Clearly, the issue revolves around attaching clear "ownership" to the problems associated withinhabitants of properties, whether they be owners or renters. While most would agree that owner-occupants probably feel more of an incentive in keeping their properties "up to snuff", some renters do as well.
I suspect the real issue revolves around looking at the "whole picture". In neighborhoods such as Jordan (where I live), where rental-occupied dwelling out-number owner-occupied dwellings, we should ask ourselves whether or not we have set-up a system in our city government that affords communities such as Jordan a chance at havinga reasonably "clean" neighborhood.
I don't think anyone would disagree that enforcement (by inspectors, the police, and animal control) of ordinances should be consistent throughout the city. A property, livability, or animal ordinance violation in Kenwood should also be a a violation in Jordan.
If there is agreement on this issue, than we should then probably look at where the problem lies. Is it because less-affluent neighborhoods have a higher percentage of renters? Or, is it because we haven't (as a city government) set-up an effective manner with which to deal with violations?
I personally find it somewhat humurous that my wife and I were recently "visited" by an animal control officer that gave us a written "warning" regarding the dog feces in our yard. Apparently, there is a formula that's used to determine excess amounts of Dog "poo"". However, on the block on which we live there are a minimum of 5 unlicensed rental properties.
I live one-block from where the "melee" occurred last fall (26th Knox) and have personally played a part in having 7 individuals dealing drugs on that very same street corner in the last two-weeks. I still go down to the street corner on Friday evenings (with a group of neighbors) in an attempt to "disrupt" the drug trade by my house. This last Friday evening, we picked-up three 30-gallon bags of trash from in front of the rental property (the Powell house). The Powell's by the way, still live there. They moved-out briefly last fall, while the landlord brought the property back-up to minimal standards.
On an interesting side note. While standing outside on the street corner Friday evening, one of the many groups that passed by were four children. Two girls and two boys. The two boys were walking down the sidewalk smoking a joint (ages 9 15). I was somewhat incensed by this, as the nine year-old was holding the joint. Upon confronting the children, I learned that yes indeed the mother of the nine year-old was aware that her son smoked pot, but there wasn't anything she could do about it. In speaking directly to the nine year-old it became apparent tome that he was your typical nine year-old child, with the exception that he has no parental guidance.
In my opinion, everything in a community ties together. It's pretty unreasonable to expect that a renter will keep their property at a "minimal" standard, when they aren't able to stop their nine year-old from smoking pot. Especially when there's no clear incentive (either through fines, or threat of eviction) to do so.
Dennis Plante
Jordan Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Send all posts in plain-text format.
2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
