All posts in the topic Rental licenses (Short link)
Summary
- There are 34 posts — by 21 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Darielle Dannen at Sep 15 15:04 UTC
Whenever we have a problem property pop up, I use the City of Mpls Property
Info look-up option to find out more about the owner and more specifically to
see if there is a rental license on the property. In the last couple of years,
I've come across 4 or 5 rental properties around me without a rental license.
In the last case, the property had been rented out for more than a year. OK, so
I call 311, report the no rental license thing and then do follow-up calls to
see of the rental licensing folks are doing their job. In one case it took 4
months before they sent out a letter to the owner that he needed a rental
license. That's not good IMO.
The following are some of the issues that concern me the most:
#1 - There are no penalties for renting your property without a license. You
simply fill out the form, pay the fee and you get your provisional license.
What other type of business could get away with that? Aren't rental properties
businesses?
#2 - There often is no inspection done before the property is given the
license. In the most recent case I found, I spoke to our CCP/SAFE staffer and
she confirmed no inspection was done. She didn't know why.
#3 - All the properties I found without rental licenses were problem
properties. We had racked up lots of 911 calls usually about drug dealing.
Before the rental license was given out, why don't the rental licensing folk do
some sort of 911 recap check to see if their are existing problems at the
property? If there are, tell the owners to clean up their act or they're not
getting a license. Now we have to go through the whole process of trying to
get the license revoked. That can take forever or close to it as many of you
know.
So, if you have any thoughts on the above, I'd love to hear them. I'm also
curious if these are issues in other neighborhoods.
Kevin Kuschel
Hawthorne.
I believe these are some of the group involved in problem rental property issues: Neighborhood organizations Rental Dwelling License Board of Appeals Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee Problem Properties Unit This 2006 article in The Bridge gives a good background on the issues: http://www.readthebridge.info/node/1103 Cam Gordon, Diane Hofstede and Don Samuels have been active in rental property issues...in October 2006 Gordon drafted this ordinance... don't know if it passed.... Ordinance Title 12, Chapter 244 authored by Councilman Cam Gordon which requires full disclosure of the owners of rental property which will make it easier for tenants, neighbors and inspectors to identify them. see pages 986 and 987 of this document: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/archives/proceedings/2006/20061020-proceedings.pdf Robin Garwood spoke of the ordinance in an October 2006 post on e-democracy.org/mpls "From: Robin Garwood Date: 2006 Oct 10 22:16 UTC Short link The proposed ordinance will: 1) Require partnerships (like LLCs) to share a list of the names and addresses of all partners, upon request of the director of inspections. 2) Make violations of the building code (such as doing unpermitted work) at any of an owner's rental property grounds for rental license revocation. The way this will work is that the first offense will be fined, and the second offense (whether at the same building or not) will be grounds to revoke the license at the building at which the second offense took place. Additional offenses will be grounds to revoke ALL of an owner's rental licenses in Minneapolis. 3) Make unpaid water bills grounds to revoke a rental license. Here are some of the reasons Cam believes these amendments are necessary: - There is currently no way to ascertain whether landlords who have had their licenses revoked and are therefore ineligable to hold rental licenses in Minneapolis are non-managing partners in LLCs. - We have heard a huge number of complaints about unpermitted work being done, especially in the Southeast neighborhoods. Landlords are installing window wells, bathrooms, converting single family homes to duplexes, all without pulling permits. The current fine structure is not an effective deterrent; landlords simply build the City's fines into the cost of doing business. - Hours and hours of staff time are being taken to disconnect and reconnect water, and tenants are suffering for their landlords' negligence. Again, the current fine structure is not an effective deterrent. Robin Garwood Aide to Council Member Cam Gordon Cooper" Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
Drug dealers need affordable housing too? Ok. There needs to be "affordable housing for drug dealers" on every block of every neighborhood in this city, no this region so that the good folks in North Minneapolis don't have to fight this never-ending battle against urban decay we are fighting. If "customers" and "dealers" want to engage in free enterprise it shouldn't be so concentrated in our neck of the woods. That particular pleasant enterprise should be spread around so everyone can enjoy the blocked streets, the noise, the drive by shootings, the intimidation of the other residents, the incredible decline in home values, the danger of the idiots they are and the idiots they bring into the neighborhood, the danger to young children they try to recruit, and the inability of the neighborhood to successfully entice law-abiding citizens to move into the neighborhood. This is a SHORT list of the problems that are caused. You want em? By all means please take em. Those of us who live here don't think this is funny at all. I am sure the families whose children or other family members that have been killed "by mistake" don't find it amusing either. If you had attended any of the countless vigils for the dead in our neighborhoods in the last few years you wouldn't find it funny either. It's not like a lot of us can just pick up and leave this neighborhood. The housing problem is a terrible mess, think of how badly our property values have skyrocketed! I don't want to walk away from my house. I shouldn't have to walk away from the neighborhood. I would like to come home from work each day and feel reasonably safe. That is not possible. No, I do not hide in my house!!! No, I am not a skittish or fearful person. I am MAD AS HELL! Gee, I think I'd like to stop having to dodge bullets. How very selfish of me. Carey Joe Howell Hawthorne %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and it looks like work........Thomas Edison Well-behaved women rarely make history....bumper sticker > From: <email obscured>> To: <email obscured>> Subject: Re: [Mpls] Rental licenses> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:00:45 +0000> > Drug dealers need affordable housing, too.> > > > > > > So, if you have any thoughts on the above, I'd love to hear them. I'm also > > curious if these are issues in other neighborhoods.> > > > Kevin Kuschel> > Hawthorne.> > Michael Jensvold> > Info about Michael Jensvold: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jensvoldmichael> > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/ynklzfLv6zt0pXdkZ3neU>
Carey and everyone,
I have a 'affordable drug dealer (and prostitution too) house' on my block and
it *sucks*! The house is not maintained, suspicious visitors and the
'home-owner' is not in her right mind. Her next door neighbors rarely use
their yard because they hate exposing their child to her.
I can not imagine what it is like to have more then one house like this on my
block.
So I have one drug house on my block, everyone one else should take one too.
It is only fair to share!
Keep in mind also, if a house is 'homesteaded' they are paying homestead taxes
which are less then rental property taxes. So if you want to turn a blink eye,
that's OK, but I hope you like paying for the services that house uses (and
does not pay for).
Sheila Cracraft Fehler
Standish, watching the Roosevelt students walk by all day long...
I'm going to dismiss the "Drug dealers" remark as sarcasm.
Robin - That's all very interesting, but again it doesn't address the concerns
in my original post.
From the article in The Bridge:
"The city’s process of rental license revocation is long and tedious, involving
a great deal of paperwork. With the city’s limited resources, revocations are
still few and far between."
My point exactly. Why give them out in the first place to property owners who
already have a track record of problems at their property even before they have
the license and secondly didn't bother to get the license to begin with? Now
they have the license and now we have to go through the process of revocation.
Makes no sense to me.
As far as I can see, the Mpls City Council Proceedings you linked to also do
not address the issues in my original post.
Also it's usually one of their girlfreins or better identified as their babies
mamas, whom is on the lease and they just come daily to DEAL DRUGS and SOIL our
neighborhood. Then go back to where ever they came from.
Joan Thom
Hawrhorne
----- Original Message -----
From: <email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
To: <email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Rental licenses
Drug dealers need affordable housing, too.
>
> So, if you have any thoughts on the above, I'd love to hear them. I'm also
> curious if these are issues in other neighborhoods.
>
> Kevin Kuschel
> Hawthorne.
Michael Jensvold
Kevin, come to the Northside Homeowners Assn meeting/potluck on Monday. Go to
www.northsidehomeowners.blogspot.com or email me offlist for the details.
Yes, a rental is a business, and profitable one or so many wouldn't be doing
it! It's my opinion that rentals should therefore be required to go through the
same rigorous set up licensing as any other legit business in the City --
including, but not limited to, cleaning up the trash within 100 feet around the
business on a daily basis, routine safety inspections and being held to higher
standards of maintenance than they currently are. The $1,000 conversion fee did
little to improve the situation for us in the neighborhoods but must have added
a little something to the city treasury.
Oh, I could tell you stories about the rentals on my block -- yes, I have more
than my fair share of 'alleged' drug houses and gangbangers so anyone who
doesn't have one, is welcome to one of 'mine'. The fall-out from having so many
ill-managed, criminally occupied rentals in limitless and leaves resident
homeowners feeling less and less empowered. As our property values plummet so
can our love and compassion for our community. My family and friends are afraid
to come over because these knuckleheads intimidate them with glares and stares
and standing around in the street blocking traffic. I'm learning to not tell
them stories of what I see and call the cops on -- it makes it worse and I get
tired of defending my choice to live where I do! Like I tell the punks who tell
me I don't belong here, "I've been here longer than you've been out of
diapers."
Add to the distress of unbearable tenants the fact that the landlady is letting
the house go into foreclosure yet still collecting rent! I've been told by the
landlady that this is a section 8 renter and the section 8 portion of the $1200
a month rent is $1000. I have a real issue with this situation but have been
told she's doing nothing wrong. To her credit, I must add, she's always been
responsive to my pleas for action with her tenants although the limits and
process for getting rid of them don't always work in our favor. And then they
just move on to bother other good people so the process begins for someone
else. That sucks, too.
As a landlord operating at the southern end of north Minneapolis, I question
the basic assumption underlying many comments in this thread.
My contention is that if a crime has been committed, the appropriate response
is to arrest, prosecute, and punish the person who committed the crime - not
seek a remedy in going after the rental license for the building where the
person lives or where his girl friend lives. Buildings do not commit those
crimes. The city police, not the building owner, is legally responsible for
bringing criminals to justice.
Too hard for the police to identify criminals where crime is so pervasive?
Then how are building owners and managers, untrained in this field, expected to
do the job? If the police had the resources to overwhelm the city of St. Paul
during the Republican National Convention, they could do more about the real
problem of street crime in our cities.
For a number of years, a landlord group has tried to get city officials and
police to hold a discussion with us on the rights and responsibilities of
property owners in dealing with crime affecting our properties. The city is
unwilling to engage in such a discussion with us. Why should they when they,
with their multimillion dollar budget for “community policing”, have managed to
convince neighborhood activists and other that irresponsible property owners,
not criminals, are responsible for neighborhood crime?
I say that the city police, not landlords or bar owners or convenience-store
managers, are the ones principally charged with controlling crime. Why cannot
our discussions of crime reflect that assumption?
While, a landlord or business owner has no legal duty to police the streets, I
believe he or she has an ethical duty to ensure a business is not detracting
from the overall liveability of a neighborhood. This means, making sure that
the property is maintained, addressing problems promptly, working with
neighbors to address those problems, making sure tenants understand their
responsiblity to the neighborhood, evicting tenants that fail to respect the
neighborhood by breaking the law, and taking personal responsibility for the
problems that their properties cause.
I know a number of landlords who own multiple rental units, and they are very
proactive about problems that arise. They don't wait to get a call from the
city to make sure the garbage is cleaned up or the grass is cut. They make sure
their business investment is safe by only renting to responsible tenants who
will not destroy their rental units and take care of problems before the city
contacts them.
There are plenty of landlords like this. As a person who has rented apartments
for the last 12 years, I have dealt with a few of them personally.
What bothers me is when the owner of 2230 6th St N. blames, me a neighbor of
his run-down drug house of not doing enough personally to clean up his rental
property. How many times do I need to call the police or the 311 to satisfy
this property owner? It is clear to me that this real estate agent from Coon
Rapids cares little about the impact that his property has on the rest of us.
That is why are are taking a proactive stance to organize our block to find
ways of dealing with landlords that refuse to act like respectful neighbors.
I wonder if HUD or MPHA would think that taking subsidy from the feds for a
Section 8 tenant during foreclosure proceedings falls under theguise of "doing
nothing wrong". The property owner is basically pocketing the money and letting
the tenant discover they'll be homeless when or if they decide todivulge to
them that they're letting the property go.
At Hennepin County Economic Assistance, when an applicant for Emergency
Assistance came in to apply for a damage deposit or first month's rent - if it
was discovered that the landlord/property owner was in foreclosure but was
taking deposits and continuing to charge rent, we referred the property owner
to the Fraud Unit...
Jill Laxen
Cleveland
I have owned my home in Hawthorne for 17 years. Hawthorne is approximately
65-70% rental and has been since I have been here.
There are landlords and there are slumlords in this neighborhood. I don't count
them all together. But I am curious why it is
that as a neighborhood we have found a pattern of continuous problems with some
properties no matter who the landlord puts
in there and we don't have problems with others. Things that make you go
hmmmmmm.....
I don't believe that we only go after rental properties as we have discussed on
this forum two owner occupied homes
where some of our worst drug dealing is emanating from.
I don't believe that you can tell us what our underlying "assumption" must be
before we can discuss a problem.
We don't all see things from the same perspective. You have the rignt to your
opinion as I have the right to mine.
I believe that in any neighborhood all the stakeholders have rights and
responsibilites to each other. That includes
of course the police, the courts, the "powers that be", however that also
includes homeowners, renters, landlords
and real estate investors and any businesses that may be in the neighborhood.
If you are not part of the solution,
you are part of the problem.
I have hunreds of examples I could point out, however I will only give you one.
There was a house across the street
from me where the old woman who lived there died. The person who bought the
house fixed it up and did a really good job.
They rented the house to a family of drug dealers who spend most of their time
in the middle of the intersection right
by my house doing "business". I would come and go and be subjected to a fair
amount of harrassement. Now, my
neighbors and I contacted the police and they arrested when they could. They
were responsive to our calls, but we have laws
on the books that determine what happens depending on the crime.
The landlord was contacted many times re the behavior of his tenants, his yard
was trashed, one of the doors came off
his front porch, kids and loose animals were everywhere. He used to come by to
collect his rent from them in cash. I know
this because he told me. I spoke with a young man that lived there who seemed
to be the major player on an almost
daily basis. I told him in a very friendly manner that we have a block club and
this behavior was going to be
reported to the police. This went on for nearly a year. This fine upstanding
landlord did not give a rat's ass
what happened to the neighborhood until they stopped paying their rent.
All of a sudden he felt the need to evict them!!!!! He wasn't getting his
money. And when he left they took the
copper and broke the windows and flooded his basement. He had the nerve to
complain to me about what he
lost. He did not care that I didn't feel safe to come and go from my home, he
didn't care that people in the block club
had to call daily about the traffic, noise and drive bys that happened as a
result of who he chose to rent to.
He brought these people into the neighborhhod and refused to deal with them
despite our pleas. I hope he lost
tens of thousands of dollars!!!!!!!
If you live here, if you have property or a business here, If you put people
here in our neighborhood you are our
neighbor and we expect you to act like a good neighbor. It is not too much to
ask. Some landlords are respectful
some of them are not. We do know the difference and we will complain loud and
hard about slumlords.
Why would you be bothered by that?
As for the millions and the budget for the RNC, you do realise that $50 million
was provided by the RNC.
We did not foot the bill for that. That has nothing to do with our police
budget. As for police "convincing neighborhood
activists that some landlords (not all) are slumlords" I think most of the
neighborhood activists didn't need a cop
to tell them that to figure that one out. That basically is usually a "duh"
moment in most of our discussions.
If you go to the City of Minneapolis Police department website, you can find
where they will offer Landlord events re
screening tips, etc, rights responsibilities and so forth. I don't know how
often but I think it is at least twice a year.
Thy also offer block club leader training that details a lot of the same
issues. I think it would be wonderful to have activists
and landlords meet. Hmmmm?
I think our basic assumption for the discussion of crime should be that it is a
mulifaceted problem with mupltiple and sometimes
complex causes and solutions. We can expect that everyone involved should be at
the proverbial "table" with their
ideas and solutions and concerns. This includes "powers that be" residents,
renters, business people and "gasp"
landlords. That's just my opinion.
Carey Joe Howell
Hawthorne
"Too hard for the police to identify criminals where crime is so pervasive?
Then how are building owners and managers, untrained in this field, expected to
do the job?"
Bill - You're missing the point completely. I spent three years in the property
management business. IMO, it's one of the toughest jobs out there and I would
never want to do it again. Yes, you can do all the screening humanly possible
and still end up with a problem tenant. What everyone is saying is this - when
you find you have a problem: DEAL WITH IT!!!! GET RID OF THE PEOPLE!! It's not
that difficult of a process if you have you have a month-to-month lease and
know what you're doing. If you don't know what you're doing, that's your
problem. We have way too many amateur property owners out there who have no
right being in the business in the first place.
Despite what you may say or other rental property owners may say, the City only
gets involved when there is a very well documented pattern of ignoring the
problems. As stated in the article from The Bridge, "The city’s process of
rental license revocation is long and tedious, involving a great deal of
paperwork. With the city’s limited resources, revocations are still few and far
between." Unfortunately for us, that is very true - painfully true.
I really would like to get back to the original reason for starting this thread
if possible.
The following are some of the issues which concern me the most:
#1 - There are no penalties for renting your property without a license. You
simply fill out the form, pay the fee and you get your provisional license.
What other type of business could get away with that? Aren't rental properties
businesses?
#2 - There often is no inspection done before the property is given the
license. In the most recent case I found, I spoke to our CCP/SAFE staffer and
she confirmed no inspection was done. She didn't know why.
#3 - All the properties I found without rental licenses were problem
properties. We had racked up lots of 911 calls usually about drug dealing.
Before the rental license was given out, why don't the rental licensing folk do
some sort of 911 recap check to see if their are existing problems at the
property? If there are, tell the owners to clean up their act or they're not
getting a license. Now we have to go through the whole process of trying to
get the license revoked. That can take forever or close to it as many of you
know.
Kevin K
People on this list seem utterly unwilling to consider the question that I
raised. What are the obligations of the city, the city police, the courts,
etc. in dealing with the crime problem. If a crime has occurred, can’t the
criminal be arrested and prosecuted? Isn‘t that how the system is supposed to
work? Shouldn’t the spotlight of public policy be on government and its
effectiveness?
If some other system is in place, maybe the laws should be changed to reflect
that fact. Maybe the city should tell landlords how they should screen
tenants. What screening criteria should they use? Make it illegal to rent to
certain types of people. Let us enter people’s bedrooms at night to see if
unauthorized persons are sleeping there. And, yes, where should the criminals
live? Give us some leadership, please.
And when thugs come to our buildings, are we expected to deal with this
situation on our own? Can we use guns as the police do? Will the mayor
deputize us to fight crime? Or are we strictly on our own?
I think too many people on this list may be stooges of city government,
deferential to money and power, quick to scapegoat others. Fulminate if you
must. I don’t care.
Wizard Marks made a post that should have gone to this thread, but somehow
showed up in the "No Subject" thread. I believe the post is a very good reply
to Bill McGaughey's post regarding rental properties and screening. The post:
From: Wizard Marks Date: 23:09 UTC Short link
Wm. McGaughey: "People on this list seem utterly unwilling to consider the
question that I raised. What are the obligations of the city, the city police,
the courts, etc. in dealing with the crime problem. If a crime has occurred,
cant the criminal be arrested and prosecuted? Isnt that how the system is
supposed to work? Shouldnt the spotlight of public policy be on government and
its effectiveness?"
Everyone who opens a dram shop, a hospital, a restaurant, a this or a that has
to hurdle a series of bars to go into business and stay in business. It should
be the same for rental property. That's the counter argument which landlords
sometimes refuse to hear.
What the police can do is very limited in its nature. Police can also do things
very contrary to their own best interests and ours because of laws in place
that cannot be effectively enforced. There is a law against public drunkenness,
but the police can't cure alcoholism. Same thing for other illegal drugs of
whatever stripe.
The city ordinances are very often contradictory, but there are not enough
bureaucrats to effectively contend with the amount of rental property in the
city. The very definition of city includes rental property, commercial,
residential, manufacturing, etc.
The police cannot put people out of their homes (using the term very loosely)
because they are drug dealers. They can only put them in jail for a limited
amount of time IF they catch them with enough product on their persons to meet
the legal standard for dealing. Therefore, they rely on the owners of rental
property to want to remove bad tenants for the sake of their investment.
Is that an irrational standard for interaction among humans in a "civilized"
society? I don't think so. By asking the question, you are denying one obvious
rational way to contend with bad tenants. Examine the limitations of the
justice system and the municipal bureaucracy then fill in the responsibilities
you will have to assume if you are going to be in the business of having rental
properties. When tenants don't live up to a reasonable standard, it falls on
the landlord to do the right thing, even if it means a loss of rent and a a
unit's worth of people who become homeless. It shouldn't fall to the neighbors
to do more than to inform the landlord about what's going on.
(End of Wizard Marks' post)
(The following is added by Neil to Wizard's post)
Mr. McGaughey seems to be one of a group of landlords that apparently don't
think landlords should be required to do screening. Landlords that screen
properly do much better with their investments. And, the neighbors of a
property owned by a landlord that properly screens future tenants appreciate
what that does for their neighborhood.
An example: Several years ago, a couple of buildings in the Stevens Square
area were problem properties. The landlord/owner denied he was the problem.
He tried to blame everything on the residents of the high rise at 1717 3rd
Avenue South. Luther Krueger and Tom Sawina (the best SAFE team in the United
States) came up with a unique way of showing statistics--average arrests per
tenant of a building. Average arrests were many times higher for the tenants
of the 2 problem buildings than they were for the high rise at 1717 3rd Avenue
South. That convinced the owner of the 2 problem buildings to sell. Shortly
thereafter, the buildings were no longer a problem.
A few years ago, one of the Northwest suburbs was having a terrible time with
huge numbers of calls for service at apartment complexes. The city finally got
sick of the nonsense, called in all the landlords, and told them this has to
stop--or else you will no longer have a rental license. The landlords and the
city put together a plan. Complexes that had over 100 calls a year for service
now have a few calls for service during a year.
Screening works. Certain landlords in the City of Minneapolis need to open
their eyes and their minds.
Neil Carlson
Loring
I’m not sure how much longer list members want to continue this discussion. A
few points however:
1. I do screen tenants. I charge a $25 application fee and pay this money to a
screening agency. I also check arrest history with the MPD and call telephone
numbers listed on my application form. I suspect most members of Metro
Property Rights Action Committee follow a similar procedure. My argument is
not that landlords ought not to screen. But screening offers limited
protection.
2. If the community deems screening to be essential, why does not the
Minneapolis city council pass an ordinance requiring all landlords to screen as
it requires all landlords to hold rental licenses?
3. Wizard Marks writes: “What the police can do is very limited in its nature.
Police can also do things very contrary to their own best interests and ours
because of laws in place that cannot be effectively enforced.” If the police
cannot do what is necessary to control crime, then why have a police
department? That’s their job. The Minneapolis police have immense financial
resources, access to information about criminals, and legal powers to use force
far exceeding those of landlords. Why then expect landlords, without such
resources, to do the community’s police work?
4. We don’t need any more city “bureaucrats” to “effectively contend with the
amount of rental property in the city.” All they do is draw big salaries. We
need more effective control of the small population engaged in violent criminal
activity.
5. Most landlords would be happy to evict drug dealers if they knew who those
people were. The city police have this information. Why isn’t it shared?
6. Most landlords do not put “loss of rent” above maintaining a safe building.
After all, if your building is out of control, you lose other good, rent-paying
tenants.
7. Neil Carlson refers to an apartment complex that had problems. He writes:
“The landlords and the city put together a plan.” Fine. Let the city of
Minneapolis cooperate with landlords in putting together a “plan” - that is, a
way that the city and landlords can cooperate in fighting their mutual problem
of crime. To date, the city has been unwilling to have such a discussion.
8. I don’t know how Mr. Carlson can say that certain landlords in Minneapolis
- meaning me - have closed eyes and minds. He doesn’t even know me. We’ve
never met.
I've tried a couple of time to get this back to my original questions, but I
guess it's a lost cause. A couple of final comments and then I'm done.
Screening: This is such a vague term.
Bill - You charge a $25 application fee and pay a screening agency. Big deal.
You probably get a credit check and few other bits of info on your applicant.
You said you call the #'s on the application. Big mistake if that's all you do.
People lie all time on rental applications. They'll put their mother, brother,
friend down as a reference. They'll lie about their previous rental history
and once again, put down friends and family members phone #'s as contact
people. I have no intention of listing all the checks I did, all the digging,
all the investigative work, all the calls I made when screening tenants. It's
a huge investment in time and if you haven't figured out how to do it
correctly, it doesn't surprise me you have problems with bad tenants.
So if it's the police's responsibility to deal with the crime issue - not
yours, what happens if they arrest one of your tenants and he/she is no longer
around to pay rent? Is it now the fault of the police for taking away your
source of income? I guess I don't really expect an answer, since you have
conveniently ignored every other point I've made.
Who knew red herrings swam in such large schools? Mr. McGaughey, all you have
done is roll out a compendium of excuses and why-is-there-air type
questions.You don't need to know your tenants are drug dealers. You need to
know that their behavior is sub-standard by virtue of the lease they signed and
their rights as tenants. You are not evicting them for dealing, you are
evicting them for anti-social, loud, destructive behavior (add a list here)
that you can readily witness yourself and that your lease states is cause for
eviction. The police Recap Unit works with landlords to create a plan to turn a
building(s) around. They've had that unit maybe twenty years? More? For any
land holder in any city, the optimum condition is that neither the bureaucracy
nor the police have any reason to even glance your way. The best way to do
that, in terms of rental property, is to keep your properties ship shape and
bristol fashion and remove tenants whose behavior isn't up to snuff. Most
landlords know that and they do it as a matter of course.Landlords can do a lot
of weeping and gnashing of teeth, but the truth is, no landlord is required to
tolerate anti-social behavior on/in his/her property. End of story.
Kevin and Wizard,
All I can say is you’re blowing smoke. First I was accused of advocating that
landlords not screen tenants. Then when I disclosed that I was screening (and
most other landlords do, too), Kevin Kuschel comes up with a rambling,
incoherent statement to the effect that my screening efforts are not adequate.
Baloney! Yours are just empty words. And then, according to Kevin, I’m
supposed to be concerned if the police arrest one of my tenants and I lose
income. Sorry to say, Kevin, that hasn’t happened. That’s not how it works.
And Wizard Marks writes: “all you have done is roll out a compendium of
excuses”. No, Wizard, I’m rolling out rebuttals to false statements previously
made. I don’t need to excuse myself with you.
While I do not personally know many of the people on this list who post this
kind of statement, it seems that many are block-club people and cogs in the DFL
political infrastructure whose main claim to influence is some connection to
city government, especially the community police. That is your personal
identity. You cannot criticize the police. You have to suck up to them
because, like groupies chasing a rock star, without them you would be nothing.
They might drop you if you said that the police, not landlords, were the ones
primarily responsible for controlling crime.
Wm. McGaughey: "Im rolling out rebuttals to false statements previously made."
You complained that MPD won't work with landlords to create and execute a plan,
but MPD, though RECAP does work with landlords and have for at least 20 years.
If your lease isn't tight, then you have no way to hold people accountable.
It's not up to MPD to create a lease for you, though there are other entities
which do have sample leases if landlords wish to avail themselves of them.
You want the cops to tell you who is dealing and who is not, but you don't need
that information. All you need do is observe tenants in action and their
behavior will tell you whether you want them in your building. They do not need
a threshold of crimes to make them unwelcome as tenants.
MPD will tell you how many 911 calls they have had for any address,
particularly if you are the owner of the building. They will even print you out
a list of every 911 call and the reason given for the call.
Your arguments do not hold water. Your rebuttals are not rebuttals, but
excuses.
Greetings,
Yes, I am more than a bit amused at the "cogs in the DFL political
infrastructure"
and the kowtowing to cops and local government comments...in my case most of
the cops and local policy-makers would die laughing to include yours truly in
such
a descriptive. I am no big fan of the GOP, but the DFL leadership seems equally
disconnected from reality these days. Our society slides further and further
from
the tenets and ideals that have defined us and which hold our future
prospects...and
nary a soul seems to notice or give a damn much about just how that has been
allowed to happen. Political affiliation these days doesn't seem to hold any
relevance
at all to any set of definable principles that we can rely upon.
Guy Gambill
(Northeast)
"Kevin Kuschel comes up with a rambling,
incoherent statement to the effect that my screening efforts are not adequate.
Baloney! Yours are just empty words."
Oh really?
Please tell us about this screening process. What exactly do you do? Maybe I
could give you a few helpful hints, but do I really expect you will do this?
No. You have no interest in any opinion or thought other than your own. Talk
about rambling. Bill you're the master.
Kevin K
Kevin Kuschel wrote:
> I really would like to get back to the original reason for starting this
thread if possible.
>
> The following are some of the issues which concern me the most:
> #1 - There are no penalties for renting your property without a license. You
> simply fill out the form, pay the fee and you get your provisional license.
> What other type of business could get away with that? Aren't rental
properties
> businesses?
>
Mark Anderson:
Why do landlords need licenses anyway? If they break the law, why not
go after them then?
Businesses don't need licenses unless they are in particular
industries. It is true that Minneapolis does require licenses for an
enormous number of industries (that's one reasons the city is known as
being so bad for business), but just the fact of being in business does
not require a license. I don't need to get a license when I make money
as an employee; why should I need one just because I deal with the
general public? Taxes are high enough as it is. The city should get
involved if the business breaks the law. The city seems to assume that
businesses will break the law when they require licenses -- kind of a
presumption of guilt.
Mark Anderson: "Why do landlords need licenses anyway? If they break the law,
why not go after them then?"
The license is the law.
www.ci.minnepolis.mn.us/inspections/landlords
Why License Rental Properties?
The intent of the rental license ordinance is to:
Promote the health, safety, and welfare of the general public.
Assure preservation of the existing housing supply.
Help maintain property values.
Work toward eliminating substandard and deteriorating rental housing.
Maintain a living environment that contributes to healthful individual and
family living.
I think some good points have been made in this thread. Clearly, stakeholders
such as rental property owners and neighbors, alike, are maxed out /stressed
out from the "street criminals next door"; day after day, year after year,
decade after decade!!
I would like to propose "TENANT LICENSING". Here is how it works: If you wish
to have the privilege of renting in this town, you must purchase an annual
tenant license, for $35. If you have excessive police services to haul your
butt to jail all the time, you lose that license. Then you must "hit the road",
SWEETY PIE!!
Can I get an Amen from both sides of the aisle?
By the way, I owned 416-22nd Avenue (a four-plex) The List picnic hot spot, in
the early 1980's. It was no picnic then, either.
I don't understand why your posts need to devolve into personal attacks just because some people don't agree with your premise or with you entirely. That's pretty sad.Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and it looks like work........Thomas Edison Well-behaved women rarely make history....bumper sticker> To: <email obscured>> From: <email obscured>> Subject: Re: [Mpls] Rental licenses> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:00:03 +1200> > Kevin and Wizard,> > All I can say is youre blowing smoke. First I was accused of advocating that landlords not screen tenants. Then when I disclosed that I was screening (and most other landlords do, too), Kevin Kuschel comes up with a rambling, incoherent statement to the effect that my screening efforts are not adequate. Baloney! Yours are just empty words. And then, according to Kevin, Im supposed to be concerned if the police arrest one of my tenants and I lose income. Sorry to say, Kevin, that hasnt happened. Thats not how it works.> > And Wizard Marks writes: all you have done is roll out a compendium of excuses. No, Wizard, Im rolling out rebuttals to false statements previously made. I dont need to excuse myself with you. > > While I do not personally know many of the people on this list who post this kind of statement, it seems that many are block-club people and cogs in the DFL political infrastructure whose main claim to influence is some connection to city government, especially the community police. That is your personal identity. You cannot criticize the police. You have to suck up to them because, like groupies chasing a rock star, without them you would be nothing. They might drop you if you said that the police, not landlords, were the ones primarily responsible for controlling crime.> > > William McGaughey> Harrison, Minneapolis> Info about Bill McGaughey: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/williammcgaughey> > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6kTSgNhJgGDxTC4FwBaSON>
Actually you will get an amen from me on that. I live at 411 22nd av n and I
will tell you
as a neighborhood resident that all of us in the block club danced our happy
dance when that building was torn down.
I don't know where these tenents were coming from but it seemed they were the
neighbors from the bowels of hell.
Timothy Baugh, the serial rapist and his cohort and his girlfriend were staying
there. You know the one who is doing life
now? He may have not been on the lease but he certainly was staying in that
building. His tenancy in the neighborhood
was merely the icing on the cake of years of dealing with drug dealers in the
street in front of my house. That was a gauntlet
I had to walk through several times daily. You know, going to and from work, no
vehicle, harrassemt, death threats.
I'm glad that this discussion has continued and I think it is shedding some
light. I'd like to return to some ideas that Guy and William McGaughey have
brought up, and whoever mentioned that drug dealers need affordable housing.
I'm sure this was a sarcastic comment... but it is true. I live in Phillips and
have had some very bad folks living next door to me in the distant past. I
noticed that not only did they treat those outside their families horribly, but
also family members. They didn't seem to know the meaning of respect or
kindness. One woman brought her kids up from a Chicago ghetto to find a better
life for them. She prided herself on never hitting them. But the things that
she said to them!! This poor woman had no idea how to nurture her children. I'm
sad about the waste of human potential that is going on when children are
underfed, physically and emotionally abused and grow up to follow in the sad
footsteps of their parents,
also victims. What are we going to do to stop producing people who are so
damaged and damaging? As Guy Gambill has said time and time again, we know all
the statistics and the methods that work. Why aren't we employing these means
to a better life for all? We can't solve this problem by moving "bad" people to
someone else's neighborhod. William McGaughey has mentioned youth programs and
an actual real, paying job after high school or college. One thing is for sure.
Something is very wrong with the way our "leaders" are leading us.
There have been some postings in response to mine which need a response. I
will try to respond both to the general issues (which are productive to
discuss) and the particular personal points (which are not so productive).
First, the issue, as I see it, is whether property owners (including landlords)
or the city police are the ones primarily responsible for dealing with
neighborhood crime. I say it is the police. Practically everyone else,
judging from their posted comments, puts the blame for ineffective crime
fighting on property owners. How would you answer this question?
Now, if the police are the community’s principle crime fighters, there is still
a role for property owners and managers to play in assisting the police. But
we need a discussion between the two parties before such a program goes into
effect.
A second issue, raised by Jim Graham and others, is whether landlord groups
must consist only of “ethical” or “responsible” landlords or should be open to
all landlords without an attempt to judge any member. The word “slumlord” is
sometimes used in this regard which, like the N-word, I consider to be a purely
derogatory label that ought not be be used in constructive discussions.
I side with those who think that groups such as Metro Property Rights Action
Committee should be open to all landlords. That is because our group was
formed primarily to fight abusive city policies. If a landlord wants to learn
how to improve his business practices, other groups exist for that purpose.
A landlord is a business owner who offers a product for sale. A “bad” landlord
is someone who offers a shoddy, overpriced product. The market place is
capable of making a decision to deal with such business people. If a tenant
lives in a rental unit that is overpriced and not properly maintained, the best
response is for that tenant to move out of that place. Choose another product.
I have always supported reasonably balanced rental markets with full product
disclosure and freedom of mobility.
“Neighbors” have an informal stake in this relationship. Their rights arise
primarily from city ordinances require certain people to do certain things.
They do not have rights because they think certain people should behave in a
certain way. However, certain City Council members have built up their
expectations as a means of building a power base. Also, there is a large
budget for community policing which finances staff who deliver a consistent
message serving the interests of the police. They build communities of
like-minded people - i.e., “cogs” in the city machine.
I am suspicious of people who wear their “ethics” on their sleeve. I remember
talking once with a judge who had been brought before an ethics committee. He
said that some of the most unethical people are those who sit on ethics
committees. Granted, he had a personal stake in this situation. Still, I
think there’s some truth to his opinion. If other people say you’re ethical,
accept it as a compliment. But if you say that you yourself are ethical,
others would do well to watch out.
As a new landlord, I soon learned a hard lesson about politics in this town.
Two weeks after I closed on my apartment building, I was summoned to a meeting
of the local neighborhood association where I was denounced as a slumlord for
tolerating crime in my building. I had already held discussions will all
tenants in the building, taken their suggestions on what to do about the
building’s problems, and started to act on those suggestions. But here I was
blamed for conditions that preexisted my management. The City Council member
present - later President of the Minneapolis City Council - told me that I was
unfit to manage a building because I was unwilling to evict everyone
immediately. As a compromise, I agreed to arrest those with criminal-arrest
records.
I drew the conclusion then that these were not fair-minded people but political
fanatics or worse; I ceased to be concerned about their opinion of me. The
self-styled “good” people were really quite bad. I’ve run into that situation
again and again.
In St. Paul, there was a landlord group, subsidized by the city, which called
itself SPARL - St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords. City officials,
the pay masters, grew contemptuous of these people. Mayor Randy Kelly insulted
them to their face. We, in Minneapolis, the “bad” landlords, who are
financially independent of city government, joined with with our St. Paul
friends in two picketing events at City Hall. Mayor Kelly was defeated.
There is a model of effective organizing with so-called “bad” people. That
would be the Christian church. Jesus said that all people are sinners. He
said that the stone which the builder rejected will become the chief
cornerstone of the temple. In short, it sometimes helps to be humble about
your character rather than self-righteous.
Now for some of the specific comments -
Kevin Kuschel again sets himself up as an expert in tenant screening and says
he could give me some tips on how to do a better job. He says that my taking
applications, checking arrest records, checking references, and using a service
bureau to uncover other information about the prospective tenant are entirely
inadequate. He himself takes or took additional unspecified steps. This is
what I call “blowing smoke”. When and where were you a rental-property
manager, Kevin, and for how long? Who besides yourself can testify as to your
managerial effectiveness? Names and telephone numbers, please.
Wizard Marks tells me that I need an effective lease - I use one drawn up by
Multi-Housing - and that I can evict drug-dealing tenants for other lease
violations such as disorderly conduct. A better way, actually, is to have a
month-to-month lease cancelable by either party without need to give a reason.
Otherwise, if you cite minor behavioral incidents or so-called “ghetto”
behavior, you may have to fight it out in court with Legal Aid. Most tenants
will leave voluntarily, if asked, to avoid a UD.
The problem really is that there are many gray areas. One incident of arguing
loudly in the hallway may not be enough to justify an eviction. Also,
landlords often do not know which “guests” who are causing problems go with
which tenants. Landlords in tough neighborhoods cannot demand behavioral
perfection in their tenants; otherwise, their buildings might be empty.
In response to my appeal for the city to sit down with landlords to discuss
crime, what I meant is that the two parties should work out a mutually
acceptable approach. Wizard cites the RECAPS sheets as an example of what I
requested. But it is not. This is something that the city developed on its
own. Sometimes these reports are helpful; sometimes they are used simply to
blame landlords. I’m talking of a complete crime-fighting strategy.
Constance Nompelis thinks my argument relating to many of the posters being
part of the DFL political infrastructure is untrue. She used to be chair of
the Minneapolis Republicans. Good for you, Constance. I would point out,
however, that I said “many of the people”. I did not say “all of the people”.
Constance apparently belongs to those who are not part of the many, as I am as
well. But if her views reflect those of the Republican Party, I do not agree
with them either.
Jim Graham uses the same argument to suggest that I said I do not know him
personally, even if he attended some property rights meetings in the past (and
our “political group” in 1997 gave him money when he ran for city council).
Yes, I do know Jim Graham personally. It’s that word “many”, Jim.
I do think Jim Graham’s approach is constructive in suggesting that many of us,
who are arguing with each other, actually have a common desire to fight crime.
Quite true. About his argument relating to responsible landlords vs.
slumlords, I think I’ve addressed that adequately above.
Carey Joe Howell said: "As for the millions and the budget for the RNC, you do
realise that $50 million was provided by the RNC. We did not foot the bill for
that."
Actually, we taxpayers did.
$15 million of that $50 million was directly from the Federal Government; our
tax money (or possibly our children & grandchildren's taxes, given the
Reagan-Bush deficits). And the remaining $35 million was corporate donations,
which they called advertising or image building, and then wrote off from their
taxes. Leaving the rest of us to pay more taxes to make up for these
deductions.
So it pretty much all came out of the taxes we paid (or will pay in the
future).
Rental Property Licensing will only be really effective when
neighborhood people actively and forcefully push city officials to
enforce RPL.
I worked at Jordan Area Community Council in 1991 when Jordan residents
successfully campaigned to get RPL passed for Minneapolis.
We wanted RPL to help us get the most severely dilapidated absentee
landlord owned properties cleaned up.
After doorknocking 200 houses, Jordan neighbors had identified rundown
absentee landlord properties as the biggest problem in the Jordan
neighborhood.
Jordan launched the Dirty Thirty campaign, targeting 30 problem absentee
landlord properties picked at block meetings. After a kickoff meeting
attended by 250 Jordan residents, the mayor, and three councilmembers,
29 blocks met at JACC sponsored block meetings and voted on which
property to add to the Dirty Thirty List. The property had to have at
least one code violation and be owned by an absentee landlord.
The neighbors then went out to the house, made a list of the code
violations, put the violations in a letter signed by the residents, and
told the landlord that the elected officials supported the Dirty Thirty
campaign and if they did not fix the problems the inspector would write
up the property.
At half the block meetings, we had renters come to the meetings and say
“please put my house on the Dirty Thirty List.” When a house is a dump
on the outside, the house is usually also a dump on the inside. Renters
are often afraid to call the city for fear of retaliation by the
landlord. But if the property was voted by the neighbors for the Dirty
Thirty list, then the city would go after the landlords and the renter
can say “I’m shocked, shocked that my neighbors have put this house on
the Dirty Thirty list”
The neighbors then met once a month with the housing inspector for
Jordan, telling her of the problems and tracking progress by the city in
getting the properties cleaned up.
Ultimately, Twenty three of 29 Dirty Thirty houses were cleaned up.
Those with relatively minor problems were usually fixed up by the
landlords. Those that were beyond recall came down.
But several remained pits, and had a similar profile: salvageable, but
with severe and expensive problems.
We researched what neighborhoods and cities across the country were
doing to get severely rundown properties cleaned up. Duluth had rental
property licensing, and after visiting Duluth and seeing the impact of
RPL on the housing stock, we concluded that RPL could also help improve
the housing stock of Minneapolis.
We visited other Minneapolis neighborhoods, got thousands of postcards
sent to councilmembers, and ultimately got RPL passed.
We campaigned to RPL because we found that city laws were ineffective in
getting landlords of severely run down properties to fix up their
properties. We found that too often the landlords would choose to pay a
fine rather than do the repairs. With rental property licensing, the
city had an ability to revoke the license of a rundown property and
deprive the landlord of his rental income. Faced with such a severe
economic hit, landlords would choose to do the repairs.
It was our plan to go back to the blocks, have them identify the most
severely rundown absentee landlord properties, and then actively push
the city to use RPL to force the landlords to clean up their properties.
We never thought that simple passage of RPL would fix the problem.
We never got the chance. Jordan was one of the first neighborhoods
picked for the NRP, and we were off to the races.
My recommendation: neighbors need to push the city to enforce RPL.
Getting tough means lots of paperwork, hassles with offending landlords,
and city officials will usually opt for the easiest approach e.g. paying
a fine or filling out forms – unless neighbors push hard to enforce RPL.
We wanted RPL to get houses and apartments fixed. The behavioral
component was added by city officials.
Jay Clark
Cooper
I think as strategies such as RPL are resurrected and used in this present
housing crises i would strongly urge proponents and organizers to protect
the tenants and their frequently fragile housing situation by working with
the city attorney's office to use the Tenant Remedy Act as one way to
actually require and effectuate repairs and keep the housing viable rather
then simply adding to the stock of vacant buildings.
They city has been using the TRA for years very effectively when there is a
water shut off. The TRA allows the city to gain control of the buidling,
pay the bills, enter into and terminate leases, do repairs, etc and the
payback is secured by a mortgage. Get the City Attorney's office in the mix
on these neighborhood strategies early on.
caty royce
bancroft
I collaboratively run the Housing Court Project at the Hennepin County Government Center with the court, Legal Aid and the Volunteer Lawyers Network. The project provid