I have very little sympathy toward landlords in this matter. If anything a $25 cap is too high.
I am a property owner, and I have been a landlord. Before that I was a renter. I have never done a background check. I have never once applied to rent in a place where a fee was charged - that was one of my litmus tests in whether a landlord was someone with whom I would want a business relationship. Unfortunately, too many people in Minneapolis do not have the same choice. No matter how poor I was at the time, I was white, going to college, and had no language barrier. I was not easy prey for unscrupulous landlords. And there were quite a number of those I ran into - they all charged fees, and they all balked at giving me a look at their rental agreements before putting down an application/ money. Doing a background check is overhead. Landlords pay for upkeep of a property, for advertising/signage, sometimes for administrative help, and much more. Assuming that a landlord gets several applicants within a short time, it is not hard to get a background check on the first couple, and hold off on the others. Chances are, a new tenant checks out and gets a call to sign a lease. If there are, say, 30 applicants for a single apartment over a number of days, there is no reason to consider and run background checks on all of them - and I strongly doubt that any landlords would. There isn't even a reason for a landlord to take that many applications rather than telling callers that there are so many applicants already that it is unlikely they'd get the apartment. But that little detail wouldn't stop many landlords from taking the money they allegedly charge for a background check. The $50 - $100 the honest landlord just spent running background checks on the initial 2-3 applicants is far less than many other expenses in dealing with the property, and assuming he or she insists on passing this along the fee distributes nicely when added to a year's rent - that's about $8/month MAX in higher rent, if the landlord isn't using it as a lame excuse to take advantage of renters. If landlords have a bad rap in this town, it's because there is a certain percentage who fully deserve it, and more. That's a pity, because there are a lot of wonderful landlords in this town as well. This ordinance isn't about curbing abuses of those who can afford to be choosy. It's about protecting the many residents of Minneapolis for whom finding a place to live - much less one that a landlord maintains for health and comfort - that they can afford is difficult. Unscrupulous landlords love to play "us vs. them" and tell scary stories - but the fact is that most renters getting shafted are very decent, hard working, but poor people. - Roxana Orrell, Central Doug Mann Wrote: I am strongly inclined to support councilman Schiff's proposed ordinance to regulate rental application fees because its ban on the collection of multiple fees and disclosure provision would lay the ground work for effective and low-cost enforcement of fair housing laws. According to the Star-Tribune article by Randy Furst, Under Schiff's proposal: �ۢ Rental application fees would be capped at $25. �ۢ Rental property owners would be required to disclose to the applicant in writing the criteria on which the application will be judged. (For example, it might say that the landlord doesn't rent to someone who has an eviction on their record.) �ۢ If the applicant paid a fee and is then rejected, the owner must provide the tenant written reasons for the rejection and must refund the fee if the tenant is turned down for reasons other than the criteria. �ۢ If an applicant has paid the fee, the landlord may not collect another application fee for the unit unless the first applicant has been screened and rejected or is offered the unit and declines to take it. �ۢ Violating the ordinance may result in a $200 fine and contribute to revoking the rental license. http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4989462.html Comments about the disclosure provision: The provision Acceptance of the rental application fee would indicate that the prospective tenant is the first in line, and is at least minimally qualified to rent the unit. If the information on the application form is found to be accurate, the tenant should get a firm offer to rent the dwelling unit. Refusal to rent for "other reasons" means that the landlord either didn't disclose some criteria (and is not in compliance with the ordinance), or the landlord cannot lease the unit to a new tenant for reasons unrelated to the tenant's qualifications (such as the landlord losing his/her rental license, the property being deemed unfit to inhabit, etc). The landlord's criteria should be objective and very specific, such as income guidelines, so that anyone looking at the information on the application form can easily figure out if a particular applicant is qualified. In my view, such a disclosure rule should be applicable to ALL landlords, not just the one's who accept application fees. -Doug Mann, King Field 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
