Many Madison renters can’t help but feel their security deposits are at the mercy of a landlord’s whim. Each property manager has his own policies when it comes to these extra charges, with some providing basic cleaning for free and others charging through the roof for minor transgressions. If District 8 Ald. Eli Judge has his way at tonight’s City Council meeting, Madison landlords will be required to provide evidence before deducting funds from a security deposit.

Mr. Judge introduced the photo ordinance last year, hoping to curtail landlords who exaggerate or fabricate damage to an apartment to claim a bigger share of a tenant’s initial security deposit. We are impressed with the methodical approach Mr. Judge employed in winning support for the proposal, which has been praised by many Madison renters and even won an endorsement from the Apartment Association of South Central Wisconsin.

Indeed, the ordinance would help prevent unnecessary litigation, as most damage claims will be immediately verifiable based on city-mandated photographic recordkeeping. Under the proposal, landlords would also be required to maintain records from a unit’s previous tenant to help resolve disputes over previously existing damage.

This ordinance is more than appropriate in a city whose downtown area is largely populated by student renters. The potential for abuse by property owners is higher among a transient population new to the rental process. If the ordinance is passed, students might even take notice of which property management companies push the bounds of logic to justify additional charges and which ones objectively assess the condition of an apartment.

We believe the photo ordinance would protect renters from having their security deposits stolen via frivolous charges and would even protect landlords from tenants who seek to take advantage of poor administrative recordkeeping. Indeed, the ordinance would work in favor of responsible landlords by legitimizing their claims to a security deposit and bolstering the transparency that leads to public goodwill.

Of course, this proposal is not a cure-all. Truly unscrupulous landlords could still falsify damage photos. Further, cleaning costs for items such as pet smells cannot be photographically documented. And there would be some cost to the landlord to take and maintain these photos, though we believe this would be minimal.

Despite these unavoidable pitfalls, we urge the City Council to pass this commonsense reform. We believe the burden of proof should rest with landlords who seek to claim security deposits, rather than tenants who are currently expected to fight for what is rightfully theirs