Rental registries are essentially databases that contain information about rental properties and their owners. They can be used to track information about ownership, document certification or licensing based on rental inspections – a powerful local tool to identify and stabilize deteriorated but occupied rental properties.
Sometimes, where applicable, these registries can help enforce municipal rent stabilization ordinances.[1]
Historical Context
Before 2016, many Wisconsin municipalities, including Milwaukee, had rental registry programs and proactive inspection programs.[2]
Enacted in 2016, 2015 Wisconsin Act 176 preempted municipalities from enacting any ordinance that requires a rental property to be inspected except upon complaint.[3]
Shortly after Act 176, in 2018, the Wisconsin Legislature enacted 2017 Wisconsin Act 317, which further modified Wis. Stat. section 66.0104 by creating a narrow carve-out for proactive rental inspections in areas of blight, high rates of building code complaints or violations, deteriorating property values, or increases in single-family home conversions to rental units.[4] However, Act 176 also significantly limited municipalities’ ability to fund programs by through inspection fees.[5]
Brittany Schoenick, University of Wisconsin Law School Class of 2017, is a civil legal aid attorney in Milwaukee, where she focuses on landlord-tenant law.
The City of Milwaukee is an illustrative example to examine the impacts of Act 176 and Act 317, as 58% of households are renter-occupied. This contrasts with the rest of Wisconsin, which is approximately 32% renter-occupied.
A couple of corporate landlords in Milwaukee have been getting a lot of attention lately for their alleged business practices which contribute to unhealthy and unsafe conditions for their tenants.
One landlord, Sam Stair, was recently arrested and is pending federal charges that allege that Stair’s business model involved knowingly renting his properties across the city directly to drug dealers. The complaint further alleges that profits from the rental business were commingled with funds from drug enterprises. Stair’s real estate conglomerate, S2 Real Estate, owns approximately 500 units in the City of Milwaukee.
Another landlord receiving public scrutiny operates a conglomerate of LLCs under Highgrove Holdings Management, LLC (HHM). One-third of HHM’s properties are operated through a receiver based on an action filed by a lender due to missed payments and allegations of poor conditions. The remaining properties in the HHM portfolio are pending a City of Milwaukee receivership action due to allegations of widespread property neglect, code violations, unpaid property taxes, and safety and security concerns. The Highgrove Holdings conglomerate owns and operates approximately 379 units in the City of Milwaukee.
Proactive programs purport to achieve results by shifting code enforcement from reactive to strategic enforcement. As previously discussed on this blog, many tenants fear complaining to local authorities about poor conditions for fear their landlord will terminate their tenancy or raise rent. Furthermore, research has shown that complaint-based systems do not adequately or equitably identify housing code violations.[6]
Critics of proactive programs argue these programs would lead to narrower margins for the landlord due to the cost of repairs, and therefore those costs would be externalized to tenants as increases in rent.
Many rental inspection and registry programs across the country are focused on basic code standards for life, health, and safety. For example, a nonexhaustive list might include checking for working smoke and CO detectors, gas leaks, working heat, working plumbing, hot water, electrical hazards, and lead hazards.
Lead Hazards and Poisoning Prevention
Preventing childhood lead poisoning is historically one of the most compelling reasons municipalities have to implement a proactive program.
Lead exposure is most harmful to pregnant women and children under the age of six. Lead poisoning can cause learning disabilities, developmental delays, and reduced attention span.[7] There is no safe level of lead in the body. The most common source is from lead-based paint and lead dust in homes built prior to 1978.[8]
In Milwaukee, of the households with a child who has been lead poisoned, 60% to 71% are renter-occupied.[9] The vast majority of these properties are built prior to 1978, as Milwaukee is a city of older housing stock.
Based on DHS data from 2018-21, many census tracts in Milwaukee have childhood lead poisoning rates of 15-25% among children tested.[10] This makes Milwaukee a city with one of the highest rates of childhood lead poisoning in the country. This statistic is also in stark contrast to the statewide rate of 5.6% of children tested who are lead poisoned.
Milwaukee is not the only municipality in Wisconsin affected. One census tract in Sheboygan with 52% renters has a childhood lead poisoning rate of almost 18%, according to DHS.
A Success Story
Across the country, Rochester, New York, is frequently cited as a success story in its ability to decrease child lead poisoning rates through proactive rental inspections.
As of 2011, 87% of Rochester’s housing was built before 1950. In some neighborhoods, rental rates exceed 85%. In 2005, Rochester enacted an ordinance which requires lead inspections of rental properties built before 1978 as an extension of their existing inspection process.
The units are inspected for lead with a visual inspection for peeling paint and, in high-risk areas of the city, with a dust-wipe test. In these areas, a dust-wipe test must be done every three years to ensure that unit is lead-safe for renters and their families.
Two years after the program was implemented, the percent of children with elevated blood lead levels declined from 8.3% to 4.4%. And between 2000 and 2016, the rate of lead-poisoned children decreased by a staggering 85%.[11]
Conclusion
Local inspection programs provide an opportunity for communities to proactively identify hazards, enforce code compliance and protect vulnerable tenants. Lead poisoning is preventable, but prevention depends on the ability to identify risks before children are exposed.
A decade after Wisconsin limited local control to proactively ensure tenants have healthy and safe housing, a couple of questions stand out: who benefits from these limitations? And at what cost?
This article was originally published on the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Public Interest Law Section Blog. Visit the State Bar sections or the Public Interest Law Section web pages to learn more about the benefits of section membership.
Endnotes
[1] Wisconsin preempts municipality’s ability to regulate rents. See Wis. Stat. § 66.1015. ↩
[2] City of Milwaukee Health Department, “Proactive Healthy Housing Policy,” July 10, 2025. ↩
[3] Wis. Stat. § 66.0104(2)(e)1. ↩
[4] Wis. Stat. § 66.0104(2)(e)1m. ↩
[5] Wis. Stat. § 66.0104(2)(e)2 and 3. ↩
[6] Marilyn Uzdavines, “Barking Dogs: Code Enforcement is All Bark and No Bite (Unless the Inspectors Have Assault Rifles),” Washburn Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 161, Jan. 22, 2015. ↩
[7] Lead-Safe Wisconsin: What is Lead Poisoning?, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. ↩
[8] Lead Poisoning Prevention, Children’s Health Alliance of Wisconsin. ↩
[9] Proactive Healthy Housing Policy, p. 6. ↩
[10] See M.B. Pell and Joshua Schneyer, “The thousands of U.S. locales where lead poisoning is worse than in Flint,” Reuters, Dec. 19, 2016. ↩
[11] “Rochester’s lead-based paint prevention ordinance,” House Solutions Lab, May 7, 2021. ↩