I'm not sure that Barbara is correct in saying Truth in Housing "requires" numerous repairs.
When I bought my house in South Mpls, in a private contract-for-deed sale from the owner, she was required to show me the Truth in Housing report, but there was no requirement to have these 'problems' repaired. In fact, I agreed with her that they were all minor things, just part of owing a 1907 house, and not worth fixing. So I had to sign a paper showing that I had seen the inspection report, and that I waived having these items fixed. Over the years since them, I have fixed several of them as I remodeled parts of the house, but some are still there and would be reported again if I went to sell the house. It reassured me as a buyer to be able to see this Truth in Housing inspection report. And I really appreciated that I was able to decide what, if anything, to do about the items listed, without any city requirement being set for either me or the seller. >What's wrong with the law is that it requires numerous "repairs" that are >not safety >related, some of which are merely cosmetic, or "nice to haves" as >opposed to "need to have". > >If the law could be modified to apply to only major safety hazards I think >it would >do its job and not be so burdensome. > >Barbara L. Nelson >Burnsville, formerly Seward for 18 years _______________________________________ 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
