> I can't really finish reading all of this message. Mr. Miler's
> comparison of hating jews and blacks to attacking landlords and people
> who make more money than you is really sickening. (Quoted below for
> reference). It reminds me of the lawyer who sued over lawyer jokes.
>
> My family have been landlords (I'm not). I've seen good tenants and
> bad tenants. I know it can be tough on a good landlord.
>
> It is in the interest of good landlord to be careful about his tenants
> (like Mr. Miller apparently is). This is especially true in multi-unit
> apartments. It IS the landlord's responsibility to choose carefully
> and evict when necessary in order to maintain a safe community within
> their properties. Why? Because the tenants don't have the power to do
> it.
Good points but already stipulated.
>
> But there is a clear economic advantage to maintaining a good
> community. A good community means peaceful neighbors who pay their
> rent on time, who can prosper in their jobs because they can rest at
> night, whose kids do well in school because they can study in a safe,
> peaceful environment.
This is what we all strive for. But Mpls city governmnet does not strive
for this in certain areas. Ask our listmembers who have been pointing this
out. Dyna comes to mind.
>
> But what about the bad landlords? They "serve a need" as Mr. Miller
> pointed out. They deserve to be attacked. They deserve to be run out
> of town - even to the point of leaving property abandoned. But the
> property must be reoccupied and soon - preferably by owner-occupants
> from the community. I have seen the value of subsidizing low-income
> buyers to buy homes in their neighborhoods.
"Serve a need" may be a bad choice of phrase. The slumlord comes into
existance because the better landlords and properties will not rent to
people with slummy credit, crime or rental history. But the poster suggests
they should be attacked and the tenants cast to the wind. The property left
abandoned-vacant-rotting-burning. This is what we practiced in Mpls for over
15 years.
This has had terrible results. One result is the public school transient
student issue. We have over 150,000 people with UD's on their record in the
last 10 years. We have poisoned base of relations with our largest provider
of affordable housing. We have non-profits who sell themselves as white
nights who then raid the public purse for un heard of amounts. We have
destroyed so much classic housing.
So, if you want more poor kids to keep moving and ruin their educational
opportunity at a young age. Do what Mr. Schmid advises, attack the landlord
and his tenants. Mr. Schmid clearly points out he prefers owner occupied.
Not those #$%^&&* smelly %^&)( people who rent. I'll repeat here again. I
do not want ugly neighbors, buildings or neighborhoods.
But will the city ever help the landlords in tough situations with
meaningful assistance-service? The past 15 years would indicate 'no'. The
post of Mr. Schmid-Ms Mann would indicate that we are slipping into another
dark age of landlord baiting.
> So, if you are truly a good landlord Mr. Miller, I feel your pain. But
> if you are actually one of the slumlords you deserve all the pain you
> get. I applaud Ms. Mann for her efforts.
Your applause only compound the error.
Craig Miller
Former Fultonite
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________
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
