Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 42 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Council approves rental housing fee schedule
Fire chief says pricing encourage work to get done
Published Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The Albert Lea City Council on Monday approved the fee schedule for the new rental housing license ordinance.
The fees are based on a declining schedule with the cost of the license for a single family dwelling ranging from $20 per year per unit to a $2.12 per unit per year fee for larger complexes licensed by the Minnesota Housing Finance Authority that provide 24-hour staffing. The license would be good for three years for rentals that have up to 100 units or for four or five years for properties inspected by the Minnesota Housing Finance Authority.
If rental property owners register their properties with the inspection department before March 31, 2009, their inspection fees for 2009 will be waived.
Under the fee schedule, if properties have to be re-inspected, the first re-inspection is free. For single units and duplexes, additional re-inspections would cost $20 for the second re-inspection, $40 for the third re-inspection, $80 for the fourth re-inspection, and $160 for any additional re-inspection.
For properties with three or more units, the second re-inspection would be $40 per hour, the third re-inspection would be $80 per hour, the fourth re-inspection would be $160 per hour, and any additional inspections would be $320 per hour. All inspections have a minimum time frame of a half hour.
Albert Lea Fire Chief and Building Inspector Paul Stieler said if inspectors find something wrong with a property, they will give a written order for repair and will work with the owner to come up with a time period to get the repairs done. The first time the inspectors come back to see if the repair is done, that will be free.
If they have to come back a second, third or any additional times, the cost or a re-inspection will go up to encourage the landlord to fix the problem.
“These fees will encourage them to get the work done rather than drag it out over and over, and we’d have to keep going back,” Stieler said. “That’s why the fees are so high.”
City Councilor Vern Rasmussen asked what would happen in the situation if a landlord were cited for five different violations and inspectors come back and four of the five violations are fixed. Would the city charge the landlord to come back and re-inspect in that case?
Stieler said if the landlord has made substantial progress and are moving toward getting everything completed, they’d probably waive it.
“It is our intent to get these buildings fixed,” he said. “It’s not our intent to put them out of business.”
Landlord Joe Attig questioned what the inspection fees will be used for. As someone who takes care of his property, he said, he feels like he is being penalized for others’ wrongdoings.
He said he thinks the ordinance is driving people out of town, Attig said. Renters are also concerned because they’re saying the inspections are an invasion of property.
Stieler said the fees will go toward the cost of the program that was purchased for the inspections, the cost of pamphlets and papers about the ordinance and the cost of driving to the inspections.
“All of this costs money,” he said. “If some of that cost isn’t picked up by the license fee, it’s all bore by the taxpayers of the city.”
Linda Bottleson, who has served as a mediator for the rental housing task force, pointed out that the fees for a rental housing license in Mankato and Owatonna were twice as much, and the fees in Rochester were almost three times as much.
“The fees aren’t that bad compared to the people around us,” she said.
She hoped the city would waive the fees for the first year to soften the blow.
She said she believes the city will be willing to work with the landlords during the inspections.
“We don’t want to lose this housing stock,” Stieler said. “This is important. It’s low-cost housing for the people of Albert Lea.”
The rental housing ordinance will allow the inspection department to help implement fixing a problem before they get to the point of deterioration, he said.
Regarding the invasion of privacy issue, he said when he first started in the department, the inspection department inspected every house in the city, rental or nonrental.
“We never once had to get an administrative search warrant to check a house,” he said.
The tenants will have notice ahead of time that the inspectors are coming, and the inspectors will be coming through with the landlord. If people want to clean up the house they can do so.
“In the past it’s never been a big issue,” Stieler said.
In other action, the council:
- Voted 5-2 to revoke the on-sale liquor license for Blue Dragon Properties at the Albert Lea Inn on Jan. 2, after the city received notice of license revocation from the state Department of Revenue for failure to pay state sales tax. The revocation will occur if the state does not receive the full payment of the delinquent tax money by Jan. 2.
Albert Lea City Manager Victoria Simonsen said the state’s notice did not give the option of revoking the license, but said it had to be done on or before Jan. 2.
Blue Dragon Properties owner Tonya Navarro said she was able to get the $14,000 in funds on Monday that are needed to pay off the sales tax. She asked for the council to wait until Jan. 2 to allow her the time to resolve the issue.
Mike Woitas, president of the Albert Lea Convention and Visitors Bureau said the Albert Lea Inn has also not been paying its lodging taxes. He asked the council to revoke the license immediately.
If the council decided to let the license continue through the holidays, then the money would go directly into the owner’s own pockets, Woitas said. When a business does not pay its state or local lodging tax, it does not create a fair playing field.
Marin motioned to revoke the license Tuesday, and Rasmussen seconded the motion. That motion, however, failed 2-5.
After further discussion, Councilor Reid Olson then motioned to revoke the license Jan. 2 if the state does not receive its tax money in full. Councilor John Severtson seconded the motion.
Marin and Rasmussen voted against this motion.
- Approved a 4 percent increase in water rates and a 3 percent increase in sewer rates to meet the revenue needed to operate these enterprise funds.
This increases mean a 35 cents increase in water rates per month and a 7 cent increase in sewer rates.
- Approved the full Small Cities Development program loan application.
If awarded for the program, the funds would be used to provide owner-occupied rehabilitation for low-to-moderate income households in areas south of Main Street, west of Garfield Avenue, east of Highway 65 and north of County Road 19. The application would include an expanded area north of West Front Street, the railroad tracks intersecting State Highway 13 and north of Highway 65, east of north Highway 13, south of Autumn Street and east of Broadway Avenue.
- Accepted the admission by Elks Lodge 813 of violating the city’s best practices policy in regard to liquor licensing. The lodge purchased and sold alcohol from another retailer for resale on Sept. 10. It will receive a civil penalty of $250 to be paid before Dec. 31.
- Voted to allocate the police and fire pension interest earnings. In 2008, the city earned interest income of about $500,000. The money available will be allocated to the second of five lease payments for the Freeborn County Government Center totaling $270,000, fire department equipment for $20,000, and payroll for police and fire personnel at $150,000.
- Heard an update about the Fountain Lake Bookstore by Grace Haukoos.
Haukoos said after the Albert Lea Library Foundation and the city entered into a contract to use a space for a bookstore, the contract said that once a year someone from the bookstore would give the council an update about the project.
The bookstore opened Sept. 10, and it is manned for 30 hours a week, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. each weekday, she said. It has attracted 65 volunteers.
Haukoos said the three goals of the project are to make it easy for people to have good quality used books to keep out of the landfill, to improve the library and City Center as a public space and to raise money for the library.
There is a bin where people can deposit their used books, and people do so everyday, she said. The bookstore either sells them themselves, gives them to other nonprofit organizations or recycles the ones that aren’t saleable.
The bookstore has become a place for people to meet to talk or even to wait for the bus. It has pledged to pay $1,000 for inside software for 2009 summer reading software for the library.
“I think we’ve made a great success of this project,” Haukoos.
- Heard a presentation from Ken Berry, director of property management with Accessible Space Inc., about the Washington Avenue Apartments near the intersection of Mill Street and Washington Avenue.
The apartments have been under construction since February of 2008 and will be open for public view from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Jan. 9 and from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Jan. 10.
There are 16 one-bedroom apartments and six wheelchair accessible apartments in the facility.
Berry thanked the city for being able to work with for the project.
He said the apartments are about halfway filled right now.
- Awarded the annual bids for chemical supplies and fuel in 2009.
- Authorized transfers from tax increment funds and from the parking fund.
- Approved a request to access the property at 1608 Morley Ave. for the cost of repairing the water service line. It will be assessed over a five-year period with interest.
- Had a moment of silence for the late Albert Lea Police Lt. Phil Bartusek.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well they did it and Mr. Addig is correct this is attacking the good landlords and will do nothing about the bad. It will drive the cost of housing up. Rents have been rasied and will go up. I find it very funny that the reason for the fee is to make sure it was not passed onto tax payers. This would not have been an issue if they had not put in this ordinace and just followed state law. There is a reason why we have state codes and laws.
There are many reasons to hate this ordinace and yes the fees are one but it is a very flawed law. The cost that have been placed on the landlord are way more than just the fees. A quick look will tell you that any landlord worth their salt will increase rents $50 to $100 dollars a month. So much for a supply of good low cost housing.
Lastly think about the people who for economic reasons had to leave the city and for those same reasons had to rent out the house they owned here in Albert Lea. They are still paying the property taxes but now they have to pay fees for inspection, for a licence, and pay someone to watch over the place because the law says they must. Now the city has made their economic life harder. They have been trying to do the right thing maybe they are even losing some money because the rent doesn't cover the bills but they are trying not to give it back to the bank. What the city has done is just made them a crimminal or may force them to just give it back to the bank. Now you have a dislaced family looking for a new place to live, you have a bank owned home driving down the property values for the rest of us, you have no revenue being generated (water not paid, cable, gas) for the city from taxes and fees. Now there is the added cost for the family who was renting the place. They have moving cost, a new deposit fee, application fees (required by the new law), and a shortage of good houses. That shortage plus the new fees has caused the rent to go up. So that family you are helping now pays more for the same thing they have now. This was sold as a way to help people yet when you look at it you hurt people. Time to just dump this law in January because right now the city has only lost time no $$$ but it is fast approaching real money to real people.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is my answer to all of you who will say it will help fix up the stock. It can be done under current state law. Any tenant who thinks their place is unsafe can have the city inspect it for free with a call. If the city has issues with a building there is a system in place to force complaince. This is a bad laws that is taking away people's rights. Think about this the city under this law now governs who you sell your property to. If you have a rental licence and want to sell the property the city must approve the sale. If they don't you can't sell it. Also you must pay a fee to sell it. How many of you have to pay the city to sell your personal property? How many small business owners have to pay a fee to the city to sell their business? Is there any question why people are afraid to start a business in Albert Lea? When you let the city have this right it will not be long before they take the home owners rights and drive out small business. This is not a way to grow our town.
Posted by outoftownlandlord (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an open request to all landlords in Albert Lea. Fight this bad law do not register your properties. It is time to show the local government they work for us. Think about how much money we put into the local economy. We buy ads in this paper (which are not cheap), we buy our cleaning supplies form local stores or hire local people to clean and fix them, we use plumbers, glass people, lawyers, mowing/snow services, and all the rest. We are small business in Albert Lea. We pay taxes and much higher taxes than a homeowner, we are given one vote if we live in the town or none if we don't yet we pay the increases in taxes for the schools, the county, and the city. We provide a services a services that is needed. We do it at fair cost. Now we are forced to rasies rents and if you are not rasing your rent at least $100 a month to match the rents charged in the other cities quoted in this story as well to cover the increase in cost than you will face a huge economic lose.
Here is a great idea to show the city and some of the people in this town that we mean business. This ordinace gives us the right to void all leases and send eviction notice to all of our tenants. Let's see how the city will deal with all of these people who don't have homes in the dead of winter.
It is time to push back and that idea may be a little extreme but it should never be far from our minds. First lets all refused to follow this flawed law. Civil disobedience will work if we all stick together. So how about it guys I know the new mayor reads this and will listen to us. He understands that to grow small business in Albert Lea you first have to stop attacking it.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks city for costing me more money to live and work in Albert Lea. Are you going to give me a rasie to cover this? You rasied property taxes, you rasies water/sewer rates, and you passed this stupid law and guess who is paying for it? Me the little guy (the renter) thanks thanks a bunch and oh yea Merry Christmas (It is all I can afford now)
Posted by taxpayer (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Truth, Unless you work for the city there is no chance of getting a raise in this town. I thought prostutition was illegal but we all keep getting screwed and having to pay for it.
Posted by outoftowner (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wouldn't mind following you on this outoftownlandlord but you said, "This ordinace gives us the right to void all leases and send eviction notice to all of our tenants." You can't forcibly remove tenants. I have a feeling some of them may band together as well and not move without the eviction notice and those aren't cheap.
Posted by outoftownlandlord (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
outoftowner,
They are requiring us to have a lease (if you don't) and it must have several clauses worded by the city thus making them a partner in my business. But my understanding is any change to the lease makes it null and void. Next they say we can't rent without their licence so we tell the tenant you have to go just following the law. I will have my lawyer check it out but a lease is a legal contract and the city did not think this out.
and taxpayer,
Your post is funny. I had hoped the city would at least buy us dinner first. You would have to admit Truth and the rest of the renters and owners out there are getting it from every side and the chief of which is the city of Albert Lea
Posted by headscratcher (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are all a bunch of whining rich landlords. These fees are not so high that you need to raise rents so much that no one can afford rent. You are just pushing your opinions onto your renters and making them suffer. If you don't have crap properties then this won't be a problem for you.
Posted by outoftownlandlord (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
headscratcher,
If you think it is so easy get in the game. This is still America and we still own our resources and we can still charge what we see as fair. They don't have to rent from us. No one puts a gun to their head. See it is guys like you that think all business men are the boggie man. Sorry but like any business there are cost some fixed some variable. The city has just increased the cost of doing business and the person who pays is the renter. Every tax increase every fee every regulation cost the consumer but you would know this if you had ever built a business from the ground up.
You know if you took the time to read the post and understood the law you would know that it is not just the fees. Think about this our property taxes are higher and the increases are greater, every fee you pay we pay double or triple. So those cost are passed on. That is just the way it goes.
However if you are so smart buy up some of the many properties for sale in Albert Lea and show us how to make money. I would love to see how long you last. But that won't happen so keep name calling and keep your hand out because sooner or later there won't be business to provide jobs or taxes.
Posted by outoftowner (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right, outoftownlandlord, I know I probably have a legal base in terminating the tenancy, but what I'm saying is if they refuse to leave, then you have to get an unlawful detainer--I think that's what it's called. I'm actually a fairly new landlord--receiving property from my parents, and I only recall one time they needed to get an eviction form from the courthouse, and I believe it was pretty expensive.
Headscratcher, I am not rich. I am not a slum lord. All of my life I have watched tenants take advantage of the kindness of my parents and leave their properties in disgusting conditions. They spent a lot of time and money again and again trying to get these units back into rentable conditions. I only own 4 units, so it probably is not going to break the bank in my case, but for me its the principle. This is a ridiculous ordinance. I will say it again--THERE ARE ALREADY MINNESOTA STATUES IN PLACE TO PROTECT TENANTS FROM INHABITABLE RENTALS.
Also headscratcher, I'm not from AL anymore, so I have to take time away from work to come down and have my units inspected or hire someone to do this which is not feasible for me because as I stated earlier--I'm not rich.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are absolutely right headscratcher.
Posted by metisman (anonymous) on December 23, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's dumb law, there are already plenty of laws on the books to address rental property problems. Just enforce them. The ALFD is already charged with these duties.
All this adds up to is city greed and a power play by Stieler, et al.
Posted by headscratcher (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You still don't need to raise rents by 100.00 A MONTH to cover these fees or licenses. You want to take advantage of the situation and just get people mad at government.
DON'T tell I don't know what I'm talking about. I have been a landlord. I didn't like it and sold.
If you don't like get out of it!!!
Posted by alcitizen (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Headscratcher, you are an freaking idiot. So if you were a landlord once, what was it that made you quit? What was it that you didn't like? Have you read the fee schedule? It is not just the initial fee of rental license. That fee is just to get permission from city to rent out the properties. You have to look at the inspection fees, the permit fees etc.
Also do you not think that whenever the city needs extra cash, all they have to do is inspect properties over and over again. City makes more money if they have to go in the same property multiple times. Also why is the minimum time for an inspection half an hour? Also do you not think the inspectors will take their sweet time to add more hours?
Why raise the rents by at least $100.00?
Let say you own a 4 plex. If every unit is rented out ($300 per unit). You are collecting $1,200 per month. You are probably paying $700 in mortgage payment. Around $100 a month in insurance. Around $150 in property taxes a month. Garbage/water/sewer are an extra $200 a month. That is $1,150. Assuming tenants pay for their own heat and electric. And everyone pays on time and there are no other problems. So on average a typical landlord has around $50 a month to play with. You can call all the landlords and find out how many people pay on time. So if he has to evict a tenant and go through the court system that cost between $500-$600 per eviction. There goes your yearly money you made on that building. Also keep in mind I am assuming that the landlord never has to call a plumber, and electrician or pay any late fees on mortgage because he didn't get rent on time to make the mortgage payment on time.
The landlords need to raise the rents by $100 to keep their heads above the water. The extra money that the inspection department will charge could start a domino effect.
Also with this economy it is not that easy to just get out. Hard to sell the properties, unless you want to see the foreclosures sky rocket.
Posted by realtree (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
headscratcher
I do not think you understand the whole relm of the small business thing! these landlords now will have to hire lawyers to look over contracts. that is for your protection so as the building will be inspected according the the new city law. you should have contacted the city about the rent going up! but no you set around blaming the rich lanlords! Instead you should be blaming the glourious city council for the lame rental property issue!!
Posted by dutchess (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And who's responsible for the crap rental properties? This is why the city had to do something!
Posted by outoftownlandlord (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Alcitzen good post. Outoftowner you are right it is about cost. I am sorry that I jumped on you just so tired of being called a rich slum lord. I like you got my properties in Albert Lea by accident. What kills me is this law now forces me and you to have a property manager because we live more than 30 miles from Albert Lea which adds 10% per month to the cost.
Then you have the new fees, the increase in property taxes, you have the new fees for trash (placed by the city) plus the extra surcharges put on by the company to cover their cost, for gas/elc (again city is increasing their fees), the increase in water and sewer (which we are charged more because we are a rental even if we have only 1 bathroom), the cost of maintaining and you have a large increase.
What most people don't understand is that the state gives every renter a check every year for a % of what they have paid in rent to cover the increase in state property taxes but the state dosn't cover the cost of county, or city increases, nor does it cover new laws that increase the cost. Thus the renter pays.
Had this idea and am asking all landlords to think about boycotting all business in the city only. There are great business in Hayward, Clarks Grove, and others that can cover our needs. I have already started doing this and have told the business I have stop working with why. I said if you supported us that I have no problem supporting you call the city tell them it is hurting your business.
When these renter start having to pay fair market rent they will have less to spend at resturants, stores, and the like. You are going to cost jobs in Albert Lea. So join me and stop buying in Albert Lea. Think about this you won't have to pay the 7% sales tax and the small towns will see economic growth. Man if I lived in Clarks Grove I would be calling every plumber, snow guy and the like and offer incentives to move to their town. I for one am not buying in Albert Lea again.
Posted by alcitizen (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone wants to live in a Taj Mahal but not pay high rents. City could still have enforced the minimal housing code and not charge fees. That is the extra money the landlords don't have to put in the property. Most people take pride in what they own, they rather spend the money given to the City on their buildings. I rather spend couple hundred dollars and buy new appliances for my tenants than give money for fees.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dutchess,
It is called economic freedom. No one forces anyone to rent a place that is in disrepair. You have a choice to spend your hard earned money on that place or not. If you don't like it don't rent it.
Now don't try and tell me that it is only rentals that are in disrepair. There is an older coulpe in my neighborhood who live on a fixed income and can not afford to paint or side their home. It looks bad real bad. They had to block off the upstairs just to afford the heat. So are you telling me we should pass a law and go after these people? Funny thing is there is a law and if I wanted I could push the issue but I won't why because I know them (and try to help them). These houses you talk about needed help before they were rentals but making laws will not inprove them it will just cost people their homes. If the landlord can't (won't) fix them then the city gets it. The people who are living there are there because it is all they can afford will lose the place and will not be able to find a new place because of the cost that you and the city have put on them.
I will tell you the vacant house that is owned by the bank is a bigger problem than the ones owned by the landlords. A foreclosure lowers your property values. Many landlords are there trying to fix the places up and improve the neighbor hood but you don't want to see that.
Think of it this way a landlord is a dairy farmer. They take care of their cows (house) feed them etc and get milk ever day (rent). The cow pays the bills over and over. Now there are the beef farmers (flippers) they fatten the cow up and then kill it to make their money. (Fix the house up and sell it) both make money however in this market no one wants beef (buy a new home) but everyone needs milk (all of those who have been foreclosed on need a place to live) so what is the the choice buy more dairy cows and milk them. If you make it hard for the dairy farmer than you will not have milk.
So if you have a way to provide good homes at a fair price I am all ears but remember it cost money to be a dairy farmer.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I like to idea of civil disobediance and a boycott of business in Albert Lea. It is time to take a stand. If all of these people think all landlords are rich and should be punished let them do the job. I am not a landlord and don't want to be but they provide a service that is needed. Those of you who attack should become one before you name call.
Those of you who were once should remember what it was like. It may make you think. This is just another step down first it was smokers, than drinkers, now renters how soon before it is us homeowners. Wake up this is bad for all of us.
Posted by snowbird (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with NoDFL it is time the city stays out of some of these issues and people start standing up for their rights. The city is trying to bleed everyone of all they have. I am not a landlord either but I certainly agree with their complaints now. Maybe it is time for the city to realize that not everyone in Albert Lea has extra to spend on all the extra things the council wants done. It's to bad because this was ONCE a great place to live.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet if the paper did one of it's polls and worded it right. You would see that most people in Albert Lea think this is a bad idea.
It should read do you think the new rental ordinaces and fees and the extra costs assocated with it are what is best for Albert Lea?
Please people of Albert Lea speak up. Everytime this was talked about it was burried by the city or hidden from us. We voted for a new mayor because the old one supported the destrution of small business let's ask the new one to repeal this at the next meeting.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you sign up before March 31, there's no fee. Many businesses in town have forced inspections. I'd also like to know what this business about making arrangements to pay you back taxes is all about?
Posted by outoftownlandlord (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Every tenant in Minnesota gets a rent rebate every year. It is state law. I must send them a rental certificate and I have to fill it out for them so that they don't make a mistake and claim to much or I get fined. They get what amounts to 1 to 3 months worth of rent refunded back to them. It comes from yours and mine tax dollars. It is the state's idea on how to make things fair. Minnesota is a very renter friendly state. All laws are wrote to protect them. That is why this one is unneeded.
Wild you miss the point. There are several laws on the books that cover inspections already. There was no reason to add another law. The city of Albert Lea is the only city to charge fees to inspect. I have places in all the cities listed in the story and not a one of them charges a fee to inspect ever. Everyone of the cities talked about have higher rents and it is because the cost of doing business is higher under government regulation. The law is flawed under so many areas not just the fees. This law takes away my right to sell my property. If I was to sell my rental property in Winona I do not have to have the approval of the city, there is no fee to sell or to transfer the licence. As soon as I sell or buy the licence is transfered to the new owner a copy is mailed to the new owner and it is still good for the remaining time. Not in Albert Lea if they do not like the person I am selling it to they can say no sale. They have now become a partner to the deal yet have not put any money in the deal.
Wild if you were trying to sell your home you would not want someone from the city telling you who you could and could not sell to. Their money is green and good but the city still wants to have the final say. Not right or fair.
Why should I have to register my property. It is already on the public record anyone can access who owns what so why? Why should I have to register like a criminal to do business in your town. What you don't get is you are driving out very good people. Why should anyone invest in this town. Rents are low, you can't sell or buy without the city's ok. Won't be long and you homeowners will lose all your rights to.
I take one issue it was said that every house at one time was inspected in Albert Lea. You know why that stopped? The city was sued and lost. They forget to tell you that little fact. Homeowners took issue with the inspections and wow they went away. Why not just follow state law? I know why the city won't make it's money.
Also the fees are to cover software and gas? Would not need them if you didn't pass a law just to create jobs. That is what this is for more government jobs or to save the ones they have. Give me a break it is all about city dollars and city emlyoees needing more to do to keep their jobs.
Posted by taxpayer (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To go along with some of the other hairbrained ordinances that the city has, I have this question. If I rent and I allow underage individuals to knowingly consume alcohol in a home that I am renting, will the landlord who is the owner of the home be charged?
Posted by Free (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been following this debate for a while now and this is what I see. This is all about a power grab. It is about a city that is losing money, people and jobs. They don't want to say it is their fault so they start issues that divide the community. This one divides the community along the lines of homeowner, renter, landlord, and small business. My question is this how would the community respond if say they went after HyVee for rasing the cost of food or kwik trip for the cost of gas? Would there be the guts at city hall to pass laws that says gas can only be $1.00? Milk at HyVee can be only $1.00. The people in town would love it but it would not take long before there was no more gas stations or HyVee.
Now the city is making landlords their brother keeper. If a tenant who is an adult causes a problem it is not the tenants fault it is the landlords. This makes no sence. If there is a shop lifter at Shopko and they call the cops Shopko doesn't get fined or shut down but a landlord does. Fair no... stupid yes. People complain that house are run down but lets look at all the house most are either owned by the bank or by the homeowner. There is a small number of bad rental home yes but you know why it is small. Because the landlord is in business they make more off nice places. They get better tenants who pay their bills. This is economic freedom. I can buy milk at HyVee or Walmart it is my choice. I can buy gas at Shell or Kwik Trip again my choice. If I was looking to rent I can choose a house on the lake or one on the President Streets. There are many factors but right now it is price. I may want a huge 4 bedroom on the lake with a dock but all I can afford is a 2 bedroom on Jefferson. By passing laws that increase the cost all you do is make the one on Jeffereson cost more. This law makes things worse for the end user. To many people in this town look down on the renter (the worker) and this is your way to force them out of town. I find it sick that most people think they are not being rasist when they support the destrution of middle income housing. If I were a renter I would think twice aout moving to Albert Lea because you are a second class citizen.
Posted by Free (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Taxpayer,
Yes you will be charged. Read the law. If the tenat does something wrong it is the landlords fault and they will be punished.
Here is one even better the city will evict. Can't happen only the district court can evict. A tenant has a right to appeal any eviction and the state can order you the landlord to let them back in. But the city thinks it can trump that give me a break they are out of control. What a great Christmas Gift to the people of Albert Lea. Not only are we going to take more money from you we are going to take more rights. And we wonder why the town is dead....
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey headscratcher,
What about us renters who have to pay the increase in rent are we rich whinners? The city is killing us... Thanks for the Christmas gift.
Posted by taxpayer (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Free
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dutchess,
Do you think adding more cost will clean up the rentals? Are you really that out of touch. No one has any money so we are going to charge them more. Yea that works....
If you live on a fixed income can you do more when the government takes more? Same thing here. There are laws out there already just follow them. Wait can't do that because the city won't make anymore money. It is about the city making money and keeping jobs at city hall and justifing the rasies they get. It has nothing to do with fixing up the house. If it was they could just give grants to fix them up in return for lower rents. House gets fixed up, people can still afford the place and no one is made out to be a bad guy. But that makes to much sence. Better to attack business than help.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just saw this on CNBC that they are going tax cows for farting and burping. $150 bucks a cow a year 21 bucks for pigs. So it appears that our city council is a trend setter on stupidity. They think this will not cause food prices to go up. Give me a break. Just like this stuff rents are going up. Power to the people because government has lost it's mind....
Posted by mrthunder (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why don't some of you run for office instead of complaining.
thank good i am not in albert lea anymore. got my ass out of there
don't no why you all don't get a news crew and ask the city why they voted on the taxes, raises, and the new taxes on other items. put them on the butcher block
Posted by outoftowner (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very well said, Free.
Mr. Murtaugh, I hope you are reading these posts and will revisit this ordinance.
Mr. Thunder, I hate when people say "quit complaining, run for office." If you've been reading, many of us cannot, we do not live in Albert Lea anymore. I had to leave because there were no decent jobs.
As the landlords above have stated, even though we may not live in AL, we still pay taxes and spend money in AL which we are all going to rethink.
Posted by outoftowner (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and Dutchess, as I've stated in previous articles, how would you like it if your "crap rental" now costs 50-100 more just because the city wanted to make sure you have a smoke detector? Landlords are not going to gut their units and buy you brand new applicances, carpet, or hardwood floors. More than likely, the units are just fine, it's just a way for the city to make money. And, the fees will trickle down to you.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So outoftowner and outoftownlandlord are you really going to boycott the business in town? How many people do you talk to in a given day? They say a satisifed customer tells 2 people a dissatisfied one tells 15 people. So how many people are you telling to move to our fine city? Just wondering....
Posted by alcitizen (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
$400,000 fund that the state took away from the city is being replenished by these fees/inspections/permits. City should eliminate the position of the city manager (save $100,000 in salary and benefits), and few more positions to make up the $400,000 shortfall. Instead of adding more fees.
Posted by outoftowner (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I don’t plan on spending money in Albert Lea. I have a Wal-Mart and Home Depot where I live—even a Target. I already spend enough money on all the taxes, fees, and surcharges the city keeps adding on to my bill. I’ve had it. Now the city wants to add ridiculous and redundant ordinances because they don’t know how to live within their means. We’re in this economic situation today because of this very reason. With no growth, the city of Albert Lea continuously places the burden onto its loyal residents and small business owners. Aren’t you sick of it? I like what outoftownlandlord said “Give me a break it is all about city dollars and city emlyoees needing more to do to keep their jobs.” I think they are trying to look busy, so they’re not put on the chopping block.
Posted by outoftowner (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, sorry No DFL, I didn't really finish answering your questions. I don't really have to worry about warning people not to move to AL. They won't be able to find a job that pays more than 10 bucks an hour. And it is true what they say about bad service. I count on my colleagues to fill me in on car repair shops, heating/cooling, contractors, even restaurants and if there is even one bad review, that company may not completely fall off my list, but they definitely are moved to the bottom. Good, fair, reasonably-priced service is key.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I can't blame you outoftowner. The city is making it tough. Now I know you won't say on this post because you don't want the city to know but are you planning on signing up and paying the fees? The landlords I know have said come find me. Unless you are a big boy no one will find you. If I was a landlord I would not let them know anything. The city needs to be taught that the people matter.
Posted by outoftowner (anonymous) on December 24, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I obviously am not going to break any laws. If they find me and say I must pay or they'll fine me or what have you, then I guess I’ll have to pay if this ordinance isn’t abandoned, but I don’t plan on displaying an “I’m a landlord” sign over my property, and waiving the 2009 fee isn’t going to entice me come out of the woodwork and register. But, the city needs money, so I’m sure they’ll make a point to find me ASAP. Maybe if no one registers, it will keep the city employees busy, and they can quit with their irritating money-making schemes for awhile, but I doubt it.
Merry Christmas!
Posted by realtree (anonymous) on December 25, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well the fees for cigarette license went up $50.00 and the fees for amusement license went up 5.00 and off premisis license went up $35.00 so you can look for every available thing to go up to make up for the $400,000 short fall !!!
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 25, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again this is not about what is right. This and the other fees are just a money making monopoly for the city.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)