RE: [Mpls] Doing in the small city landlord
Excellent post. Clearly lead poisoning is horrible and we are all concerned. However, Since this program benefits everyone and all properties, why fund the program via rental properties? With the pressure to develop and retain affordable housing, we should be critical of all expenses directed at tenants. I know a quarter is a measly lot. However for my St. Paul properties (sorry, I have not calculated my Mpls properties yet), the 2003 INCREASE in taxes and fees add up to $11.05 per month per tenant. As they say: A quarter here, a quarter there and soon we are talking about real money. Maybe $11.05 isn't much to you, but I know many tenants that cannot afford it. One fixed income tenant I have recently asked me if she should be looking for a new apartment because she cannot afford to pay for all of the capital improvements I made. I told her not to worry; no rent increase was coming. As you carry in your gumball, please ask yourself these questions: 1) Should we fund this lead based program on the backs of tenants (usually the poorest of us all)? Or 2) Should everyone support this program and all property owners pay the quarter per month? Maybe it will be just a nickel if we each pay our fair share?! Regards, Bill Cullen. Hopkins -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charlie Warner Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:45 PM To: Craig Miller Cc: Issues Mpls Subject: Re: [Mpls] Doing in the small city landlord Craig Miller wrote: City staff has teamed up with 504 to fund the further destruction of affordable rental housing. This time the bogeyman is lead. Greg Luce, of Project 504, asked me to post this for him. Craig and others: I am no longer on the Minneapolis Issues list, but wanted to respond to a forwarded post to me by Craig Miller about doing in the small city landlord. And, while I have some people's attention, sign on to Project 504's statement of support about this program at http://www.project504.org/pages/611171/index.htm To be clear, Council Members Zerby and Zimmermann are co-authoring a proposal where rental dwelling license fees will be increased by $3.00 per unit to fund lead hazard reduction activities in Minneapolis. Without the funding (which the Mayor originally proposed as part of his budget but a council member amended the plan to pull it out), the lead hazard control program may face elimination in the near future. This will mean that there may be NO response in the city to a lead-poisoned child. Currently, the city is mandated to respond and issue lead abatement orders requiring the homeowner or rental property owner to abate the lead-based paint hazards, but--because of funding--it also provides financial resources and other significant services above and beyond any state and federally mandated obligations. Craig suggests that this funding mechanism is a way to do in the small city landlord and fund the further destruction of affordable rental housing. In reality, funding the program does exactly the opposite: it maintains a city program that has worked to preserve housing and avoid condemnations related to lead-based paint hazards. Without a viable and strong program (which is now considered a leader in the country), there will be no resources available to a small landlord or homeowner if a child is lead poisoned and mandated abatement must occur. With no program, the city's only option is to tell a lead poisoned child and her family that they must vacate their apartment unless the landlord voluntarily abates the lead. The unit is then condemned. In the last five years, with a strong lead hazard control program, there have been 0 (i.e., zippo, nada, zed) condemnations. With the prospect of no funding, there are now condemnations on the horizon and Project 504, for its part, is strategizing to figure out how to prevent those condemnations if there are no monies available to assist the landlord in lead abatement work. The lead hazard control program is also extremely successful in bringing in matching and contributing funds, such that $1 committed by the city often leads to $5-$10 in matching state and federal funds. With no city money committed to lead hazard control, the city loses these monies and cannot even apply for federal grants. Thus, we cease to have a program with little chance of reestablishing it without either dedicated funds or general fund appropriations (which in this fiscal environment is near next to impossible). What is done with the federal and state monies? It funds programs to install new windows and abate lead hazards, at a highly subsidized rate to homeowners and landlords (in most cases, I believe the property owner foots about 1/3 or less of the overall bill). It funds a program that writes down interest rates to 0% on loans to abate hazards. It provides free lead risk assessments to property owners. It funds abatement work in home-based daycare. These directly
Re: [Mpls] Doing in the small city landlord
To be clear, Council Members Zerby and Zimmermann are co-authoring a proposal where rental dwelling license fees will be increased by $3.00 per unit to fund lead hazard reduction activities in Minneapolis. Without the funding (which the Mayor originally proposed as part of his budget but a council member amended the plan to pull it out), the lead hazard control program may face elimination in the near future. If the city council didn't think this was good enough for the budget the first time, why hang the small landlords with the bill. Why are public health issues of all the people being paid for by renters? Why does a twenty something renter in Uptown have to pay for this? This will mean that there may be NO response in the city to a lead-poisoned child. Currently, the city is mandated to respond and issue lead abatement orders requiring the homeowner or rental property owner to abate the lead-based paint hazards, Then the city should fund this department out of general funds. but--because of funding--it also provides financial resources and other significant services above and beyond any state and federally mandated obligations. There are other programs availible. State, Fed, County. Why does the city need to get involved? The problem is that the programs currently avail are not user friendly. If the small landlord can't cut through the red tape like full time activist lawyer, they just get abatement orders and go broke. The house gets condemned and more affordable housing gets hauled to the dump. Craig suggests that this funding mechanism is a way to do in the small city landlord and fund the further destruction of affordable rental housing. In reality, funding the program does exactly the opposite: it maintains a city program that has worked to preserve housing and avoid condemnations related to lead-based paint hazards. Wrong, this proposal will fund a large contingent of big lead hunters. They will find lead every where. Because 95 % of the housing in Mpls has lead paint pipes solder, it's everywhere. Without a viable and strong program (which is now considered a leader in the country), there will be no resources available to a small landlord or homeowner if a child is lead poisoned and mandated abatement must occur. See below, we have Fed, State, County With no program, the city's only option is to tell a lead poisoned child and her family that they must vacate their apartment unless the landlord voluntarily abates the lead. The unit is then condemned. In the last five years, with a strong lead hazard control program, there have been 0 (i.e., zippo, nada, zed) condemnations. With the prospect of no funding, there are now condemnations on the horizon and Project 504, for its part, is strategizing to figure out how to prevent those condemnations if there are no monies available to assist the landlord in lead abatement work. Project 504 will take over the building and find the funds. The funds are going to be open to non-profits, connected developers, but not small mom and pop operators. The lead hazard control program is also extremely successful in bringing in matching and contributing funds, such that $1 committed by the city often leads to $5-$10 in matching state and federal funds. With no city money committed to lead hazard control, the city loses these monies and cannot even apply for federal grants. Thus, we cease to have a program with little chance of reestablishing it without either dedicated funds or general fund appropriations (which in this fiscal environment is near next to impossible). Let's play along for the moment. Let's assume the city puts up a couple million. In comes the mana from state and feds. 504 would have us believe that they can test, analyze, work order, abate and make all better while antagonizing the landlord (ask any landlord that has dealt with them) divide the landlord and tenant relationship ( which is more poisonus in Mpls then any city I know) pay their staff and workers and get a lead free city. Why not have the city put up the bucks, get the match from state/fed. Hire a form processor. Fill out the forms with the landlord, get the money do the work and get the test done after work is completed. Leave 504 and the vultures out of the loop. Lead abatement is still a federal function, the HUD office is handling it why are we duplicating? I believe this is just another plan for 504 to pay it's bills. Check out current statute. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/119A/46.html This is state law with state funding. Why are landlords and their tenants going to have to pay for the following. Programs to ensure full time employment119A.46 subd 2 Grants awarded under this section must be made in consultation with housing finance agency, reps of neighborhood groups, a labor organization, lead coalition community action agecies and the legal aid society.119A.46 subd 2 Does
Re: [Mpls] Doing in the small city landlord
Craig Miller wrote: There are other programs available. State, Fed, County. Why does the city need to get involved? WM: If I remember right, the city got involved because the lead paint hazards are in the city. I think it was a risk management issue. Lead abatement is still a federal function, the HUD office is handling it why are we duplicating? WM: We are duplicating because the feds were doing bupkis. Also because their rules were being interpreted as requiring that housing come down. It was in our own self-interest to try to impact that mentality. There are requirements that neighborhood groups and individuals be hired as lead workers. Plans for supervision, training, CAREER DEVELOPMENT, and POST PROGRAM PLACEMENT of workers are required. WM: The lead abatement push here came out of Phillips neighborhood. Particularly important was the testimony of Dr. Lydia Caros at the Indian Health Board who was finding lead poisoned kids every time she turned around. (Their parents were bringing them in describing a general lassitude in the kids.) Phillips was/is also a place where people need jobs. It made perfect sense, knowing how many houses in Phillips had lead paint problems, to create jobs for Phillips residents. I remember sitting at the table discussing this. There were going to be six positions--the first six positions to do lead abatement in Phillips. I could have had one of the six jobs. I declined, knowing that already in my 40s, being up and down ladders and yanking windows, running around in a go to Mars suit, etc. was not my idea of a good time. Originally lead problems were discovered by either English or French doctors who were observing lead paint symptoms in adult house painters. It follows, therefore, that no one should do lead paint removal as a career to stay in for life. It is also a good idea to train people who have done the actual grunt work to become supervisors as the program grew. (Six lead removers were not going to be enough to get much done in a neighborhood of 17,000+ souls and no more than a dozen or two new houses.) It's really a disservice to rail at what has grown up to be a big effort without understanding the context in which it grew up. The children presenting symptoms to Dr. Caros lived in rental housing. Their families also had histories of whole clans of people who had always lived in rental housing from birth to death. Their kids' baby sitters, family and friends and home based day care providers all lived in rental housing as well. Since we had about $20 to cover all the costs, it made sense to put the money where the problem was most often observed. That landlords were not at the table, or that when they were their posture was contentious--as was that of families who were dealing with lead poisoned children,--is another story. It was those of us who were neither experiencing the effects of lead poisoning or owning any property, who guided the effort. As a result of my part in the lead poisoning effort in Phillips (I testified at the state hearing and listened hard to families about what and how they experienced life with lead poisoned family members) I was fired from People of Phillips. I joyfully became a gruntled ex-employee. I left POP with a blueprint of how to do lead poisoning abatement that centered on embracing the needs of families. I'm real proud of my part in bringing resources to Phillips to protect children and families from further lead poisoning. I did it in five months--the fasted one I ever did. I amazed myself that time. I'm proud to know Karen Clark who brought the legislature to bear on the issue. And Judy Adams, and Steve Compton who printed so much in the Alley newspaper. And Dr. Caros and the other doctors. And People of Phillips Exec. Dir. who let me do my work and tried, unsuccessfully, to defend me to the board. WizardMarks, Central Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Doing in the small city landlord
Check out tomorrow's Public Safety and Regulatory Services Agenda. http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2003-meetings/20030404/PSRS20030326a genda.asp City staff has teamed up with 504 to fund the further destruction of affordable rental housing. This time the bogeyman is lead. Is there lead in rental housing? Yes Is there lead in 90% of all the housing in the city, including single family homes? Yes Is charging $3.00 per unit per year to fund big lead hunters going to make more affordable housing available? No Are big lead hunters going to find big lead ? Yes Are rental properties going to be targeted? Yes Are rental properties going to go vacant and eventually be destroyed? Yes Has Project 504 discovered another way to fund the destruction of rental property owners or the taking over of their property??? Are there going to be programs available to protect the life savings of a single elderly women who has relied on the rent from her duplex for the last twenty years? No, don't let anybody fool you. The landlord will pay for this or they will stop renting. Or worse yet, the unit will go unoccupied, and you know what happens then. Soon the landlord (suburban or your neighbor) loses the property. Call your city council member, especially if it's Niziolek, Samuels, Colvin Roy, Johnson Ostrow Zerby Tell them to vote no tomorrow unless the city has a program to pay for all the work orders that are going to be drawn up. This is going to devalue each and every piece of rental housing in the city by a large chunk. It will also drive up insurance rates on all housing in the city. The means for proving that the owner of the property ( this includes former homeowners) had prior knowledge of lead just got lower. The grounds for lawsuit just got lower. Mpls property owners already pay extra premium for various sins of city policy. Now we'll just have to pay more. Craig Miller Former Mpls Landlord living in Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Doing in the small city landlord
Craig Miller wrote: City staff has teamed up with 504 to fund the further destruction of affordable rental housing. This time the bogeyman is lead. Greg Luce, of Project 504, asked me to post this for him. Craig and others: I am no longer on the Minneapolis Issues list, but wanted to respond to a forwarded post to me by Craig Miller about doing in the small city landlord. And, while I have some people's attention, sign on to Project 504's statement of support about this program at http://www.project504.org/pages/611171/index.htm To be clear, Council Members Zerby and Zimmermann are co-authoring a proposal where rental dwelling license fees will be increased by $3.00 per unit to fund lead hazard reduction activities in Minneapolis. Without the funding (which the Mayor originally proposed as part of his budget but a council member amended the plan to pull it out), the lead hazard control program may face elimination in the near future. This will mean that there may be NO response in the city to a lead-poisoned child. Currently, the city is mandated to respond and issue lead abatement orders requiring the homeowner or rental property owner to abate the lead-based paint hazards, but--because of funding--it also provides financial resources and other significant services above and beyond any state and federally mandated obligations. Craig suggests that this funding mechanism is a way to do in the small city landlord and fund the further destruction of affordable rental housing. In reality, funding the program does exactly the opposite: it maintains a city program that has worked to preserve housing and avoid condemnations related to lead-based paint hazards. Without a viable and strong program (which is now considered a leader in the country), there will be no resources available to a small landlord or homeowner if a child is lead poisoned and mandated abatement must occur. With no program, the city's only option is to tell a lead poisoned child and her family that they must vacate their apartment unless the landlord voluntarily abates the lead. The unit is then condemned. In the last five years, with a strong lead hazard control program, there have been 0 (i.e., zippo, nada, zed) condemnations. With the prospect of no funding, there are now condemnations on the horizon and Project 504, for its part, is strategizing to figure out how to prevent those condemnations if there are no monies available to assist the landlord in lead abatement work. The lead hazard control program is also extremely successful in bringing in matching and contributing funds, such that $1 committed by the city often leads to $5-$10 in matching state and federal funds. With no city money committed to lead hazard control, the city loses these monies and cannot even apply for federal grants. Thus, we cease to have a program with little chance of reestablishing it without either dedicated funds or general fund appropriations (which in this fiscal environment is near next to impossible). What is done with the federal and state monies? It funds programs to install new windows and abate lead hazards, at a highly subsidized rate to homeowners and landlords (in most cases, I believe the property owner foots about 1/3 or less of the overall bill). It funds a program that writes down interest rates to 0% on loans to abate hazards. It provides free lead risk assessments to property owners. It funds abatement work in home-based daycare. These directly benefit the small property owner (and daycare provider) who does not typically have the capital to complete lead hazard work. So, are we on track to do in the small city landlord? Nope, just the opposite, while at the same time committing to protect children from lead poisoning. I'd say that Council Member Zerby, Zimmermann, Lilligren, Samuels, and Johnson Lee (who voted to recommend the program yesterday in committee) understand the complexity of the issue and the interrelationship of landord and tenant and, in reality, are attempting to save a necessary city program through a revenue neutral proposal. It takes a clear understanding of how complicated the landlord-tenant issue is--not an us vs. them mentality--to keep us on track to make this city lead-free by 2010. I'd say that this is a win-win proposal and, if you really look at it, has benefits for everyone, especially the small property owner who already benefits from a strong lead hazard control program. Finally, I understand the argument that this imposes a fee on all landlords. But it is minimal when compared with the overall cost of a lead-poisoned child. If, in addition, the landlord decides to pass the fee directly on to a tenant, then it amounts to 25 cents per month, the cost of a gumball. I say, raise my rent for one gumball a month if it means children will continue to be protected from lead-based paint hazards. Bring a gumball to tomorrow's hearing to make just this point. Gregory Luce St. Paul
