Interesting. I commend you for your effort, Bill. I just wonder how many folks we're talking about here, as not meeting the proposed rental criteria (below). Seems to me it would amount to one heck of a lot of people, especially since we're talking occupants vs. actual parties to the rental/lease agreement. Would all agreements be amended to apply to all occupants, retroactively or henceforth? I'm just curious, how many felons currently live in Mpls... any knowledgeable guestimates? How about those with a single misdemeanors over the past five years? If adopted by city landlords-- although I can't imagine why they'd do such a thing, I predict an end to the city's 'affordable housing crisis.'
If adopted, I'd expect that rental vacancy rates would skyrocket and rents would drop precipitously, resulting in sales and foreclosures and boarded buildings-- hence a reluctance on the part of landlords. Naturally the rate of homeless would increase by orders of magnitude, and we'd have calls for assistance from the powers that be to remedy the situation-- undoubtedly at public expense. I'd guess many folks would double-up with others who have clean paper backgrounds, creating problems for another day. Decisions would have to be made by city officials about whether or not to tear down all the newly vacant, abandoned buildings, or perhaps ownership could be transferred/assumed by area nonprofits, or some variation on the theme. In the end, I'd guess a high percentage of private landlords would be gone from the city within a year after adopting such a policy. Perhaps crime rates would decline as a result of such a policy, but that's too speculative an issue for me to tackle without more analysis. I'm sure we'd loose a significant portion of city workers, so local businesses would suffer. Of course the loss in business clientele (ineligible renters) might offset the loss of employees (ineligible renters), resulting in a wash in many situations. Business closures, lost sales and property taxes, fewer students in MPS accompanied by more school closings and teacher layoffs. Geez, this gets complicated in a hurry. Demands for higher wages from suburban workers being sought by local businesses... maybe they'll move into the vacant rentals? I don't expect you'll have many landlords taking you up on such policies, Bill. Real life solutions just aren't that easy, as I'm sure you know. I wouldn't waste the postage sending it out! In any event, please exclude me as a member of this recommendation team, Bill. I'm for reducing private vacancy rates and reducing public expenditures on affordable housing that needy folks can't afford. We need more private investment in this town, and the (non-taxpayer financed) incentives to make it happen. Mike Hohmann Linden Hills independent candidate for 13th Ward City Council www.mikeforcitycouncil.org > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Cullen > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 10:36 PM > To: 'Bill Cullen'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Mpls] Social responsibility > > > We are making progress here. With on-line and off-line > discussions, I have > come up with a list of proposed rental criteria. Below is the minimum > standards this board recommends private landlords use when > offering housing. > > > Remember, I want this to be a recommendation from all of you, so please > comment: > > 1) No occupant can have a felony or greater than one misdemeanor > conviction > in the past 5 years. > > 2) No occupant can have any conviction that would make the individual > dangerous to the safety of others. Especially assaults or sexual > perversions. > > 3) No occupant can have a successful eviction in the past 3 years or 2 > evictions in the past 7 years. > > 4) All occupants older than 18 must have a credit score greater > than 500 and > at least one occupant must have a credit score greater than 600.* No > bankruptcies in the past 3 years. (*for first time renters and full time > students, exemptions are allowed) > > 5) Applicant families must not exceed 2 individuals per bedroom. > > 6) All applicants over the age of 18 must have finished high school (or > achieved the equivalent GED) and be able to offer evidence that > they are not > part of any gang activity. > > 7) All applicants over the age of 18 must pass a drug test. > > 8) The household monthly income must be 3x the monthly rent. > > Is this strict enough? Surely, it will keep many families with historical > behavioral problems out of housing, but I wonder if it will do enough? > Would this rental screening make a landlord socially responsible? > > Best Regards, Bill Cullen > Whittier Landlord. > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 6/11/2005 > > > > 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 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
