The proposed rental inspection ordinance that Butler City Councilman Fred Reese plans to introduce and have passed by year's end would be a major asset in the city's goal to eliminate blighted, neglected or otherwise nuisance properties. It deserves the support of city homeowners and hopefully will get backing from landlords.

However, an important question must be asked — once it is introduced, will the city remain committed to implementing and enforcing its provisions?

Non-implementation of a newly passed ordinance is not unheard of in this city. As people familiar with the Main Street parking meter issue recall, the council passed an ordinance a few years ago to install meters on Main Street, but never followed up on installing them.

That has prevented badly needed revenue from being collected by the city.

If an ordinance isn't going to be enforced, it should be repealed. If the commitment doesn't exist to enforce a proposed ordinance, it should not be passed.

Reese deserves praise for researching the issue, but he needs at least two other council members' support to get the ordinance passed.

It is to be hoped that if the ordinance is passed, it is approved by a unanimous vote, as an indicator that the council is serious in its commitment.

According to Reese, the ordinance that he plans to introduce, which is based on a similar ordinance in Williamsport, Lycoming County, would call for rental properties to be inspected every four years on a rotating basis covering the four quadrants of the city. He said renters moving out or renter issues brought to the city's attention would prompt individual inspections as needed.

Inspections would focus on items such as interior and exterior sanitary conditions, fire escape routes, insect infestation, smoke detection, plumbing and heating/cooling systems, and properties' structural integrity.

"This definitely isn't a cure-all, but it's a start," Reese said.

Correctly handled, the ordinance will quickly be construed as having been a big start.

The main incentive behind the proposed ordinance shouldn't be — and, according to Reese, isn't — to be a moneymaker for the city. While there would be reasonable costs associated with conducting the inspections, and higher costs for violations, the laudable goal behind the ordinance would be simply to make the city better and more livable — and to provide an incentive for people to want to move here.

A major crackdown on the city's serious drug problem would be a logical adjunct to what the inspection ordinance is designed to accomplish.

Reese, who in July brought up the idea of passing a rental inspection ordinance, should continue his quest for a first reading of the proposed ordinance in November and passage by December, so that the ordinance can take effect in January.

But the ordinance should be passed only if city leaders intend to enforce it, not back down if a few complaints are received, as they surely will be.

The parking meter ordinance has amounted to wasted words, effort and costs associated with having it drawn up. The rental inspection ordinance shouldn't experience a similar fate.