On 3/9/05 7:30 AM, "steven meldahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lets get "real". We have the highest vacancy rates in Minneapolis in my 35 > years in business. I have 6 vacant houses that have been sitting vacant for > between 1 and 3 months. I have my rental licenses on all of them. So are > you saying that I should also notify the City because the rental market is > so soft and register these remodeled houses and pay the $400 because I can > not get them rented?? In essence this is double taxation because I still am > paying the exorbitant taxes on them. Are you also saying that because > someone is not sleeping at a house that we are working on 6 days a week > between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm, that we should also pay the $400? Again > "get real". Yes, let's get real. Here's the situation as I see it. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. There is a city ordinance requiring registration of vacant houses. You violated it and got cited by Minneapolis Inspections. Now you're pissed at Minneapolis Inspections because they did their job, which is to enforce city ordinances and cite property owners who violate them, even when the property owner thinks it's a dumb ordinance. Have I got that right? If so, I hope you'll keep us posted on when your court hearing is because I would love to be there to see what kind of reaction you get from the judge when you plead not guilty by reason of the ordinance being dumb. I'll bet that would be worth the vacation time I'd have to take. Again, if you think the ordinance is dumb, then get together with your fellow landlords and property rights activists and work to change the ordinance. But please don't expect the rest of us to feel sorry for the fact that you got cited. I kind of doubt there are very many of us who want an Inspections Department that looks the other way whenever a property owner chooses to ignore ordinances they disagree with, whether it's a landlord or a homeowner. As to the merits of the ordinance itself, I have mixed feelings. I can see the value in registering vacant residential buildings, especially the part about having a plan and timetable for getting the building up to code and occupied again. Otherwise, it's too easy for vultures or wannabe landlords to come in and buy an abandoned property on the cheap and have it end up sitting vacant indefinitely while they wait for the market to change or get their act together and actually fix up the property. However, I have to admit that I'm curious about the $400 registration fee and I'd personally like to know more about just what that pays for. If I recall correctly, reinspection fees are only $100 when someone fails to address a citation, so I'm wondering how much more actual work is involved with tracking these vacant buildings? Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
