husband, Bob, told council the proposal amounted to government overreach.

“We have a strong objection to the landlord inspections,” Dages said. “I think it’s an offense against the Pennsylvania Constitution, which promises security from searches and seizures. These inspections become warrantless.”

Dages said tenants already have the right to file complaints if landlords fail to address problems.

“If a tenant has a problem that the landlord is not addressing, they can make a complaint to the borough and then there could be an inspection with a warrant,” she added. “That, to me, is legitimate. But to just set these inspections out? I know lots of other boroughs are doing it, so then everybody thinks they have to get on the bandwagon.”

Borough officials said ordinances from nearby municipalities, including Lehighton and Weatherly, are being reviewed during its process of moving forward.

Dages said her family has been landlords for more than two decades.

“We’ve had some people stay a long time and some people who ruined our properties and cost us thousands of dollars. We dealt with it, fixed it up, and rented it again,” Dages said. “There may be problems with out-of-town landlords, but maybe that should be handled separately. I think your average landlord in Jim Thorpe is probably pretty decent and working things out for the most part.”

During discussion last week, at least one council member wondered if there was a strong need for such an ordinance.

“I just wonder how many problems we have in the borough with rentals that prompted this,” Connor Rodgers said.

The cost of the proposed inspections was a sticking point during Thursday’s discussion.

“We have six units,” Dages said. “If you’re going to charge $50 a unit, that’s $300 a year on top of taxes, insurance and everything else. Then we have to raise rent, and we lose tenants. We don’t want to do that.”

Her “biggest objection,” she said, remained constitutional.

“I know it’s been tested in court and hasn’t won yet, but it’s not done,” Dages said. “Rather than see how far we can push this, look at the intent of the Constitution. We all took an oath to it.”

Council President Greg Strubinger said inspections could help address problems with absentee landlords.

“Unlike your situation, we have a lot of landlords or owners of short-term rentals who live outside the area,” he said.

Dages replied that her comments focused on long-term rentals.

“The short-term rental I can see may be a little bit different,” she said. “I’m specifically addressing the long-term rentals.”

Strubinger noted that some long-term rental owners also live outside the borough. Instead of a blanket ordinance, Dages suggested, the borough could require out-of-town owners to appoint a local representative.

“I don’t object to that,” she said. “I live next door to one of my rentals and down the hill from two others. We like living near them because we know what’s going on.”

Should the borough move forward, officials said, it plans to address any duplication of inspections for Section 8 housing, which already undergoes annual federal reviews.

Several other municipalities already accept HUD inspections in place of their own, a point Strubinger agreed made sense.

“We’ve heard sometimes the HUD inspections can be even more rigorous than what the municipality might require,” he said.