One tires of this kind of quasi-libertarian anti-government diatribe, full
of inaccuracies and untruths. But they shouldn't go uncontested, either.
Basic difference between an absentee landlord and an owner-occupant? The
latter actually lives in the house or condo, and therefore risks their own
and their family's lives if the place isn't safe. Far too many landlords
fail to give a damn about the lives of their renters, until tragedy hits
and three or four of the too-many-renters there die in a fire they couldn't
escape because of the landlord's willful negligence (happened to a rental
in the Como neighborhood several years ago; you should have seen the LLC
principal scramble not to be held liable). So homeowners tend to maintain
the property much better, they take more care. By definition, with small
rentals like single-family homes and duplexes, someone other than the
landlord has to keep tabs on the place. fon behalf of the renting public
Ergo, the city and its inspectors.
Then, there's the Truth In Housing inspection that every house that's for
sale has to have done, and filed, before it's sold. That's where the city
inspector would catch the window problem [BINGO!] and the chipped paint
[BINGO! BINGO!]. And the insufficient head-room on the basement stairways,
the lack of handrail, the bad plumbing fixture, the outdated wiring, the
good or bad foundation, the lousy roof, the missing CO and smoke alarms
everywhere, etc., including if the floor slants in one of the upstairs
bedrooms! The seller is nominally responsible for fixing all those
things--a much more stringent list than the rental inspection entails--but
the buyer can agree to fix them, presumably for a price adjustment. My
point: the city is there, for homeowners' safety. Just like with rental
license inspections, only tougher.
Too many landlords create bedrooms out of strange areas of the house:
attics, foundationless front and back porches, basements, dining rooms.
Inspectors will call them on it if there is insufficient egress
possibility, or if the renter has to go through someone else's bedroom to
get to and from his/her own bedroom, or to the jury-rigged basement
bathroom. Heating the occupied front porch with a space heater is
illegal--who knew?! You also can't pile people in, willy-nilly: there are
occupancy limits that landlords are constantly abusing in Minneapolis.
Trevre would have us believe that no inspections are really done for
rental properties, to justify the cost of the license. Yes, they are done
and it's way too easy for the landlord to refuse entry to the inspector.
But the city doesn't have enough inspectors--they need more funding--to
accomplish the task within the new, sharper time frame--every several
years, every rental property in the city will be inspected. That the city
isn't keeping up with its goal is an argument FOR severely increasing the
cost of the rental license for small properties. Big multi-unit rental
properties normally have a management company handling maintenance and fees
and cleaning and renting, etc., and they're less of a problem for
Minneapolis than the little properties often owned by amateurs who don't
know what they're doing, if they don't begin and continue the process of
renting just from greed and thus don't maintain the place.
When there is no governmental oversight, there tends to be an
ever-increasing non-compliance by landlords. Same thing with restaurants: A
lot of small restaurants don't like inspections, because they tend to have
problems, from vermin to dirty cooking staff hands to failures of
refrigeration and incomplete washing of produce (there's a fascinating ad
on TV that loudly boasts that it delivers "clean" food--what other kind
would they dare serve, I ask? "Clean" food is now a selling point, putting
you ahead of competitors?). Should Minneapolis NOT inspect restaurants
anymore, just because it's expensive for the owners to comply with safety
and health rules?
Pay your license fees, Trevre, and spare us the sad songs of how abused you
are by Minneapolis having rules in place that actually try to assure the
health and safety not simply of restaurant patrons, but renters. You can
pass the license fees on to renters; homeowners have to just eat maintance
expense while you get to deduct them from your income taxes, as a price of
doing business.
Minneapolis rightly imposes costs on those of you who are in the real
estate business, even at the bottom of it. If you can't stand that heat,
then the kitchen door is right over there!
Connie Sullivan
Como, in southeast Minneapolis
Rest of post
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Trevre Andrews <<email obscured>> wrote:
> While I agree the aim of the inspections is to improve safety of rental
> units I have not seen any statistics that actually support the inspection
> process makes units safer. Were the number of injuries and fatalities in
> houses reduced due to the inspection process? What were the key violations
> that produced those reduced injury or fatality rates. There are many code
> violations that can be issued at the inspectors discretion many of which
> wouldn't measurably affect housing safety (e.g., a small crack in a window
> or chipped exterior trim (both of which I was issued for) but could lead to
> significant unexpected repair bills (that came out to $2500 in painting and
> an $1000 window replacement). Sure houses have to be maintained, but there
> is plenty of grey area when that can be done on our own time for much less
> expense. Anecdotally it would make sense that rental inspections increase
> the safety of units, however the vast majority of Minnesotans live in
> single family homes which do not undergo regular inspections for safety.
> They are in the same situation as a renter. A single family buyer is at
> just as much risk as a renter for safety or code violations yet standards
> and inspections are not required or more easily waved on those units.
>
> I am not against rental inspections or the process but I would like to be
> assured it is measurably making the housing safer and not just imposing a
> complex bureaucratic system because it anecdotally seems like the right
> thing to do. We are paying our rental license bill by mail (half the time
> they lose it) or in person for example - it is 2018. I would also like to
> see it fairly implemented and if we have an expectation that the city will
> ensure housing safety they don't just focus on rental housing, but evenly
> implement the system across all housing.
>
> Trevre Andrews
> Seward, Minneapolis
> About/contact Trevre Andrews: http://forums.e-democracy.org/
> p/trevreandrews
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/
> r/topic/6zCplJAu12DzsofBcHwuHX
> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>
>
>
>
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>