Not knowing enough about the legalities of rental property licensing, I sought out more information from Greg Luce about what took place at Wednesday's hearing. Here's what I learned from him:
"First, the City Attorney drafted the ordinance that is now on the table. Second, the City Attorney spoke at the hearing in response to a question of its legality. He was clear that this is a legal ordinance, rationally related to its purpose. There's nothing illegal about increasing a rental housing licensing fee and using those funds for issues with rental housing." I'll also quote the proposed addition to Chapter 240 of the Code of Ordinances: 240.65 - Lead Control Fee: A surcharge of $3.00 per dwelling unit shall be added to the annual rental dwelling license fee imposed pursuant to section 244.1880. This surcharge shall be used to fund elevated blood lead level response, lead hazard control and enforcement for residential rental property." I'm not a lawyer, but this seems pretty clear that funds raised through this surcharge would be used specifically to help mitigate problems with rental properties and that rental property owners are NOT being asked to fund work that would be done with homeowner properties. Mark Snyder Windom Park On 3/27/03 10:01 AM, "steven meldahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reason that this was probably postponed was because it is probably > illegal to add this to a RENTAL LICENSING ordinance. The attorneys on > the Council committee probably had their legal hats on and that is why > it was postponed. > > The reality of the problem is the inherent unfairness of the proposed > ordinance. I did over 3,000 home buyer inspections and Minneapolis > Truth in Housing inspections in Minneapolis from 1975 until the mid > 1990s. There was no more lead paint in rental properties than in home > owner occupied properties. I saw many owner occupied homes with small > children with the same lead exposure risks such as peeling window sills > and peeling exterior paint as I saw in rental properties. > > The only fair way to pay for this problem is to charge ALL properties > equally. A 50 cent charge to 1 dollar per year charged to each property > (water bill charge or on tax statement as a special assessment) would be > a much more fair approach. This would also avoid the liklihood of a > lawsuit as far as the legality of the proposed ordinance. > > Steve Meldahl > Jordan (work) 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
