--Bill Cullen wrote: A $25.00 application fee is enough to obtain credit, criminal and UD background checks. That information is relatively quick and easy to obtain. The $25.00 won't give us rental or employment history information. Rental and employment information takes days to gather and is labor intensive as we wait for humans to call us back. . . . So, the landlord must decide if we want to foot the bill or reduce our standards. Given the current market state, most have no choice but to reduce our standards.
--Me: Landlords have the ability to spread costs--tenants don't. If given a choice, most tenants would feel fine with a small ($1 to $5 increase) to have the protection of the ordinance. We will probably have to agree to disagree on that premise, and I'm sure I'll hear from other tenants who would oppose such an increase. But I'd bet more would find it fine then would not. I don't see it as a 'foot the bill or reduce the standards' paradigm. Many landlords already foot this bill, anyway, not choosing to pay more for formal background checks and preferring to call themselves (I also know many who don't bother with rental or employment checks--though that's another issue). A personal interview, for that matter, is also a cost built into the business of being a landlord, and a lot of good landlords utilize such an interview. A landlord will also reject a tenant if the landlord cannot verify employment or rental information sufficiently quick enough, putting some onus on tenants to line up their ducks by informing employers or prior landlords of potential calls and the need to provide information quickly. Just so we don't think the apartment finding process relies on super-speedy turnaround of credit and background checks, in a typical situation it does not. Typically, a tenant applies for an apartment that is available sometime in the next several weeks, not hours or days. Not always the case, but I bet that it is typical. As I said in my last e-mail, I do understand the practical problem of the "1 at a time" application process, especially as to how it will impact low-income tenants with transportation and/or phone issues. I think Bill Cullen's approach may be a real one that will develop: a preliminary screen, followed by one that is more thorough. The other approach, however, of requiring first month's rent and a deposit before approval of the application, will instead be considered a 'prelease deposit' that has its own set of state law provisions to which landlords must comply. Though I may be wrong, I doubt landlords will want to get into collecting prelease deposits. --Bill Cullen: Some out here claim that landlords profit by taking multiple applications and only running a few. It is against state law to do this and EASY to prove. Please refrain from allegations and show us some prosecutions. --Me These occur but are extremely difficult to prosecute because these folks prey on marginal tenants who generally move on and don't complain, plus we are talking about a tenant stepping up to pursue a claim that involved a $30 or so fee. Despite the penalties that exist, convincing a tenant to pursue a court case over a lost $30 is a hard sell. While it may be easy to prove (though I'm not so sure), it's not so easy to find these cases. --Bill Cullen: P.S. I, and other landlords, heard this ordinance was being proposed and asked for information about it. I am DISAPPOINTED that some of the frequent posters to this board were part of the design of this ordinance yet decided to not invite a single landlord to help design it. Now those same people express surprise that landlords are fighting it. Go figure. --Me: I'm not sure if that refers to me, but I was only tangentially--if even that-- involved in the 'design' of the ordinance. I followed its progress, made some comments to Sam Magavern and others here and there, but otherwise was not invested in it nor did I pursue it, either as a landlord-tenant attorney or through Project 504. I have not been involved at all for the last six months. I just kind of monitored it and pulled it up yesterday to post it to the list because I realized it had not been posted or even introduced yet in the City Council, and we all deserved at least to have the language now. I generally agree with Bill's premise that there should be more consultation with local landlords --but, ultimately, you're talking the game of politics, and with that there seems to be no real good or sufficient rules of engagement. Gregory Luce St. Paul Project 504 1922 -25th Avenue North Minneapolis MN 55411 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
