Re: [Mpls] Housing codes
The Jordan Area Community Council led the campaign to get a rental property licensing ordinance passed in Minneapolis in 1991 We wanted rental property licensing because we found that too many problem landlords, when cited for serious code violations, would choose to pay the fine rather than make the repairs. Rental property licensing put real teeth in the inspections department's bark, because inspections could pull the license, denying thousands of dollars in rental income. With the extra bite, the inspectors could more effectively force problem landlords to comply with citations. But we never intended to simply leave the books on the table. We wanted to use block meetings to identify the houses that were the most delapidated and dangerous, and have block volunteers work with the inspections department and elected officials to use rental property licensing to get these properties cleaned up. I think that neighborhood organizations and neighbors need to be actively involved for rental property licensing to be used effectively. By the way, I also think that rental property licensing can be an effective tool for fighting drug dealing. Drug dealers usually are not practising Martha Steward Living. The places they live in often have serious code violations. Send the inspectors in, and the housing code violations can be used to get the drug dealers evicted and the property cleaned up. We never had the chance to do block organizing with rental property licensing because about the same time RPL was passed we were picked in the NRP lottery and we were off to the races. Jay Clark Cooper 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. 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
Fw: RE: [Mpls] Housing codes
List members Allysen Hoberg asked me to forward her response to the Peeling Paint thread. PLEASE READ. While I may be a crank from time to time, she's not. Her message is the most informative one I've read so far regarding the peeling paint controversy.Peter Schmitz CARAG -- Forwarded Message -- Terrell Brown says: I think there is often a difference between a code violation and unsafe conditions. Take Dyna's peeling paint. Now I haven't personally inspected Dyna's peeling paint, but I have seen peeling paint that isn't really a hazard. Peeling paint may not be pleasing to the eyes and it may make it difficult to obtain property insurance but it isn't necessarily a hazard. Actually, peeling paint is a lead hazard. The chips fall into the soil, are ground up to dust by wear and tear, and can raise the lead levels of the surrounding property soil. It is a particular problem on and around windows and high traffic areas like porches, etc. Hundreds of children in Minneapolis are poisoned by lead from peeling paint. Even low exposure to lead paint can be hazardous. Chipping and peeling paint is not just an aesthetic issue. So, when all of the "law breakers" are scraping and repainting, please be sure to find lead safe ways to fix the problem, or you may poison your pets, your children, and yourself. Lead exposure in children under 6 can lead to ADD, aggression, and other developmental problems. You can call the city of Minneapolis to find out some safe ways to fix your homes, or you can call CLEARCorps (Community Lead Education and Reduction) for more information (612) 872-3287. Peace, Allysen Hoberg Audobon Park 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. 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
Re: [Mpls] Housing codes
Bill Cullen wrote: There were some claims that 20 residents are living in one housing unit and the landlord is making a bundle. It is violation of ordinance 546.50 to have more than 4 unrelated individuals living in a single housing unit. If such a thing exists, please call the inspectors. I believe this violation is aggressively investigated. WM: I do have problems with this part of the ordinance. In my neighborhood there are several houses with five and six bedrooms. It seems to me that the code should follow the number of bedrooms in a unit. It also only applies to unrelated individuals, not to families. So, a family of ten can live in a three room apartment, even though they're stuffed in like sardines? My understanding is that few over-occupancy violations are turned in. I am not sure if this is because a) it doesn't happen often, b) the residents/neighbors don't know the law or c) the residents don't mind the crowded conditions as it keeps their housing costs down. WM: The most egregious violaters of this ordinance that I've observed have been among gang bangers. The house next door to my old residence was a triplex. At one point it had 37 people in residence. When asked, the residents all claimed to be cousins--and they were for the most part. It still created a problem for all and sundry. One writer said that occupants fear evictions/terminations and refuse to turn in their landlords for code violations. A few years ago, these claims were believable. But, the world has changed and tenants now have the upper hand. WM: I'm one of the people who said that. It's still true to a certain degree since people do not keep up with the housing market as a rule when their lives are busy elsewhere. Their other fear is that rents will rise if they complain or that the building owner or Inspections will peep their nefarious goings on. I don't know what circumstances will allow Inspections to come into a house without the invitation of the renters or owner, but I believe there are some restrictions. WizardMarks, Central 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 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. 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
Re: [Mpls] Housing codes
I appreciate this important discussion (like so many on this list) and I think that Dave Carlson is zeroing in on what may be the major problem: not enforcing the current codes. In Minneapolis rental properties are supposed to pass a city inspection before getting a full license. The City, however, grants "provisional" licenses as long the landlord pays the annual fee. In my experience many houses, duplexes and smaller buildings operate for years under provisional licenses with full interior inspections never being done. I would be very curious to know about what others have experienced along these lines and also about how many of the off campus student rental houses have passed a full inspection. What happened in SE is a terrible tragedy. Ways to prevent such things must be found. I hope that further investigation brings greater clarity. Cam Gordon Seward Dave wrote: > Having just lived in a duplex in St. Anthony East with _absolutely_ no fire > equipment (but plenty of hazards), I can say that the code is worthless > unless rigorously enforced. U students in particular are not well-versed with > > maintenance code, and definitely fear eviction (or condemnation) actions. My > > duplex was _quite_ profitable for my landlord. > > Dave Carlson > Formerly of St. Anthony East, now back in Cedar-Riverside, originally from > Eagan > > 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. > > > 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 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. 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
Re: [Mpls] Housing codes
Is anyone actually aware of either a landlord or an "enterprising leasee" pulling a stunt like this beyond talk radio hearsay? As a "landlord" in Dinkytown (fraternity housing board member), the only houses I am aware of around the U that have 20 or more occupants are the Greek houses, many of which are huge and are designed for 30-40 occupants. And as a U graduate, what I recall from the "enterprising leasees" were the students that shared a duplex or other off-campus housing that would hold house parties every weekend with several kegs and charge $5 or so for a cup and you could drink all you wanted. That's how some college students paid their rent. It was quite common in the rental housing along 15th Ave near Van Cleve Park, which I believe is right around where this duplex that caught fire on Friday was located. Also, in the Minnesota Daily today, another possibility was expressed about problems with the Eischens duplex, which was that, according to a neighbor, a smoke alarm may have been tampered with by the tenants. If that's the case, I'm not sure how you could blame the landlord for that. Are they supposed to inspect properties daily to make sure tenants aren't screwing around with that stuff? Find the story online at: http://www.daily.umn.edu/articles/2003/09/22/6633 Also, as Terrell pointed out, not every violation is due to safety. You can have code violations for things like a car parked on the grass in a yard or trash in the yard or grass/weeds that need to be trimmed or removed. Even so, I still think 600-something violations is still pretty insane, even for 30-some properties over seven years. You'd think at some point, landlords would learn to anticipate stuff and fix it before the city has to get involved and all the hassles that come with that. I don't know if we need to change our housing policies so much as we need to staff Inspections sufficiently so that they can actually be enforced. Mark Snyder Windom Park On 9/22/03 5:56 PM, "Dennis Plante" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More than likely, in the case of houses where there are 20 inhabitants each > paying $350/mo., some enterprising leasee (college student) is the one > charging the inhabitants, not the landlord. > > Dennis Plante > Jordan > > Bill Dooley Writes: > > I have not read all of this thread so this may have been covered earlier. > One parent called into a talk radio station and said his son was living in a > converted duplex with 20 other students and the landlord was charging each > students $350 per month! He said he had pulled his daughter out of another > house because it was a firetrap. He says he was lucky he was able to inspect > his daughter's housing situation but that it would be hard for out-of-state > parents to check, especially when the child is excited about moving off > campus and living with his or her friends and assures the parent every thing > is OK. Comment #1: I had no idea these houses generate this much income. > Comment #2: Out-of-state parents have the responsibility to check their > children's living arrangements. > > Bill Dooley > Kenny 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. 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
[Mpls] Housing codes
I have seen many questions about housing. Smoke detectors are required in all Mpls housing (owner occupied too). Ordinance 244.915 outlines the requirements. Look out Dyna. :) As a landlord, I inspect every unit twice per year. I find many of the smoke detectors are disabled. The battery is removed and the electrical connections are unplugged. I suspect this is due to false alarms, but am unsure. I have unplugged smoke detectors at my own home when dinner goes awry. But, I always hook them back up when the air clears. Do some folk just not understand the need/value? Two exits are required in rental property (I could not find the specific code). You should remember that two exits do NOT mean two doorways. A window can be one of the (emergency) exits if it is large enough. Even upper level units can claim a window as a second exit if there is a ladder, stairway or other reasonable means to descend. There were some claims that 20 residents are living in one housing unit and the landlord is making a bundle. It is violation of ordinance 546.50 to have more than 4 unrelated individuals living in a single housing unit. If such a thing exists, please call the inspectors. I believe this violation is aggressively investigated. My understanding is that few over-occupancy violations are turned in. I am not sure if this is because a) it doesn't happen often, b) the residents/neighbors don't know the law or c) the residents don't mind the crowded conditions as it keeps their housing costs down. One writer said that occupants fear evictions/terminations and refuse to turn in their landlords for code violations. A few years ago, these claims were believable. But, the world has changed and tenants now have the upper hand. Renting an affordable apartment is EASY. If your landlord is not treating you well, you can likely find a nicer place for less money. If you want to challenge me, check out the Sunday classifieds first. Finally, before we condemn the Eischens (I don't know them) or get on CM Zerby's bandwagon, lets wait and see what the investigation results are. I am puzzled as to why the ATF was there. I hope this post is useful. Regards, Bill Cullen Whittier Landlord President, St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords (SPARL) P.S. Mpls city ordinances can be surfed at http://livepublish.municode.com/13/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-hit-j.htm&2 .0 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. 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
Re: [Mpls] Housing codes
Can someone please tell me when the city dropped the requirement for duplexes to have two exits? I grew up in a duplex, with alot of duplexes in the neighborhood (NE Mpls) and we HAD to have a front and back exit by code. I just heard on the news that the bldg at 825-27 SE 15th didn't have a rear exit but was still within city code. That surprised me. Another question: does anyone but me think it's strange that in the less than 10 years, the owner of this bldg had over 600 complaints, ten court appearances, wasn't 'bad' enough to be on the city's hit list, had never had this bldg inspected and still had a provisional rental license? I went to the Mpls Housing Insp site to try and get some answers and was struck by their mission statement. The first point is to promote safe public housing. I think they have some work to do. For some of you who have read this site for the last year, you will know that the Jordan neighborhood has been trying to get stricter action out of housing inspections, especially 'provisional rental licenses'. We now have three young people dead and while it may not be that the landdlord was responsible, the lack of confidence in our inspections procedure has certainly been enhanced. If the city cannot enforce the codes they make, then do away with the ordinance (which I AM NOT in favor of). At least then a false sence of security will not be there. I, for one, am fed up with goverment passing laws without also passing the funds giving the officials the means to enforce the laws. And the enforcement needs to be significant. A $50 fine ain't going to hack it. If a landlord gets a certain number of citations, perhaps all of his lisences should be suspended. If he/she cannot maintain the properties, then he/she should sell some off and concentrate on what he/she can manitain. the whole system is broken and needs to be looked at. Perhaps our inspectors need training in how to investigate compalin ts, attain evidence and go after the miscreants. Most of the landlords in our city are good. Rental property certainly is needed. So let's do something, city wide, to make this system work. Anne McCandless Jordan 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. 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
RE: [Mpls] Housing codes
Dennis Plante Responds: More than likely, in the case of houses where there are 20 inhabitants each paying $350/mo., some enterprising leasee (college student) is the one charging the inhabitants, not the landlord. Dennis Plante Jordan Bill Dooley Writes: I have not read all of this thread so this may have been covered earlier. One parent called into a talk radio station and said his son was living in a converted duplex with 20 other students and the landlord was charging each students $350 per month! He said he had pulled his daughter out of another house because it was a firetrap. He says he was lucky he was able to inspect his daughter's housing situation but that it would be hard for out-of-state parents to check, especially when the child is excited about moving off campus and living with his or her friends and assures the parent every thing is OK. Comment #1: I had no idea these houses generate this much income. Comment #2: Out-of-state parents have the responsibility to check their children's living arrangements. Bill Dooley Kenny _ Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es 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. 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
RE: [Mpls] Housing codes
I have not read all of this thread so this may have been covered earlier. One parent called into a talk radio station and said his son was living in a converted duplex with 20 other students and the landlord was charging each students $350 per month! He said he had pulled his daughter out of another house because it was a firetrap. He says he was lucky he was able to inspect his daughter's housing situation but that it would be hard for out-of-state parents to check, especially when the child is excited about moving off campus and living with his or her friends and assures the parent every thing is OK. Comment #1: I had no idea these houses generate this much income. Comment #2: Out-of-state parents have the responsibility to check their children's living arrangements. Bill Dooley Kenny -Original Message- From: David Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mpls] Housing codes Michael Atherton writes: > Are smoke detectors not required in rental housing? I don't understand > how people could die of smoke inhalation if the smoke detectors had > been working and the required exits were up to code. Having just lived in a duplex in St. Anthony East with _absolutely_ no fire equipment (but plenty of hazards), I can say that the code is worthless unless rigorously enforced. U students in particular are not well-versed with maintenance code, and definitely fear eviction (or condemnation) actions. My duplex was _quite_ profitable for my landlord. Dave Carlson Formerly of St. Anthony East, now back in Cedar-Riverside, originally from Eagan 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. 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 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. 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
Re: [Mpls] Housing codes
Michael Atherton writes: > Are smoke detectors not required in rental housing? I don't understand > how people could die of smoke inhalation if the smoke detectors had > been working and the required exits were up to code. Having just lived in a duplex in St. Anthony East with _absolutely_ no fire equipment (but plenty of hazards), I can say that the code is worthless unless rigorously enforced. U students in particular are not well-versed with maintenance code, and definitely fear eviction (or condemnation) actions. My duplex was _quite_ profitable for my landlord. Dave Carlson Formerly of St. Anthony East, now back in Cedar-Riverside, originally from Eagan 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. 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
RE: [Mpls] Housing codes
Michael Atherton writes: > For > example, why do affordable housing advocates believe that we > need to subsidize individual family housing units rather than > multiple family units? Do you mean more than one family living in housing, or multi-unit housing such as apartments or condos? In my days dealing with affordable housing advocates, I've never met one who opposed the latter. As for the former, I think the East Village development has units geared toward more than one family. David Brauer Kingfield 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. 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
RE: [Mpls] Housing codes
Terrell Brown wrote: > CM Zerby was on the tube talking about "over occupancy". I'm not > convinced that an extra "U" student or 2 necessarily creates a hazard > and likely isn't "slum conditions". Are we going to apply the same > standards to recent immigrants that Zerby seems to want to apply to > students at the "U"? > > Was this particular property cited for violations? We've read of how > many violations the property owner had, why do we read that but not > what properties were cited? > > We certainly want housing to be safe. I'm curious as to why > ATF showed up at the fire, was there something suspicious as the > newspaper article didn't say that arson was suspected although it > sounds like the fire spread very rapidly. > > Perhaps because of the loss of life, CM Zerby engaged his mouth before > he engaged his brain. > > There seem to be a whole lot of missing pieces here, we need to fill > some of them in before we start changing our housing policies. Are smoke detectors not required in rental housing? I don't understand how people could die of smoke inhalation if the smoke detectors had been working and the required exits were up to code. As to "over occupancy" I agree with Peter Schmitz that our expectations for occupancy are out of line with the social and economic realities for many members of our society. For example, why do affordable housing advocates believe that we need to subsidize individual family housing units rather than multiple family units? Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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. 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
Re: [Mpls] Housing codes
Terrell Brown says: I think there is often a difference between a code violation and unsafe conditions. Take Dyna's peeling paint. Now I haven't personally inspected Dyna's peeling paint, but I have seen peeling paint that isn't really a hazard. Peeling paint may not be pleasing to the eyes and it may make it difficult to obtain property insurance but it isn't necessarily a hazard. CM Zerby was on the tube talking about "over occupancy". I'm not convinced that an extra "U" student or 2 necessarily creates a hazard and likely isn't "slum conditions". Are we going to apply the same standards to recent immigrants that Zerby seems to want to apply to students at the "U"? Was this particular property cited for violations? We've read of how many violations the property owner had, why do we read that but not what properties were cited? We certainly want housing to be safe. I'm curious as to why ATF showed up at the fire, was there something suspicious as the newspaper article didn't say that arson was suspected although it sounds like the fire spread very rapidly. Perhaps because of the loss of life, CM Zerby engaged his mouth before he engaged his brain.There seem to be a whole lot of missing pieces here, we need to fill some of them in before we start changing our housing policies. Peter Schmitz responds: Great post, Terrell!!! You've brought up a lot of good points. I'm not sure that I see over occupancy as the problem myself. We Americans are used to living in more space, given our relative affluence compared with the rest of the world. Immigrants, especially those from impoverished regions, are used to living in conditions that others may consider crowded. Also, the wildly vacillating housing market has forced landlords to allow more occupants per unit. This is especially true for landlords who bought their buildings at a higher price in the late nineties, thinking that the market was going to favor landlords for a long time to come. Then, in no time at all, vacancy rates soared and it became a renter's market, sort of that is. On account of the additional burden of higher property taxes, the landlords I know cannot reduce their rent. The only thing they can do is allow more renters to share a unit. As for peeling paint, it does have a negative ripple effect for neighbors struggling to maintain and increase the property values of their own homes. Still, I suspect codes and regulations are enforced unevenly. I've heard too many stories about people getting a citation after making waves at their neighborhood block club meeting. And if Dyna's relationship with the current guard at City Hall has been a stormy one, then it wouldn't surprise me if she's the victim of retaliation, as much as peeling paint on the outside of people's homes annoys me. When I was doing some canvassing last year in the Longfellow neighborhood I noticed a lot of homes that were in bad shape. Not only did I see peeling paint, but sinking front porches and rotting windows as well. But given what the economy is I can understand that home improvements may not be the top priority for working-class families that are struggling to make ends meet. There are certainly lot of serious problems to be addressed in regard to housing property, but no easy solutions given our rotten economy and the flimsy safety net that our local, state and federal governments provide.Peter Schmitz CARAG 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. 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
[Mpls] Housing codes
--- Peter T Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Peter responds: When R.T. Rybak was candidate for mayor he proposed > relaxing codes for rental properties in order to expand the > affordable > housing market. I never warmed up to this idea, even when I had a > more > favorable impression of the Mayor. While it's awful to have all > these > boarded-up buildings while people need a place to live, affordable > housing should never be tantamount to unsafe slum conditions. I hope > R.T. Rybak reconsiders his position. [TB] I think there is often a difference between a code violation and unsafe conditions. Take Dyna's peeling paint. Now I haven't personally inspected Dyna's peeling paint, but I have seen peeling paint that isn't really a hazard. Peeling paint may not be pleasing to the eyes and it may make it difficult to obtain property insurance but it isn't necessarily a hazard. CM Zerby was on the tube talking about "over occupancy". I'm not convinced that an extra "U" student or 2 necessarily creates a hazard and likely isn't "slum conditions". Are we going to apply the same standards to recent immigrants that Zerby seems to want to apply to students at the "U"? Was this particular property cited for violations? We've read of how many violations the property owner had, why do we read that but not what properties were cited? We certainly want housing to be safe. I'm curious as to why ATF showed up at the fire, was there something suspicious as the newspaper article didn't say that arson was suspected although it sounds like the fire spread very rapidly. Perhaps because of the loss of life, CM Zerby engaged his mouth before he engaged his brain. There seem to be a whole lot of missing pieces here, we need to fill some of them in before we start changing our housing policies. Terrell Brown Loring Park __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com 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. 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
[Mpls] Housing Codes & "Smart Codes"
Gregory Luce writes on smart codes and condemned housing rehab - Original Message - From: Gregory Luce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [much deleted text] [T]he city issued a list of required repairs, all of > which I've listed at the end of this e-mail. The list is unusual only in > the sense that it really is not as extensive as most that accompany > properties that are vacant and boarded. Except in very few instances, > the text describing the repair needed is the exact text provided by the > inspector. I encourage you to read through some of them to think about > what is now required for this property. I'm a handyman/carpenter by profession, so I'm familiar with some of these issues. I'll try to comment with an eye toward how "smart codes" might facilitate rehab and reoccupancy in a way that's not cost prohibitive: > Repairs Required > Building Inspection > > 1 Raise grade around building for positive drainage > 2 Repair or replace uneven sidewalk > 3 Tuck point chimney and foundation > 4 Tear off and re-roof house and garage to code > 5 Make correction to exterior steps to provide rise and run to code > 6 Repair broken basement windows and maintain ventilation requirement by > keeping windows openable > 7 Replace rotted and broken roof decking (mostly around chimney) > 8 Provide exterior and interior handrails (in reach) at all steps and > stairways. Provide guardrails around all landings that are more than 30" > above grade, including along open side of basement stairs > 9 Provide smoke detectors on every level and in every bedroom Out of this whole list, the most important things are roof repair (from a structural standpoint) and smoke detectors (from a safety standpoint). The other repairs on this list (steps, handrails, grading, tuckpointing) really shouldn't prevent re-occupancy of a solid building, though they should be dealt with eventually in order to make the building more safe, and to prevent potential structural damage (wet foundation, weakening brickwork, etc.) > Plumbing Inspection > > 10 Water Service: Bring meter and valves up to code > 11 Water Piping: Bring all water piping up to code and sizing--back to > water meter > 12 Gas Piping: Bring all gas piping up to code and proper sizing > 13 Waste & Vents: Bring all waste and vent up to code > 14 Floor drains: locate and bring up to code > 15 Laundry tray: make workable, bring up to code > 16 Water Heater: Bring water heater up to code; make workable > 17 Washer: Legal hookup > 18 Dryer: Gas and vent legal hookup > 19 Kitchen sink: bring up to code and make workable > 20 Gas range: if gas, install to proper size and install code valve > 21 Bathroom water closet: new closet; bring up to code > 22 Bathtub: code faucet and bring up to code > 23 Basin: bring up to code I'm not a plumber. I think Mr. Luce commented that these guidelines are really vague. I agree. Unless the inspector saw potential for sewer gas backup, or pipes that were so badly corroded that they were in danger of bursting, I don't believe that simply having older plumbing should be an obstacle to occupying this house safely. Consider the cost of this: not only would you have to replumb the entire house (waste and supply lines from and to the meter/street), you'd also be ripping out and reinstalling plaster/wallboard and structural framing members throughout the house. Gas line hookups are also incredibly important -- perhaps a CO detector requirement near each gas burning appliance would be a reasonable requirement. > Electrical Inspection > > 24 Basement: ground service to requirements of the 1999 National > Electric Code; install a ceiling light in northeast room of basement Safe electrical service is important. > 25 First Floor Living Room: install a paddle fan box for support of the > paddle fan or install a conventional light fixture > 26 Kitchen: install a grounding type receptacle for the stove area > 27 Northwest bedroom: add one wall receptacle > 28 Bathroom: remove swag light fixture and install a conventional wall > mounted fixture > 29 Attic area: install a light fixture for the ceiling box or install a > blank cover for the box I'm also not an electrician. But all the stuff above is minor, and seems reasonable and relatively inexpensive. > 30 Garage: wiring to meet code or remove all wiring to it and in it If the wiring is genuinely dangerous, this is valid. If it's not, and this house is in a neighborhood where you might want a motion detector or security lights, or if the owner wants/needs an electric garage door opener, maybe this needn't be a requirement for reoccupancy. > 31 Repair or replace all broken or missing switches, receptacles, light > fixtures, fixture glass, paddle fans and wall plates > Cheap, do it yourself commonsense stuff. > MWA Inspection > > 32 Replace or repair all damaged duct in the basement > 33 Replace or repair damaged return grilles > 34 All supply air registers must have operable dampers > > Gas and Furnace
