Meanwhile, there are property owners like myself who ran on "provisional licenses" for years and begged to get the properties inspected. I was always told that they were too busy and not enough inspectors to do the job.
Gregory Luce wrote: > Barbara Lickness wrote: > > > If they scheduled a rental licensing inspection on > > this property, the property owner would have to let > > them in and unsuspecting tenants might not get taken > > like this. > > This is actually a somewhat interesting issue among some landlords, > tenants, and the inspections division. There is nothing in the law that > allows a property owner to let an inspector into a tenant's unit absent > an administrative search warrant That is, the general thought among > folks in inspections (and among constitutional scholars) is that a > landlord cannot constitutionally consent to let an inspector into a > tenant's apartment on behalf of a tenant, and for this reason inspectors > have been using "consent" cards that the tenants use to provide such > consent. Those cards have generally been sent directly to the tenants, > who fill them out and return them (or, if the need for an inspection is > a result of the tenant's complaint, the tenant signs a consent form when > the inspector comes out for the inspection). > > There is talk that the ordinance may be amended (it could have already > been amended, I'm just not up to speed but I'll find out) to do the > following: the city sends a notice to the landlord for the need for an > inspection, and the owner/landlord must respond to the notice by > scheduling an inspection. Once scheduled, the owner/landlord is > responsible for informing the tenant of the inspection date, requesting > permission from the tenants, and providing the "consent" cards to the > tenants. The landlord is then responsible for obtaining the tenant's > signatures on the consent cards and returning them to inspections. > > In most cases consent is not an issue. I have, however, been involved > in one situation where a landlord intercepted and forged tenants' > signatures on cards to NOT let an inspection occur, and I'm generally > aware of other similar situations. The thought is that the landlord > then avoids an inspection (unless the city gets a warrant), and a tenant > is too afraid at times to press forward with getting a needed > inspection. The proposed ordinance that shifts the responsiblity to the > landlord to distribute and obtain consent cards may increase the abuses > in which a landlord makes no effort to obtain consent or, in giving the > cards to the tenant, discourages consent to an inspection. As Barb > noted, many tenants are too afraid to do anything that is perceived to > negatively affect the landlord-tenant relationship (the landlord > generally has economic power over the tenant unless tenants in the > building are organized) and everyone loses-- the tenant, the city, and > the neighbors who are tired of a rundown property next to them. To be > fair to inspections, they are dealing with a very difficult issue and > one in which they are often threatened with (or already on the other end > of) lawsuits. > > Gregory Luce > N.Phillips > > _______________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________ 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
