Keith Reitman wrote: > The City of Mpls. Landlord Licensing provisions go even farther against > property owners. Mpls ordinance should not hold the owner responsible for > alleged behaviors, as described above, by tenants, tenant's guests, or anyone > who happens to wander onto the porch, yard or gangway or even the public > sidewalk or street in front of the property. Keep in mind, property owner > punishment can occur even if these second, third, and fourth parties alleged > criminal behaviors fail to cause arrest, charge or conviction of that tenant, > tenant guest or itinerant stranger. "At the end of the day" this type of law > may quickens the loss of free market investment in the inner city, and the > loss and deterioration of affordable housing. If Greg Luce or Acorn asked me, > "How can we get rid of those pesky, bottom feeding, landlords?" I would > answer, "Create an environment in our inner city that welcomes and rewards > investment, rather then blaming and shaming, and sanctioning small business > people called property owner."
Quick insignificant aside: attributing this language to me, after being overly careful not to use such language in a very contentious area, is unfair. But, unfortunately, par for the course. More importantly, and in preparation for tonight's PRAC forum in which I am sure this issue will be discussed at length, here's a brief rundown of the conduct on premises ordinance that many PRAC landlords complain about: The ordinance makes the licensee (the landlord) responsible for taking "appropriate action," with the assistance of the CCP/SAFE and police, when a tenant or the tenant's guest engages in any of the following conduct: 1. illegal gambling; 2. prostitution; 3. sale or possession of illegal drugs; 4. unlawful sale of alcoholic beverages; 5. noisy assemblies; 6. unlawful possession, transportation, sale or use of a weapon; 7. disorderly conduct that disturbs the peace and quiet of occupants of at least two units of the building When the police receive one report of an incident involving this conduct, they are to notify the landlord by mail of the violation and ask the landlord to take appropriate action. A violation must be determined based on "substantial evidence." CCP/SAFE is available for assistance. If a second violation occurs within one year, the SAFE team must notify the landlord again and will require the landlord to submit a written report of the incident and the landlord's proposed action to prevent further disorderly use of the building. This is sometimes called a management plan, and they are not difficult to develop or implement. If a third violation occurs within one year of the second, then the city may initiate an action to suspend, revoke, deny or not renew the landlord's license. This can be avoided by the landlord if the landlord initiates eviction cases against offending tenants or issues the offending tenants notices to vacate. The director of inspections can also discontinue a license revocation if he/she believes the landlord has taken appropriate action. Initiating a license revocation action is a fairly long administrative process, with protections built in for the landlord (but unfortunately not for innocent tenants who are also victims of the offending tenant). First, the landlord may file an appeal to the Rental Dwelling License Board of Appeals, paying a filing fee of $100.00. The board of appeals is comprised of the following: seven members, three of whom are real estate agents or brokers, residential rental property managers, or residential rental property owners; two members who are tenants or residential rental housing advocates; and two members who shall be appointed from the general public. The board of appeals must make specific findings and must issue them to the City Council, who has final authority to revoke the license. By the way, I just received information from the inspections office, and out of the 16,000 rental dwellings currently licensed by the city, 8 licenses were revoked in the year 2000, and they expect to have the same number this year. Those 8 revocations each year may include revocations for lack of habitable conditions, in addition to those for "conduct on premises." Hope this was useful. Gregory Luce North Phillips > As new investors rush in, the bottom-feeders > are outbid and move on. Further, do not hold one person (property owner) > responsible for the criminality or bad behavior of another person. " The vast > middle level of rental property owners, those that live in a duplex or > triplex or own 2-3-4 or more units, have historically served the > neighborhoods', and their tenants', needs the best. By stigmatizing and > confounding this type of small business activity, we end up pushing the > property ownership into the hands of much larger and less personal hands, or > into the hands of some less savory owners. We also end up pushing to many > properties down and into the landfill! _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
