The thread regarding bad tenants has produced some of the usual and some pretty interesting things.
I think my favorite was the idea of NJIMBY - which does express the way I was looking at it. (Although, as I think my neighborhood is middling to good, maybe it is for NJITBY me. Not Just In Their Back Yard) I don't want to concentrate "bad tenants" in (or keep them out of) any neighborhoods, I just don't want people (and their dependents) to be stuck out on the streets after making a mistake. Not only does it go against my feeling that everyone deserves a second chance, but as someone pointed out, if they're forced to live under a bridge, they're likely to become more socially destructive, not less. The sample letter and lease specifics as well as the information regarding a "disorderly house" clause were very useful in thinking about this. When I want to give someone a second chance, that doesn't mean that there can be no consequences for their earlier actions. It IS reasonable for neighborhoods to want their landlords to do background and criminal checks (and wise for landlords to do so if they consider the property an investment beyond just gathering of rent). Thinking about how to balance the need for everyone to find housing and the need for people to not get stuck with "problem neighbors", I submit the following for commentary: A "good" landlord looking to rent should do background checks on their renters including rental history, credit history, criminal history, and reference checks. If there are any "flags" in the background checks, that landlord should tailor the lease to be more restrictive. Some of the things Keith mentioned from his lease would not be things I'd demand of "good" tenants - eg: storing bicycles in the hall or loitering on the front steps. If the tenants have a history of trouble, however, demanding a bit more of them with eviction as the potential consequence does seem fair. Good neighbors would let the neighbors know of any problems they were seeing. A landlord can only go by every so often, and the "problems" they can identify are more or less cosmetic. A tenant may keep a very clean property but be doing other things to make neighbors miserable that are only from time to time (eg: harrassment, drug dealing, etc.) A landlord is NOT a court, a judge, or a jury. While they can be expected to react to criminal charges, they can't assume them. They can only put specifics into their lease that can be verified : loitering, mess, noise (which would have to be verified by driving by), criminal activity (which would have to be verified by a conviction), etc. Here is where they need help from the police and the courts. If someone is reported by neighbors to be doing something illegal, the police need to respond and the courts need to follow up. The landlord can't do anything about it as long as the tenants are following the terms of their lease - to do anything else is in violation of the principles of innocent until proven guilty. Beyond tailoring the lease to be more restrictive and give greater grounds for eviction, a landlord faced with potential problem tenants could require greater deposits which were hinged on more than simply damage to property. This could EASILY lead to abuse of at-risk tenants by bad landlords, so tenant advocacy groups would want to be really on top of this, but if you have to put a "bond" to get a cell phone or credit card after credit problems, putting up something similar after rental problems seems reasonable. Having a "verbal warning-written warning-fine-eviction" approach to things like repeated violations of livability/environment clauses in a lease sounds reasonable - to me anyway. If a landlord does not respond to neighborhood or police concerns, it sounds like there are methods of legally addressing that problem, and it would be fair to do so. Expecting the landlord to do more than they are legally able to do does not seem reasonable - at that point, the neighborhood expectations need to shift to the police and courts. Speaking of the property originally being discussed, the landlord really can't do anything about the pizza grab (unless it had been followed up on by police) or the drug dealing (unless the police make an arrest and the courts produce a conviction). As to harrassment or fighting, again, these things are illegal. I'm not sure what the landlord can do if they're told about them but there is no police/court follow up. Sure, you told me they harassed you, they told me you harassed them, I don't know, and I'm not a court. Maybe they are problems and need to be evicted. Maybe you just don't like them for a bigoted reason and want them gone - I don't have any proof and without something from the courts, what am I supposed to do about it? The final thing that needs to be there is strong support of a landlord by the police and courts if and when the time comes where someone does need to be evicted. As far as the NIMBY/NJIMBY/whatever aspects of this, it seems to me that the core issue is demanding and receiving equal protection under the law. Whether it is to give the landlord the information and legal backing he needs to deal with problem tenants or give the neighborhood the legal backing they need to deal with disorderly properties, the problem is that impacted and up scale neighborhoods aren't getting the same treatment. I assume that this ends up meaning that problem landlords with problem tenants can't effectively exist for long in the neighborhoods with better police response. I suppose the general issue might be "what's a noise violation when we're dealing with gang bangers - lets deal with the serious stuff". In a way, it is an offshoot of the same attitude that got someone complaining about police pulling over speeders when there were people dying in other parts of the city: "Why are you dealing with this petty stuff when there are 'real criminals' to go after?" Of course, the petty stuff creates and maintains an environment where the "real criminals" flourish and prosper - I'm not sure if this is an attitude that needs to be shifted in the community, the police force, or both. Finally, if we're going to have police become more responsive to these sorts of complaints, we need to also deal with "problem complainers". If someone uses the police department to harass the neighbors they don't like, they need to eventually get in legal trouble for it. Yes, this does happen, yes I'm thinking of names, and no, to the best of my knowledge, they've never gotten in trouble for it. - Jason Goray Sheridan NE __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ 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
