David Strand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >It does seem that it would be better to leave such issues up to home owners when >safety is not impinged and respond to behavioral or nuisance problems as they arise.<
Constance Nompelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We should not penalize either one based upon an *assumption* of how they will behave.< M. G. writes: The law in Minneapolis was written in response to many situations that had arisen, and where it was found that enforcement of nuisance laws was slow and ineffective. An example from another direction: Alcohol is not allowed in Minneapolis parks. Now David, Constance or myself are not the kind of people that would have too much to drink and cause trouble for other park users. (I'm not sure about the List Manager, though.) (just kidding, don't delist me!) However, the park board, park police and other park users have found that there are plenty of idiots who will cause serious, dangerous problems if allowed to drink in our parks. Thus, the law saying no one can--because it's not possible, in a timely way, to effectively prevent the idiots from causing trouble. It's the same with housing. Many of these areas were rezoned to prevent such housing situations, because the neighborhood folks were fed up with the problem houses. This is where much of the "downzoning" of Minneapolis neighborhoods came from. When there is a problem house, it can take weeks and months for the situation to be resolved. Minnesota has very strong tenant protection laws, and they can be used to drag out the process of cleaning up bad houses. I once worked in a mobile home park. The lots were rented from the park, the houses were all owned by the residents. We had a situation where someone moved into a home they bought from a resident--without permission from the park (all legal tenants were screened). Utterly illegal. It still took two months for them to be evicted, and two more for the home to be sold at sheriff's sale for unpaid rent (it sold for $1, to the park, which had to then pay for the home to be hauled off and junked). All in all it cost the park thousands of dollars in lost rent and legal costs, not to mention the aggrevation to those living near the home. And this was in a situation where the law was entirely on the side of the ones trying to keep the area livable. Now imagine how long it could take on a privately-owned lot, with numerous residents of uncertain lease status, who may or may not show up for court hearings. Imagine how long the neighbors could be suffering. This is why the unrelated tenant laws exist. --M. G. Stinnett Jordan Neighborhood REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
