On 3/13/05 12:48 PM, "Steve Cross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, my understanding of the city ordinances is that all rental > units must be licensed and getting a license not only requires a safety > inspection but such safety inspections are to be conducted on a regular > basis as long as the property is licensed for rental. (Doing so is one > of the "burdens" of being a landlord.) And the inspections do include > checking for smoke alarms and making sure that they are functional. > However, one problem that the city has had is coming up with the money > necessary to conduct the inspections as regularly as they are supposed > to be. (You may write and thank your governor for the lack of funds by > the city.) So, the frequency of inspections all over the city have been > stretched out because of the lack of funds. The very purpose of these > particular safety sweeps was not a one-time thing but was to catch up on > the safety inspections in at least the areas heavily populated by > students. While the safety sweep was completed on a hurry-up basis, all > those properties are now back to the regular inspection schedule -- but > they will be inspected again. > > Now, is that apology forthcoming? I don't know that it should be. My understanding as one of those folks whose organization goes through the inspections process and pays the annual rental licensing fees is that the city has not been devoting the full revenues they gain from licensing to inspections. Some of those revenues get directed elsewhere. You probably won't see/hear many landlords complaining about that since few of them likely want to be inspected more often. But I personally think it's wrong for the city to collect revenues from licensing, redirect them elsewhere and then cry poverty when confronted with complaints from neighbors, tenants or whoever about inspections not occurring frequently enough. As for the smoke alarms, most of the problems with them being disabled has occurred in kitchens because of them being set off by people cooking. I don't recall if CM Zerby was involved, but I do remember getting something about the city requiring smoke alarms in kitchens to have a "hush" feature that works something like a snooze button on an alarm clock and so I replaced the ones in the houses that I help manage. Of course, some dimwits still disable them... 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
