Doug Mann Wrote: > If a wannabe renter reports sufficient income and otherwise > meets the criteria, why not rent to them on the spot?
Because income is only part of the equation. Criminal behavior. Noise. Cleanliness. Ability to manage money enough to pay. Etc. Even if a lease agreement allows a landlord to back out in the case of a dishonest application, we still have to go to court to remove the tenant. In the worst case, it can take a couple of months before a definitive answer comes from the courts AND the sheriff is there to return the apartment to the owner. In two months a lot of damage and neighborhood ills can be created. Nathan Hunstad wrote: > It was pretty common knowledge that landlords were profiting from > [application fees] too. It might be a pretty common wives tale, but it is not common. What you describe is illegal. If you have anything more than accusations, call an attorney. Nathan continued: > A report could be bought by people, with an expiration date > of 30 or 45 days, and used by the prospective tenant when applying for > apartments. The information would be the same information that the > landlords would receive anyway, so there is no "fox in the henhouse" > problem, and the expiration date would ensure that the data was timely. Maybe. The problem resides in who is the customer of the background checking agency. Right now, background checking agencies advertise to landlords about how in-depth and accurate their reports are. If the tenant selects the agency, I expect agencies to focus on how good they make their reports look even if an individual has historical behavioral problems. When the state legislature considered this very solution, a Police Officer from Brooklyn Park testified that he expects fraudulent background checking agencies to appear overnight. It MIGHT work if landlords could identify which background checking agencies are acceptable (would require a "LL taskforce"). Further, the agency must send the report directly to the landlord (so no pages could be modified or lost). I recognize that it is a very small percentage of the tenants that cause such problems. But, those tenants are the ONLY reason we have this process in the first place. Laurie Whittsock wrote: > So many of the people I work with -- clients, students, > other members of the Indian community, have been repeatedly > discriminated against. I find this hard to believe. Every landlord I know is hurting for tenants. I suspect the people you work with have a financial gap and/or historical behavioral problems. If they don't, contact one of my sites, I have a home for them. Info at: www.cullenhomes.com. If you have evidence of discrimination, I recommend you contact one of the many department of human rights. Dorie Gallagher wrote: > [I paid $165 for an eviction hearing] in Mpls. gov. > center....last one in September of 2003. Since a legislative change in early 2003, the cost of an eviction has been $247 in Hennepin county. If the court costs are your only expense, how did you serve the tenants? Dorie continued: > I am a property owner and have never charged an application fee > since 1990. It is my job as a owner to figure out if someone is > going to be a good tenant or not and that should not cost the > applicant. How do you figure out "if someone is going to be a good tenant" without hiring an impartial agency to research an individuals' background? Regards, Bill Cullen Whittier Landlord Investor's Realtor 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. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ 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
