Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 138 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
City approves housing ordinance
Landlords will need license to rent a dwelling
Published Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Though the vote did not come without opposition, the Albert Lea City Council on Monday approved the reworked rental housing ordinance — six months after the original ordinance was first introduced.
On a 5-2 vote, with councilors George Marin and Al Brooks voting against it, the council voted to implement the new ordinance, which is set up to “protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Albert Lea” who rent housing, it states.
“I think this is a good ordinance,” said 5th Ward Councilor John Severtson. “I think this is time to be put in place.”
He said since he was first elected, it has been one of his main goals to try to get a rental property ordinance. He’s worked on it for two or three years, and it was on the back burner until recently.
First Ward Councilor Vern Rasmussen said what the issue comes down to is the lives of the people living in the rental properties.
Not one person’s life should ever be lost because of a hazard in a property, Rasmussen said. And though the repairs required by the ordinance will cost money, it is not something he can vote against, he said.
John Severtson
“It’d be tough for me to sit up here and say I voted against this ordinance because of money,” he said. “I think it’s an important thing we move forward with.”
The ordinance states that it intends “to establish a permanent mode of protecting and regulating the living conditions of the residents of the city who rent dwelling units.”
Now all property owners who choose to rent a dwelling unit will be required to obtain a license before doing so and have an inspection of the premises prior to renting. Then, subsequent inspections will be conducted, depending on the results of the previous inspection.
It has been an issue up for debate since it was first introduced last March. Many cities in southern Minnesota have similar ordinances.
After an outcry of people against the original rental ordinance in April, the ordinance was tabled indefinitely to rework it with a task force of landlords, tenants, Realtors, property managers and city staff.
Members of the task force met six times to rework the ordinance. At their last meeting, 11 out of 12 task-force members approved the most current version of the ordinance, on the condition of having a tenant registry in place.
The opposition
Vern Rasmussen
During the Monday meeting, the opponents of the ordinance argued that the timing of the ordinance was a bad one, as the community and the country is in a housing slump.
Landlord Joe Attig said he has several rental houses in town and just this week, as he was doing some maintenance of one of his properties, one of his renters asked him why the city would come in and inspect their unit, as it would be taking away privacy.
Attig challenged the city councilors to look at their own properties and make sure they were passing before making judgments on others’ properties.
Landlord Scott Knutson said he’s been invested in real estate for more than 20 years, and he’s never seen a worse time to go through an ordinance like this than now.
With fees, the costs of rents would have to be increased to a price many will not be able to pay, he said.
“Considering the bad economic times, if this goes through, it shows poor judgment on everyone who votes for it,” Knutson said.
Opponents also showed concern over the fee schedule that goes with the ordinance, which has not been passed by the council. Fee schedules are usually passed separately toward the end of the year.
This was one major problem for 3rd Ward Councilor Marin and 6th Ward Councilor Brooks.
Marin said city staff have told him a fee schedule is usually passed separately, but it is still something that bothers him.
Brooks agreed. He said it makes common sense to pass the fees together with the ordinance, that way the landlords would have more of an idea what they’re getting into.
It also bothers him, Marin said, that the city impose a fee on the landlords if the firefighters and workers in the inspection department are already getting paid to work their jobs.
He said he thinks the council should hold off on the ordinance until a fee schedule is in place and the housing market is in a better position to handle the ordinance.
From the beginning with this ordinance, it seems that a good number of landlords got the impression that the ordinance would be passed even no matter how much things were complained about with it, Marin said.
“I don’t like that our citizens feel that way about government,” he said.
Rasmussen pointed out that at the recent preagenda meeting, the council strongly discussed allowing the landlords to come in and register their properties and in return having their initial fees waived.
Landlord Troy Ranum proposed that instead of having the inspections fees, the city should simply have licensed landlords with no inspections.
“We can’t afford these fees no more,” Ranum said.
He said he’s had two renters tell him if their rent was raised, they’d move out of town.
Six out of eight of his renters would also not allow the city inspectors into their homes anyway, he said.
Another landlord, Mike Carstens, shared an experience of an apartment he lived in right after high school when he was in college. He paid about one-third of the cost of what everybody else was paying, he said.
“I’m really glad the city council of that town did not choose to protect me,” he said.
He was “teetering at the point of just barely getting through,” he said. And if he had been paying as high of a rent as everyone else, he didn’t know if he’d have made it through.
People of many instances may be at a point in their lives where they need to rent, he said. They could be either a young person who is just out of school, an elderly person whose spouse just passed away, someone who recently had their house foreclosed upon, someone who just lost their job or someone who is a full-time student.
He pleaded that if this be funded on the backs of the renters and the small businesses of Albert Lea that it not be done now.
“Don’t do it in the middle of a housing crisis,” he said.
The proponents
Linda Bottelson, who was part of the task force and who mediated for the group, said the ordinance was first pretty hard to swallow.
“We met for many, many hours to get the ordinance at where it is today,” she said.
She commended everyone on the task force for their work in getting the ordinance to the point it is.
Lisa Frank, another member of the task force who is a renter, talked of the addage, “It takes money to make money.”
She said the ordinance needs to be passed. If it takes have an inspector come out to tell a landlord they need to fix a certain thing, then the city needs to have the inspectors come out.
Albert Lea Housing and Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Jon Ford said the community’s independent housing study identified a rental ordinance as one of the goals to work on raising up the conditions of the housing stock.
Inspection Department Capt. Mark Roche pointed out that the inspectors will be focused mainly on life-safety issues the first inspection, which are all pieces of the minimum housing code.
Albert Lea Fire Chief and Building Inspector Paul Stieler added: “The ordinance is not intended to put anybody out of business. Our purpose is not to cause hardship for either the tenant or the landlord. Obviously it’s going to cause some hardship for some because their properties are in really bad shape and need lots of repairs.”
He stressed that the department would be focused on lifesaving issues, including things like sanitation, heat and leaky roofs, on the first go-around.
“This is not an ordinance that says you have to repair your basements to brand new standards. It’s a very minimum ordinance actually,” Stieler said.
The department hopes to be able to work with the owners of the homes to fix any problems before they get to the point of condemnation, he said.
The city should see a significant increase in the housing stock anywhere between three and six years, he added.
“If you have good housing, you have nothing to worry about,” Albert Lea Mayor Randy Erdman said. “If you have bad housing, you probably do.”
Erdman said the most calls he has received as the mayor and a city councilor have been about distressed housing. Albert Lea is losing some of its lower-end housing because they have been allowed to go too far. And right now there are more homes placarded than at any time in the city’s history, he said.
The council noted that if the issue is one that has any problems it will come back before the council for a vote.
“Any landlord out there who has a complaint can bring it back to this board,” Rasmussen said.
Stieler anticipated he would have a suggested fee schedule in November for the council to review.
Look to Wednesday’s Tribune for the outcome of the other items up for vote at the Monday council meeting.
Comments
Posted by mmurtaugh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do agree with councilors Marin and Brooks on this. While I understand the need to set the fees outside of the actual ordinance, I agree that they should have been determined by now and been available to vote upon as a separate item at the same meeting. The unknown of the cost to rental property owners is a large reason for the opposition. As Mayor Erdman pointed out last night, the much of the opposing discussion centered on costs.
The ordinance is not perfect, and I believe it will come back to the council for some revision and clarification in the future. But I am glad the various parties involved took the time over the last six months to refine the details of the ordinance.
Mike Murtaugh
'Candidate for Mayor'
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All things considered, I think the city handled this oretty well. Before criticizing it, I would give it a couple years. It can always be revised if necessary.
Posted by LZ94 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where do you go to find out what the fees for the landlords will be?
Also, where does a landlord register?
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a sad day for Albert Lea. Renters will now have to pay increassed rents because the city failed to have a fee schedual ready. Repairs and inspection cost the landlord and that cost should (must) be place on the back of renters. I think it is safe to say that the city has just caused Albert Lea to sink lower than it already has.
This law takes away people's freedom. If you are a renter you are now have to be registered like a sex offender. Why because you are a renter. I notice that no one who supported this talked about the complete loss of freedom in it.
Also why hasn't a complete copy been printed? I know why because if everyone saw what was really in this they would have fill the chambers. This law effects everyone, renter, landlord and homeowner.
Kick us when we are down. That is the new moto in Albert Lea.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LZ94, call city hall. As for what the fees will be, this city council does not act like their going to stick it to anyone. They tabled voting on it once and set up a task force.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I posted this in an earlier story and it needs to be read again.
This ordinance makes renters second class citizen. You homeowners do not have to be registered but we do. We are just like the Jews in Nazi Germany. We are tracked by the city. What is next rounding us up and putting us in the Ghetto? They can't ask you if you are a legal alien or even check but the city gets to have 2 classes of citzens when it comes to where you live. Owners have more rights and you renters are the lowest of the low. It smacks of racism.
Where is the liberal outrage? Where is the help? Oh yea I forgot it is only an outrage when it is not in my back yard. You renters should have rights as long as you are not in my neighborhood. Many owners were once renters how many of you would gladly and freely give up your right to privacy?
This ordinance is badly written and should be tabled again. Where is the out rage. This is unconstitutional. I have commuited no crime done no wrong why should I be regesitered like a dog?
There is no city in Minnesota that treats it's renters this badly. How can you have economic growth when you attack the people who come here and work. This city is truely lost.
I am all for a crimminal background check. I have nothing to hide. I have never been evicted so look but why should the city know who I am. Why do they want to track me.
You know what is really bad? Those of with jobs had no way to be there to speak up. Also there is the fear factor. Why speak up the city will come after you.
I think it is time to move to Hayward, or Clarks Grove or any other town why rent in a city who wants to protect me by costing me more money?
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As someone who knows an accidental landlord very well I am worried about this passing. My friend lost their job and had to move to Rochester for work. They could not sell their home and to keep from giving it back they rented it out. They can not even get enough in rent to cover the payments.
Now the city has attack them and forced this on them. They could not come to the meeting to fight it. They can't vote in a city they never wanted to leave yet they are the ones who are being punished. Would it have been better for them to walk away? Maybe but it would have hurt every homeowner. Everytime a house goes into foreclosure our homes lose value. The city is by passing this law at this time made the decission to drive down home prices.
My friend's can't afford it now. They didn't do this to be the next Donald Trump. They did it to live, now what will happen to the nice family who is renting it. Who by the way had to because they had lost their home to the bank. They will be out on the street. Are you (members of this community) going to provide them a home and register them like criminals?
Common sence is lost in our city goverenment. I feel our town has lost it's way. Please don't forget about the human behind your terms and laws.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wildbill,
I would respectful disagree with you. I believe full well that the members of the city council are sticking it to the renter, the landlord, and the people of Albert Lea.
The taskforce was a rubber stamp and is/was a joke. The landlords forced other landlords to pay a fee if they wanted to talk. Renter were not allowed on it unless they agreed with the city, and the Realtors were there not to help but to run down renting so that more people would buy.
If it was such a good idea the whole ordinanace would have been printed in the paper for weeks and everyone could have seen it and had a chance to voice their objections.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This was written in responce to a renter who thought rents would go down. You all need to read this
It is not protecting you. It will cost you more money. The living pay check to pay check will get a lot harder. If I was a landlord I would rasie your rent what ever the fee is per month.
Please don't talk taxes you don't pay property taxes. Why because you rent. Lastly you now have to give the city your name and phone number. So much for fair play.
Most cities do not have an ordinace. Run a search you will find that to be true.
Lastly are you saying there are no bad renters? Give me a break. You should thank God that you live in a country that gives you economic freedom. If you don't want to rent from that guy than move. You have that choice. What you don't see by forcing this issue is what it will cost you. It will cost you higher rents. No one becomes a landlord to lose money. It is not just the fees it is the repair cost for small things that the inspector will look at. They will write every little thing. They must justify their job and fees.
When you compare rents in place that have ordianace like this (which is hard to find because this is one bad ordianace) you will find that rents are much higher. Example Rochester 2 bedroom $700 to $900 a month, Winona 2 bedroom $650 to $800 and Mankato 2 bedroom $595 to $780.
these cities all have rental ordinance.
Cities without. Albert Lea 2 bedroom $350 to $500 Owatona 2 bedroom $400 to $575 Fairbult $475 to $675.
So are you ready for a $200 a month jump? If so keep pushing this plan. I would like to know in a year how much more you are paying. I bet it will be a lot more.
Posted by stitch0852 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Curious question.
If property maintenance had been kept up (something homeowners have to do without having someone else to pass these costs onto) why do landlords feel they can pass on costs to maintain their property to tenants? Or why isn't that already calculated into the rental fees?
They (landlords) will get tax breaks for all repairs expected to last more than one year if/when they sell the property in reduced capital gains if the property sells for a profit.
It is not right to put costs to make the property safe and livable onto the tenants just because a landlord doesn't want to spend money out of their own pocket. Routine maintenance should go far in reducing repair costs in the future.
For example, if you have some boards rotting in the wall, replacing them before snow piles up against it and allows moisture further into the home resulting in not only a few rotted boards in a wall but also in floor boards rotting as well as more wall boards, the cost savings would be huge.
This seems to be the biggest concern (besides the registration list) I have noted. Yet nobody is addressing that the repairs would most likely be necessary if the house was rented or lived in by the owner.
If you have property rented, it is up to you to ensure it is safe for habitability, if not, fix it correctly, you will benefit overall for those repairs.
If you cannot afford it, maybe you shouldn't be a landlord....
For the family who had to move - it doesn't appear the issue is repairs to their property? It is the new requirements and fees? So this commentary should not apply to them in regards to that aspect.
In the past, when I was a renter, I had landlords who didn't want to spend a penny on the property, no matter what the problem was. All they wanted was their rent money, on time, every month.
I have heard of some moving recently into property whereby they cannot even step into the bathtub to take a shower/bath because of the condition (I don't know why they rented property in that condition). Instead, sponge baths are the alternative.
Is this acceptable to everyone? To be unable to utilize a portion of the property you are paying rent for only to be unable to shower/bathe?
Maybe before it got this bad, landlords should have gotten together before government interference and "assisted" or calibrated those landlords who are more like slum lords than landlords.....
Having also been a landlord, I had to make repairs to my property and did so without passing this expense to the tenant. It was my responsibility to maintain the property in acceptable living conditions not the tenant's to foot the bill for it.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Tribune how about printing this new law. Oh wait you can't because the voted on something that wasn't fully written yet. The city will just wing in again. Local government at it's finest.
Posted by LZ94 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Wildbill.
Next question, when will this go into effect?
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quote
Erdman said the most calls he has received as the mayor and a city councilor have been about distressed housing. Albert Lea is losing some of its lower-end housing because they have been allowed to go too far. And right now there are more homes placarded than at any time in the city’s history, he said.
Mr. Mayor how many are rentals? How many are homeowners? and how many are vacant or bank owned?
Mr. Mayor this should show you that Albert Lea has hit an economic rough patch. If people do not have the money to do simple little repairs what makes you think they will be able to do big ones. Will this ordinance lower rents? No way! Will it provide low cost housing? NO! Please stop helping me your cure is worse than the illness.
Who is going to buy and fix these places up if you make it so hard to make money. That was the good thing about Albert Lea you could get a house at a good price and fix it up. Now with the country in this economic state you have made it worse not better.
I put it to you that more government (local, state federal) is destroying economic freedom and making our city worse instead of better.
I talked with you and you promised me that it would be fixed you said it would never take away my freedoms. You lied to me and are lieing to the people of Albert Lea. It is time for a change in leadership. You have a chance to make this right. At the November meeting repeal this ordinance I beg you for my family sake.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Stitch,
I would agree with you on why would anyone rent a place they can not shower in. Under our system no one makes you rent a place. You have the freedom to choose the place.
I would say that cost are always a factor. Every business passes it's increass cost on to the consumer. I have been to the store and have seen it first hand. So the landlord should have that right. If the consumer (renter) is unwilling to pay the increass they will do without and the price will fall. It is about the market.
The city is not doing this to help they are doing this to take away personal freedoms. There is no way that this will not hurt renters. You will lose housing stock which will drive up rents. Regulations always drive up prices.
Lastly the State has very strict rules. Those renters can have that place inspect anytime they wish. It is their right if the chose not to they might have a reason. Sorry but I think 99% of the landlords are good and are being punished by a law that is unjust.
Posted by mmurtaugh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
It's probably not the actual text of what was passed last night, but there is an outline of the program on the city's inspection department website, including proposed fees if you'd like to take a look:
http://www.city.albertlea.org/proposed_r...
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
stitch,
What about the accidental landlord. Even you would agree that the economy in Albert Lea is bad. That the housing market is bad just like it is everywhere. You yourself have written about the mortgage mess. These homes are not in disrepair or in need of huge repairs but even small repairs cost. Now in Albert Lea you can not rent a home for what you need to cover the mortgage and taxes. Would you tell those people that they have to eat another increase? I can't they are trying to do what is right and they are getting kick when they are down.
I think Albert Lea has lost it's way. Maybe the city should have no fees. I saw something about that in another post will see if I can find it. Till then they should not have passed this. It hurts to many people.
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Albert Lea City Council AKA:Communists. This is crazy, remove freedoms and add fees, great way to stimulate the economy. Lets send the message out that if you move to AL and want to rent, we have to do a background check on you. VERY INVITING.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mmurtaught,
That is not anywhere close to the one that was passed. But this just shows you how far the city has gone to hide what they are doing.
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is that post.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is nice to see them listen to the people. The fee should be wavied. There should be no fee for any landlord who has 4 or less units. It would make the most sence. Many of these landlords would fall into the catagory of the acidentaly landlord. Through economic condition they have been forced to rent inorder to save their home and/or credit. I think if the city truly cared for it's people it would do this. Lastly I know many renter's are worried about landlords turning over their names to the city. Why couldn't the city just have a list of tenants who have caused damaged, or not paid rent. Issues that matter to all who live by them. The cops could provide free background checks. I do agree with the statement why are we paying for someone who is already being paid. Sounds like double dipping.
Also for people who have jobs and can't make it will the council accept email comments?
Also would it be possible to see the complete ordiance printed here online?
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A background check I can handle. They do it in most jobs. What I can't handle is making me register like a criminal. I have the same rights as a homeowner yet the city dosn't register them. Welcome to Albert Lea where the Nazi way of life rules.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it that everyone see that this law is bad. It is bad for the renter, the landlord, and the citzens of Albert Lea. Our city leaders are much like those in Washington. They don't care what the people think. They are smarter than us all.
People of Albert Lea Unite. Call the city council members at home tell them they made a mistake that they are ruining this town. Send them emails let your voice be heard.
Hey Tribune why don't you do 2 weeks of stories about how this hurts Albert Lea or are you to afraid of the big bad city.
Go to the cities website get their number and call call call. They have time to get rid of this before it cost you and I more money.
Posted by jessekrick (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Observer -
It seems to me that this town would want to do background checks because there are certain people in this community that are more worried about other persons business when they should just worry about their own.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
quote
"Albert Lea Housing and Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Jon Ford said the community’s independent housing study identified a rental ordinance as one of the goals to work on raising up the conditions of the housing stock."
Why is he for it? Because they own more than 1/2 of the rental stock in Albert Lea and they can now rasie our rents.
quote
"Erdman said the most calls he has received as the mayor and a city councilor have been about distressed housing. Albert Lea is losing some of its lower-end housing because they have been allowed to go too far. And right now there are more homes placarded than at any time in the city’s history, he said."
Why is he worried because if they are placarded than the city gets no income from utlities and property tax. They end up costing the city money. This is not about help us it is about the city not getting it's money.
Also if the can show that these are low income rentals they can get more money from the federal government for the city so mayor tell the truth it is done to make the city money and to expand the role of government in my life.
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet menace56 could do all the background checks for free, that will save us some money.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Truth,
I want you to know I feel your pain and flustration. I as a homeowner in Albert Lea am truly sorry that my city government has done this to you and all renters. I will call them.
Do the rest of you hear the pain that these people feel? Do you think we are doing what is right for all the citzens of Albert Lea? Let's just scrap this for now. Have the city follow state law and educate renters and landlords on how to improve there homes.
Please help....
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It truely looks like the city did not listen to the people. It is a sad time in Albert Lea and America.
Posted by jessekrick (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Observer,
Good observation. If menace56 could do that, then we could avoid having a bunch losers move into our community, because we sure don't want that. Kudo's to you observer!
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand. Why are renters criminals? What do they have to register for?
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The ordinance requires all renters to be resigtered with the city. The landlord must turn over all names and phone numbers of everyone that lives in a rental. Even if it is a baby it must be registered with the city or the landlord can lose his licence.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Quote
"First Ward Councilor Vern Rasmussen said what the issue comes down to is the lives of the people living in the rental properties.
Not one person’s life should ever be lost because of a hazard in a property, Rasmussen said. And though the repairs required by the ordinance will cost money, it is not something he can vote against, he said."
Hey Vern who is forcing these people to live in unsafe places. Up until you passed this law Albert Lea was still a free place to live.
You my friend lack the common sence God gave a us. I truly feel sorry for Albert Lea with you on the council.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You really made the renter life better by making it more expensive to live and taking away their freedom. Nice job...
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Vern......
Read this and then you will know why you are hurting Albert Lea.
In about 1919 a Yale philosopher named William Grahm Sumner wrote an essay titled The Forgotten Man. He wrote: “As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine… what A, B, and C shall do for X” But what about C? There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of C to the cause. C was the forgotten man, the man who paid, “the man who never is thought of”
I would argue that Vern has made X the forgotten man--- the renter who choose the unsafe place, the poor man or any other recipient of government help. Vern's work on behalf of his version of the forgotten man to create a new view of the world. To justify giving to one forgotten man Vern and the other council members found, they had to make a scapegoat of another. The landlord and the smart renter have become the targets. Vern and his supporters have become habitual bullies, pitting Albert Lean against one another. This polarization has made our economic troubles worse. Vern's forgotten man, his constituent X, is hurting the true forgotten man, constituent C, the guy who is paying the bills. I am constituent C and I want my government and money back.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said NoDFL. It is time for a new council and a new direction. Just got a phone call. My rent is going up December 1st. Thank you members of the city council looks like a bad Christmas for my kids. My landlord also said be prepaired to move because if the city gives him to much crap he is giving the house back to the bank and I am out in the cold. Wow what a great city to live in.
Just so you know my landlord is one of those accidental ones who wasn't making it but always treated me great. So thanks for the help Albert Lea life is great now that you saved me from this jerk......
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
so why does registering mean renters are criminals?
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Quote
"From the beginning with this ordinance, it seems that a good number of landlords got the impression that the ordinance would be passed even no matter how much things were complained about with it, Marin said.
“I don’t like that our citizens feel that way about government,” he said.
You are right and thank you for voting no. Wish the other would have listened.
I was told by the mayor and by several council members that this law would be passed no matter what even if it was flawed. Your quote proves just that.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tmfresh,
Are you a renter or a homeowner? I am a renter and now the city gets to know everything about me. I know of only 2 things the city currently regeisters. Dogs and sex crimminal. Now even though I am neither a dog or a criminal I have to register. Why should the city have my name and phone number. If it is no big deal why don't you give it to them and let them enter your home when they want. Welcome to Nazi Germany.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
at the moment i'm a home owner. i just don't understand why registering with the city makes you a criminal. I'm not for one side or the other i just don't understand what is going on. Don't you have to register to vote? don't you have to register at the library to check out books? Don't you have to register to rent movies at the video rental store? Don't you have to give information at the clinic to see a doctor? Don't people have to register at human services to receive help?
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All of those things are rights. You make a choice to vote. You enter into a contract with the video store. The renter dosn't have the choice here. The city makes the landlord turn over the names. If they don't than the landlord loses his licence.
When you have the choice or freedom to register or not. This is the issue there is no pentaly if you don't vote but you will not get housing if don't. Which is wrong. Hope this helps.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Free is right it is your choice to do any of those things. I can choose where to live. I can choose who to rent from and if I will fill out an applicantion or sign a lease (contract)
But the city takes away that righ... that freedom.... that basic idea that I have my own choice. When you are willing to take someone else freedom you should not be suprised when you lose yours.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ok so then what is the purpose of them knowing who is renting? I mean why do they need to know?
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And how are they going to use this information?
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They want to keep track of who is renting. Also it allows them access to the property. Thus if a landlord is on their hit list they can go after them. It also give the city the power to ban people from renting.
Let's not forget the 3 strike law. Even if you are not convicted of anything you can be evicted.
The new law states that after 3 police calls to the property a landlord must evict you. Even if a court of law finds you have done no wrong. So much for that freedom. I was always taught you were inocent until proven guilty. That little law only appiles to the rest of the country not Albert Lea.
If the landlord dosn't evict than he/she will lose their licene. Again set up to hurt the renter and punish the landlord.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's no choice in having register for Selective Service.
If you don't register at the library, you can't check out a book. You have to register to get a driver license and your car license plates and insurance. Somewhere for just about everything, someone has your name etc.
As for the fees, hunting there's a fee, fishing there's a fee state parks there's a fee and yet we pay income taxes.
Those fees can be raised.
Posted by geokarjo (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First they took the property rights away from the hospitality industry everyone cheered. Then they took your rights away from you and everyone jeered. We could have stopped this before there was no rights left to take away. The community service officer is a branch home inspections department of the imperial city council.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Truth,
I forgot about the 3 strike rule. It is another part of the rule that is antirenter and unconstituional. Also the county by law must handle all eviction. Minnesota law is very clear on that. If a landlord tries to evict for unclear reason the judge will throw it out however that dosn't matter to the city. If that tenant is not gone than the city pulls the licence.
Not fair... not right...
tmfresh,
That info will be advailable to anyone. So anyone in Albert Lea, the state or the nation will know who are renters in Albert Lea. The lose their right to privacy. I have seen some bad laws pushed down our throats but I have to say this is the worse.
This law is unneed the State has very clear laws that address every issue rasied in this law. It is over kill and is not right. I think it was wrote by a few to get even with a couple of the big landlords.
I challenge you or anyone else to look at the facts and our current state laws and find a vaild reason for this. I doubt you can.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wildbill,
I am not forced by law to register you for the selective service. I don't get punished if I don't turn you in. The landlord does. The landlord is responsable for a person who is not his/her relation. Under your agrument I should be allowed to hook up a sick person because your blood will save them. Their life trumps your right to choose what you do with your body. Or better yet HyVee is responsable for me because they sell me food. Give me a break.
No one should be responsable for someone who is not their own. Their choice their problem.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rochester and Mankato both have ordinances and both are highly rated as places to live.
Posted by scurvydog (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL -
If the information is available to everyone, could it also be used for marketing purposes?
What about mailing voting reminders to property owners, but not to people on the renter list? I remember some anti-referendum voters saying that renters should not be able to vote for or against the referendum since they didn't pay property tax (directly, anyway).
Would it be possible for an interest group to "market" voting information to either group this way?
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is Anti-American, I can't believe that our Comunist council is doing this. Who sat on this board as a renter?
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm still trying to understand the issue here. It seems to me that this law was made to protect the renter from living in a rental property that is below standards. Could it also be used to protect the landlords and their property from being rented to irresponsible people?
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Imfresh
Yes, I believe that is the full intent of the ordinance.
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
geo
You are right they will keep coming. They need to be stopped or us homeowners are next. Just look at the swear inspection deal.
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No that is not the intent of the law Wildbill. Spoke to the Mayor. They wrote this to go after 3 bad landlords. He even gave me their names. So don't give me the intent. The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
It is design to take away our freedoms.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
what is the swear inspection deal? i have never heard of this before.
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rochester's and Mankato's ordinances are not this badly written and also have resulted in higher rents. Plus both cities have colleges and this was done to help with that problem. Name me a city that dosn't have a college that has this. Can't can you. Face it this is a bad law.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
we have a college
Posted by mnnative (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this ordinance has been a long time coming. There are way too many renters who don't give a darn about what they do to a place and just move from place to place doing the same things. If someone is made to register then maybe they'll stop doing the damage and if you're one that doesn't do damage to begin with, the registry will show that you're a responsible renter and people will be more willing to rent to you! On the other hand, there are landlords who don't give a darn what their rentals look like and they need to be held accountable, I've seen some pretty bad rentals around town and I wouldn't expect my dog to live in those conditions! I grew up in AL and due to bad experiences I have since moved out of town. Previous landlord didn't want to fix anything that needed it. My new landlord jumps right on anything that needs to be fixed, no questions asked. In return for his cooperation on fixing things I do my part to keep 'his' house kept up and looking nice so that there are fewer things that need to be fixed. In the end, that costs him less in repair costs and he appreciates what I do to help. Even though you're a renter - it's still a roof over YOUR head and it should be treated as your own. And even though you're a landlord if you want rental houses you should take the responsibility of keeping them up just like you would your own house! If you have so many rentals that you can't effectively keep them up to standards then you should be selling some or working out a deal with your renters - ie cut their rent in exchange for them doing some upkeep on the place (that's what I get for doing work on my rental house).
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We don't have a college we have a trade school. We do not have high number of college kids renting for the first time. We don't have a medical school. For that fact this town don't have much.
Plus goes to the point if a kid does come here you have to tell mom and dad he is a crimal and get him registered. Oh and if he gets 3 strikes even though he has never been proven guilty than you need to find him a new place because your money is no good here. But wait he can't live in Albert Lea anymore because even though he wasn't gulity of anything he can't rent because of an eviction and good luck renting anywhere else.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
what is the full name of the "trade school"?
Posted by lundepride (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hate to chime in so late on this discussion, but I used to rent in Albert Lea. I was lucky to have a landlord who took care of problems on the property immediately. He kept it up and was mindful of his tenants. From what I have read, this ordinance is to combat negligent landlords. I have several friends who have rented in Albert Lea, and they have told me horror stories of negligent landlords. Who, instead of replacing a faulty furnace, have dropped by with tiny space heaters that didn't give off enough heat for one room. They had to sleep on the floor next to it to stay warm (fire hazard!!), good thing they didn't have any small children to worry about. That problem never did get resolved, they moved out instead. That landlord in particular is notorious for not taking care of things that are vital to daily life: no heat, no water pressure, non-functioning refrigerators or stoves, leaks in ceilings or basements, mold. I could go on about this, but I think I will stop. I hope this ordinance resolves some of these types of complaints. Landlords are responsible for the functionality of their rental units. If they cannot afford to maintain them for the safety of their tenants, they should not be in the business of renting out property.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I propose a new ordanance, since it seems to be the thing to do. I think that all council members should be required to take an IQ test and at least test average intellegence. It is clear to me that only 2 members of this council were even capable of thought.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why are you so worried about 3 strikes? do you get in trouble often?
Posted by mnnative (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tmfresh - my thoughts exactly! Since 'truth' is so worried about that three strike rule they must be one of those that has the police at their home quite frequently!
If the police are called to a residence frequently there must be a reason for it! They don't just 'stop by' to see if there's problems/trouble....
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is true that landlords should keep up their place. It is just good business but we are looking pass the fact that Minnesota law covers everyone of the points you make about bad landlords. Google it... They even provide a free book explaining your rights as a tenant. What you can do and what to do if the landlord won't fix it. So the city is making a law for laws sake not to help.
The 3 strike rule is scary because if the cops are called to the renters place 3 times for something as little as a barking dog the landlord must evict. The problem is the city can not evict only the county following state law. If the landlord moves for eviction and doesn't have proof of serious charges like drugs etc the judge will not evict. Now the city will take the licence of the landlord even though he/she followed the city's rules.
Now the tenants have a point. If some busy body dosn't like the race of a tenant they can make 3 calls about anything and the tenant must be evicted. This is scary you the tenant have never done anything wrong never had a trial by your peers yet the city say that dosn't matter you must be evicted. Just not right.
tmfresh,
By state law all trade school were renamed community and or vacational school back in 1989 so should have said Riverland Community and technical collgee.
I think this has a throw the baby out with the bath water feel. My question is why didn't the city use the laws on the books against these bad landlords? Why didn't all of the no name tenants rent and or stay in these places? Why didn't they bring in the city inspector which is their right? I think there is more to their story. Could it be they can't afford a place that is kept up. Rents reflect cost and it cost to keep money to keep them up. We all make choice based on cost. No one and I mean no one is forced to rent a place in Albert Lea it is the renters choice. Why should we pay for their bad choices?
Posted by dutchess (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank-you tmfresh I agree! Riverland is a technical college and it is a medical school! Perhaps if Truth,NODFL and Free would go to school there, maybe they wouldn't have so many errors in spelling or be so negative! They could do something positive with their lives!
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sewer inspection rule. Every homeowner had to sign up to have a plumber come and inspect your line to make sure storm water run off was not being sent down the sewer. You were sent a letter and given a day to have it sign up for. Plumber even ran ads in the paper asking you to select them. When I called I was told it would be 2 to 3 years before it got done but the plumber would be turning my name into the city so that I would not be fined. Now granted the city was paying the plumber's fees thus no one worried about the cost. You could have guessed what the responce would have been if we all had to pay for it. (Even though we are in higher sewer rates.)
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The 3 strike rule allows outside people to call the cops on a tenant 3 time and have them gone. However I can call about my neighbor 3000 time and nothing happens because he owns. It makes renters 2nd class citzens.
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Three strikes-If I call and say that your children in the back yard are being loud while they are playing in the sprinkler(Noise complaint), because I want to take a afternoon nap-STRIKE ONE. Has anyone mentioned this three strike is BULL. Adding fees to be liscensed and re-inspected will be passed on- they call it business. The city is trying to control things for finacial gain and it is not right, nobody gets any good from this except the city (money, maybe they should have the local police start enforcing more parking tickets after hours).
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dutchess,
You should not make fun of someone's spell they may have a true disablity covered under the Americans With Disablity Act and you will find yourself sued.......
Best to play nice. The tech college is not a medical school. If I ever walk into a Doctor's office and his diploma said Riverland Technical College I would walk out.
The place is not much bigger than a highschool. It is no University of Minnesota like Mankato or Rochester. So be careful....
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said observer.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone notice that the paper still hasn't printed this ordianace in the paper. So much for an open government. Do everything behind close doors and in secret. Things never change in this city......
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dutchess,
You don't know me. I teach your kids. I work hard for my family. I believe in God and America. And I will call something wrong when it is wrong. This law is wrong and you are so very wrong for making fun of anyone who fights for the little guy.
Posted by dutchess (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No Dfl Don't threaten me, you have no clue! They have a wonderful nursing program and the last I heard that's part of the medical field! Oh by the way I know all to well about disabilitys,buy a dictionary! I also didn't know size matters tell that to the people that have a college education from Riverland that don't need to rent!!
Posted by mnnative (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL - I looked up those rules and yes they are there, however, from what I briefly read - I was NEVER informed by my previous landlord that that booklet existed and it states that it's a MN statute that landlords are REQUIRED to inform their tenants about it!!!! I also read something about the landlord being required to return the renters security deposit or provide a written statement as to why it wasn't returned. I NEVER received either!! My landlord refused to refund my deposit and I never received a letter stating why! I left my place CLEANER and NICER than when I moved in, I even went so far as to buy paint and touch up areas that needed it (they were there when I moved in).
So, it seems to me that the city is simply trying to make certain people who feel they're 'above the law' to comply with state laws that are already there but they 'conveniently forget' to inform the tenants about them. Had I known about those laws and statutes before I would have done what I could to inform the state about what my previous landlord was doing about not informing me of information and not getting my deposit back!! On the flip side though I wouldn't have had the money to pay a lawyer and possible court fees to go after my previous landlord for a security deposit so I can see why more people don't know about the state laws and statutes.
And no, no one makes you rent a particular house anywhere, but there are times when you don't have much choice and have to take what you can get/afford at the time.
Maybe with this ordinance neighbors won't have to call the cops on the people living next door to them because they'll be GOOD people and not the riff raff that is so common in AL!!!!
I'm so glad I got out of AL, however, if I was still there I'd happily be putting my name on the register and be all for the ordinance!
Posted by ALgone (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dutchess - you, yourself spelled disabilities wrong. It's not disabilitys.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Last time I checked medical school was reserved for Doctors and nursing programs while very good and most tech schools have them do not fall under that.
Next if you know so much about disablities you would know it is against federal law to question anyone who has a disablity.
But this off subject. The city is taking personal freedom from us all and you want to attack people about their spelling. Albert Lea has truly lost it's way.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not only do they have a nursing program but they also have a dental assistant program. Both are in the medical field. Riverland also has an associates in art degrees that transfer to larger 4 year university's.
If you are worried about your neighbors calling the police on you then you better be out there making friends with them and being good neighbors so they won't have reason to call the police on you. Then there is no worry about the 3 strikes.
Did you happen to see the report on KAAL about this city ordinance? According to the report the ordinance is set up to protect the renter from living in substandard living quarters. You should be happy about that!
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mnnative,
Couldn't the city just provide this information in the paper and not pass a new law?
I am sorry you didn't know the law that was written to protect you. I would say it sucks. So more education and less laws maybe the answer?
Posted by dutchess (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Truth, I'm not making fun of anybody! For a fact thank God you never taught my children, if your a teacher WOW!! I'm thinking of the renters! The ones with the slumlords! Thats the little people.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The KAAL story is proganda. The city is putting lipstick on a pig.... Sorry I may get in trouble for saying that.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL did you see the story?
Posted by stitch0852 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, I also know of another. The rental agreement was 1. landlord will pay the cost of heating (propane) for the unit (landlord lives in same building). 2. Renter will pay electrical (including for landlord's place on same meter).
This week I learned the landlord has shut off the propane and provided a tiny electrical space heater to tenant for a source of heat.
If this winter is as cold as last year, that will be inadequate to heat the place to a temperature of comfort. Renter has been paying the electric (even though landlord ran a/c for all of the summer).
Now landlord is trying to get by cheap AND place additional burden on renter by forcing renter to pay higher electric AND landlord's heating cost (also now electric heater) while gas bottle sits outside house shut off.
It is landlords such as this that brought the grief to all. I know there are many landlords who do right by their tenants. However, there are many more who do not.
It is the complaints of those being screwed by their landlords that started this pebble rolling down the snowy slope that became the snowball at the bottom.
There should be a registration of landlords with the city, not renters. Landlords should be graded on their property, rent, etc.
Renters already have a way of being found out when they destroy homes. Credit reports are always checked for renting (by most anyhow). Judgments against tenants who trash a place and move on eventually catch up to them.
How are bad landlords identified? They aren't. Someone moves into a place and shortly they start having issues. Their only recourse is to complain the only way they can.
The city has a knee-jerk reaction (in an election year, who caught that?) which results in what has happened.
So who gets hurt the most? Those who have to fix property even if they cannot afford to? Those living in the conditions unfit to live in? Those who may pay higher rent as a result of the fallout?
Posted by nursingstudent10 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL - To clear things up - I am a nursing student at RIVERLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE. This college has many other medical degrees such as radiography, pharmacy tech, surgical tech, etc. You could have found that information on the schools website.
Also, I am a renter in Albert Lea. I have a great landlord. Finding this place was very difficult. My husband and I are not from this area - and when we toured apartments, we were horrified at what we encountered. I lived in Winona, a college town, and the rental property there is in much better shape than what is here in Albert Lea.
I don't want my rent to be raised, so I do not support this ordinance. Renters have the right to choose where they live. My husband and I turned down many place. The landlords should have enough sense to keep their property in decent condition. It seems the best properties in this town are income based, which does not work well for people with an income.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nursingstudent10
First of all, welcome to Albert Lea. The rents should not be going up, if you rent from a good landlord.
Despite some of the comments, I doubt very much that our city council will put in place much of a fee if any.
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nursingstudent10,
When you lived in Winona how much was your rent. I have read their ordinance. 1st your landlord never had to turn over your name to the city. Correct? 2nd they do not force the landlord to evict however they do contact the landlord if the police are called. Correct? 3rd would you say that all rentals in Winona are in great shape? I have spent some time there and the outside of most are pretty dumpy but they meet code.
You state you turned down many places to find the right one. You also state you are not in favor of this law because your rent will increase. Many here say your rent won't go up. Can you tell me why you believe it will?
A landlord who wants good tenants like you will provide the best place possible and you as the consumer will pay for that. Do you think the city would have provided a better place? How do you feel about your landlord being forced to turn over your name? I take you at your word that you are a good renter have (as one person said) you made friends with your neighbor? Are you worried they may single you out to get rentals out of their area? Sorry but you have the knowledge that should be heard. Thanks
Posted by rdubb (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see Mr. Murtaugh is a 'Candidate for Mayor.' Hey, 'Mike,' what are the 'quote' marks around 'Candidate for Mayor' for? Is Candidate for Mayor 'code' for something, or a double 'entendre' with which I'm not 'familiar?' Anyone else remember the "Friends" episode where Ross teaches Joey about air quotes, and he goes around misusing them all episode?
Posted by nursingstudent10 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Free-
I did not rent in Winona. I was a social work major living in the dorms. My experience with rental property in Winona is that of my college friends, cousins, and siblings - they all had nice places, which would surprise many people (since they are college students after all). Yes their rent is higher, but compare the cities. Winona is larger, has a bigger demand for renters, and is overall a nicer city - there is much more to do.
Every city has dumpy places - and from the outside it is hard to tell what is a rental and what is not. I am judging the differences between Albert Lea and Winona by my personal experiences (the buildings I have been in).
I have spoken to my landlord about this ordinance and they made it clear that they opposed this ordinance because they didn't want to have to raise my rent. I took it for granted that they knew more on the effects of this issue than I did.
As far as neighbors - most of them are renters themselves, and no, I have not met many let alone made them my friends. None are anywhere near my age. However, I have no concerns about them singling me out. We all keep to ourselves. The property I live in is in good shape but unfortunately I can't say that about many other properties on my street, so really I don't see why my neighbors would want to single me out.
Posted by mmurtaugh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rdubb - one of the council members objected to my speaking during the public forum last night, since I am a 'candidate for mayor'. Not that there's anything wrong with that. So in the interest of full disclosure, I made that clear.
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wildbill,
My pocketbook doubts you are right in regards to the rents not going up. My rent will not go up for a year because of contractual obligations, but for a landlord to not pass on these costs is just bad business and they will pass it on eventually.
Does anyone know if any of the council members are landlords or have landlords in their interest. Is there any information on the average rent in the three towns that have this ordinance before and after it passed.
Posted by jessekrick (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you observer
Posted by mmurtaugh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just looked at the city inspection website that I linked above, and see it got updated sometime later today - the proposed fee schedule has been removed.
But there are now links to the ordinance as passed last night. They're at the bottom of the page. Here is is again:
http://www.city.albertlea.org/proposed_r...
Mike Murtaugh
'Candidate for Mayor'
Posted by outoftownlandlord (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I own property in Albert Lea that I rent out. I hear a lot of stories about bad landlords and bad tenants. First let me say that I do own other property in Winona, Rochester, and many other cities as well as other states. I am not for this ordinance. I work under many rental ordinances however this one is poorly written. It looks to have been written by a council that is out to get one or two bad landlords. The city council has made this law personal. They have said it was done to improve the housing stock. In Winona parking became an issue so a new rule was passed that we have to provide off street parking for every bedroom. However anyone who was licenced already was grandfather in. We did not have to make big changes to our business. Everyone big and little got the same treatment. Also they seperate out the big guys from the small guys. If you have 1 to 3 units the fee is $125 and the licence last 5 years.
When it comes to an inspection there is no fee but you need to always have something small for them to find. I made the mistake on my first inspection follow the code book to the letter. My inspection lasted 5 hours. The next one 2 years later I left a couple of small things "broke" the inspection took 15 min and the reinspection took less than 5. They must always find something.
The rents I can charge in Winona and Rochester are much higher. In Rochester I get $1300 for a 4 bedroom home. The same house in Albert Lea is $650 max. In Winona a 2 bedroom apt. gets me $650 in Albert Lea it is $445. Why because the increase cost of doing business. I will have to pass the added cost onto my consumers.
Now I pay my taxes yet I have no say in how the city votes. I have never spoke up about increass in taxes for the school or the county. I pay them without passing the cost onto my tenants because I looked at it as an investment into the city. The cost of doing business in Albert Lea is high trash , water, lawn care, gas, supplies are all higher than Rochester and Winona yet rents have not gone up. What the city has done is forced me and my fellow landlords to rethink our business in Albert Lea.
One last thing Landlords not only provide a service but we pay taxes, we buy supplies from local business, we use small business to fix our windows, mow our lawns, repair the heat, and do any number of jobs. Yes homeowner do this as well but we do it in larger numbers. This very paper makes easy $300 a month of my company in ad revenue. May not sound like much but what will happen to all these small business if we just left. What would happen to the tax base without us. What would happen to the renters when the good landlords just give up and refuse to fight. I have to take time to think if it is worth my family's future to keep doing business in the town in which I grew up, went to school, and where my parents still live.
I will finish this in a second post
Posted by outoftownlandlord (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
2nd part
Speaking of my parents we all shed a tear over this because they know it is one more reason for me not to move back. I am sick inside. I have kept my first home where my kids were born where they learned to walk with a hope that someday I might return. I can't keep that house unless it is rented but I have to do right by my family. The city has made that much hard with this law. Thank you for listen (reading) about my fears. Lastly the city is making me pay someone to watch over the place because I live to far away. Anyway, say what you want I sure do miss the old Albert Lea.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't see anything in this column about the 3 strike rule. I also didn't see anything about renters having to register anything. As far as the fees go.....i think the only time landlords should have to pay fees is if there is something substandard with their property. Then, maybe these properties won't need such huge repairs and cost the landlords a lot of money. By the way, just exactly what do you think your rent money should be spent on?
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I find it strange that the city waited until it was passed before they put it on the website for all to see. Sure enough it has every thing in it. Convicted or not your out if someone dosn't like you.
Wish the paper and the TV would look at this as close as we have. I tried to copy it to post it here but it wouldn't let me.
It is nice to see renters who are not afraid to tell you that they will be paying more. Outoftownlandlord sure makes me think that we screwed up.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tmfresh,
Please follow the link that the soon to be mayor put up then go to bottom of the page and follow the rental ordinace 2nd readling link. Read it you will find all of it there and more. It is very scary reading. If you can find it I will find a way to get it on here yet because I do not think the Trib will do it.
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NO tmfresh did you read the ordinance? You might want to have a look at it.
Posted by mnnative (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm going cross-eyed from reading all the comments.... How can anyone raise the rent now, when the fee schedule hasn't even been discussed or made public yet? Also, in one of the articles I read they were saying something about a fee of like $40 a year. That figures out to just over $3 a month. How could anyone justify a raise in rent over that small amount?!?!? Even if it was the $125/5 years it wouldn't be enough to mess with every month.
The city is doing something to improve the living conditions for renters and make landlords accountable for how they keep their properties and because of it the landlords are going to try and jack up the rental fees to 'cover' their additional costs. What are they doing with the rental fees they're getting now - aren't they used for paying the taxes on the property and keeping it up? Perhaps they're pocketing all that money and using it for personal items....
There are a few landlords that NEED to be gone after and made to clean up their properties so I still think it's a good idea to have this ordinance and make those landlords do something - either fix the places, sell them, or tear them down. Just because they're a landlord doesn't put them above the law!
Posted by amazingperson (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Go to bed observer, you don't know what you are talking about
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mnnative,
How about the privacy of the renter? Whats your opinion on that? What about the three strikes and how a unhappy neighbor can remove you by calling the authorities three times?
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sec 34-17: Conduct by Tenants on Licensed Premises
(f) It shall be irrelevant to proceedings hereunder that the license holder or others were not criminally prosecuted or were acquitted of criminal charges for the incidents serving as the basis of the suspension or revocation.
Simple said does not matter if you are guilty you are still gone.
Sec 34-12 Register of Occupancy
Each rental license holder, or their agent, shall maintain a register of occupancy for each rental housing license, this register shall delivered to City officals, and shall contain the following information: address of unit, number of bedrooms, names of current tenants of the unit and telephone numbers of the current tenants.
Also all landlords must have a background check before they can own property in Albert Lea. Man the city looks more like the old USSR than a city in America.
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
amazingperson,
Glad to see that I could get you to join the web site just for your comment. Welcome, I will be up for a while.
Posted by jessekrick (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't even see an opinion from you amazingperson, so maybe you should go to bed
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK I found it and read it. It really doesn't seem as bad as you make it sound. To me it sounds like they only want to know who lives there in case of emergencies, also to make sure that the tenants are violating the nuisance rules more than 3 times in a 12 month period. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. And, like I said before if you are a good neighbor then I don't see why the police would be called.
Posted by amazingperson (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
observer -
I don't need to make any more comments, you just seem fake to me
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mnnative,
Think about this rents in Albert Lea have been well below the state avg. This is now giving the landlord the right to do it. They will. I am not a landlord but I do live in town. You my friend are talking about a city you don't live in anymore. I will bet you a cup of coffee and a donut that rents will be $50 to $100 a month higher by this time next year. I would even say there are less places to rent not more for the same reason no one wants to do business in this city.
Posted by jessekrick (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazingperson,
Why did you even join the web site then?
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't see how the privacy of the renter is being violated. The renter is given notice of when and inspection is going to take place and is given enough time to make arrangements for the inspection. How is that bad?
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about the fact that if you have your girlfriend move in and she pays you rent you need to have a licence. I think that is just as bad as any of it.
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So if a homeowner has three nuisance calls on them in a 12 month period should they have to sell their house and move? Don't get me wrong, I have awsome neighbors and a great landlord. The city is out of bounds with this ordinance. Will all the information that is supplied to the city due to this ordinance be free for public viewing?
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
did it say it is free for public viewing? I think the 3 strikes thing is just to keep the landlords on top of problem tenants.
Posted by mnnative (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
observer -
I'm a renter that keeps my 'home' in good condition so if someone wanted to come inspect it they'd be welcome to. My previous landlord would show up unannounced and want to be let in to 'check batteries' (in the smoke detectors). Unfortunately, when there really was a problem, it was like talking to a wall with him. I have asked my current landlord to come check out everything I've done with the house I'm in now (he lives in a different town). He's been here a couple of times (for BBQ's) and loves what is being done here now as he faced the same problem before - renters that just felt like trashing the place. I told him that even though I don't own the house it's still 'my' home and is going to be treated as such.
You have to have your home inspected if you do any remodeling, what is the difference if a rental is inspected to make sure they're being kept up like they should be. To me, it's the same concept - they're going to be inspecting the electrical, plumbing, foundation, etc.
Maybe the 3 strike rule will get more people out to meet their neighbors and have good relationships with them - the way it used to be. The whole time I rented in AL not one neighbor ever came over to welcome me to the neighborhood, see who I was, nothing. They wouldn't even say 'hi' if I was outside. Moved to where I am now and within a couple weeks I had met all the neighbors, even people who aren't direct neighbors will wave. It might also make renters think before doing something that might offend someone. I know someone who is a renter and they didn't care what they did, if they got into trouble with the landlord they just moved.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tmfresh,
Are we reading the same law? Why should the landlord have the right to turn over my name. Did you turn over your name and the names of everyone who lives with you to the bank who holds your mortgage? Did they inturn give them to the city? If it is only for emergancy than why would you care.
As for the 3 strike I would think it would bother you if you did nothing wrong and the court said so but the city will not take that into account. Cops are called out for silly things all the time. Someone parked in front of my house. If it is a renter and the cops come over to talk to him than that is strike one, then they don't like the fact you and a few friends are BBQ in your own backyard a call goes out hey strike 2. Now you are sol because you have to go to some meeting with the city and your landlord so now you have to get time off work. Boss say no way you don't (can't) show. That's it your out. Did you do anything wrong? It is legal to park on the street and cook in you backyard. Yet you have now lost your home. Not very fair.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mnnative,
I am not attacking you at all please know that. I just wonder what your intrest is in promoting this rule in Al since you don't live here and had a bad time when you did.
Where you live now do you have a rental ordinance?
Just looking to see why this is a good deal for me who lives here when you don't and it won't effect you.
Thanks in advance
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
amazingperson,
nothing fake about me, just an employed, tax paying citizen, renter who will speak my mind about things of this nature as it may affect me
mnnative,
I too keep my "home" in good condition and know all my neighbors (which I did mention earlier are awsome). This ordinance reeks of a dictatorship that are on a witch hunt for a few bad apples. Unfortunatly this will drive the housing prices up, as even the good landlords will be affected by it.
tmfresh,
I didn't say that you said it will be publicaly viewed, I aske the questions wether or not it will be. I prefer to keep my personal number private and would like to keep it that way.
Posted by mnnative (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL -
Rent in AL has been below average because of the condition of the houses being rented and that there are really no businesses left in town for people. I grew up in AL and like a lot of other people I have watched it go downhill in every aspect - housing, business, crime, etc.
That's one of the main reasons I left town - I could go a short distance away, get a better house, better landlord, more job options, and pay just $25 more a month on rent! Not to mention that my electric, cable, internet, water, sewer, etc is all CHEAPER than it was in AL so in the long run I'm actually saving money.
When I started looking at rentals in AL I was appalled at what was being offered for the prices. I inquired about one place - they wanted a background check done, which was ok with me. However, for what was being rented, it wasn't worth $650 a month! It wasn't even a house.
As I said earlier, maybe this ordinance will get rid of a lot of the riff raff in AL and get the town moving to where it needs to - forward to attract younger people and more business.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i just think it is the way it is be interpreted. it honestly sounds like the this ordinance is being put into place to make sure that landlords are responsible landlords and that tenants are responsible and respectful tenants. plain and simple. I think this city is only trying to prevent things from getting worse.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One last thing that bothers me is the fact that the property owner can not sell his property without an ok from the city.
Sec 34-9 Transfer
to transferee a property to a new owner you must notify the office of Inspections at least 48 hours prior to any proposed transfer.
So if you die your kids need to give the Inspections Dept 48 hour notice before you kick the bucket so that your estate can change hands. Give me a break. Also Federal law allows for landtrust to be used in all 50 states and I don't have to give the city any info on it so how will that work? Am I a renter because my home is now titled and owned by a land trust. If not than why?
No one thought this out did they. Someone will pay a lawyer a lot of money to sue the city and we will all be paying the bill.
Posted by mnnative (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Truth -
I know you're not attacking me. I grew up in AL and never thought I'd leave that town. But partly because of the bad rental I had I left. I still have friends and family that are renters in AL and I know some of them (due to circumstances) are living in not so good housing. Some have good landlords, others not so good.
No, where I live now there is no ordinance (not enough rentals) but my landlord does have rentals in another town that are 'dictated' by an ordinance so he just carries that over to this place as well. We talked about it at one time. He wasn't a fan of it but he understood why it was needed and did everything he could to abide by the rules, which I'm sure is why he's such a good landlord.
If you're a good renter fine, by having your name on the registry it'll reflect that and if you ever want to move you'll have an easier time finding a new place (kind of like your credit score being better). If you're not such a good renter now, you have time to change and become a better one. And if you choose not to change then the registry will reflect that and you'll pay the consequences.
Same with the landlords. If you're a good landlord, follow the rules and everything will be fine. If you're not so good, you have a chance to change and if you're just plain bad. Well, there will be consequences.
If a homeowner doesn't keep their home at a certain standard (mowing the lawn, trash, depiladated looking, etc) the city steps in and tells them to clean up their act and if they don't then they face consequences.
Rules and ordinances are put in place for a reason. If it came down to an ordinance coming about where I'm at now, I'd be all for it. I have nothing to hide and neither does my landlord.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL---- have you ever seen the movie "Conspiracy Theory"
Posted by mnnative (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That section says 'transfer' it doesn't say 'sell'. To me, transfer and sell are two different things. I 'transferred' my car into my name from my parent's name. My parents will 'sell' me a bed. It didn't cost me anything to transfer the car to my name (I actually did do that at one time). I gave my parents money for the bed.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tmfresh,
With all due respect I think you think that because you do not rent you own so this law will not effect you. We are on a slippery slope. Once a city starts to take right away from some of it's citzens it is not long before they take them for all.
What worries me is the economy is looking like Germany in the late 20s, the laws are looking like Germany in the early 30s How soon will it be till democracy is dead and fascism rules? Not long if you live in Albert Lea.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i have been all of the above. I have rented, I have been a landlord and I have obviously owned. There are rules and regulations to EVERYTHING!! Typically these rules and regulations are for a very valid reason. As far a I know no one tells me where to live. I choose that. No one tells me where to work.....I choose that too. No one tells me how I should vote......I choose that also. Are there rules concerning all of these choices? Of course! It is part of life.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mnnative,
Minnesota law is clear, real property (ie realstate (sp.)) can only be transfered. The law never says sale. You pay a transfer tax not a sales tax when you sell property. In order to transfer property (R.E.) you must complete a title transfer which is a legal documant giving you title to the land and buildings. In Winona and Rochester you can sell your property and the licence follows the property not the landlord. That is the way it should be here but it is not. The new owner has to pay a fee. Just another cost passed on to me the renter.
Agian it is a bad law and should have been better written. I think I could buy into something like you describe but this one is bad. They should just statrt over.
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
good night all. I' m tired of beating this poor old dead horse.
Posted by observer (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
125 posts in 14 hours is pretty incredible and good proof that this should have had more time with the council and the public.
Posted by tengstrom (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All city ordinances indeed are published in the Tribune for the public to review. The city pays to have them published. They are in the classifieds under "105 Legals." In fact, state law says city ordinances aren't official unless they have been published in the local newspaper.
You can find the online classifieds here:
http://ads.bninews.com/classifieds/alber...
Posted by Free (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
thank you tengstrom, wish a link to that would have been in the story.
Posted by mrthunder (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
truth your a nut case. we are making the land lords accountable
and safe for the renters. heaven forbid that a renter is a dump for a house. and there is a fire and a person dies. where is your great idea on that
Posted by tamilynne (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that an ordanance is needed for this town. Albert Lea is starting to look slummier and nastier all of the time. There are so many houses that just look horrible and embarass me to say I live in this town. Where is the pride? It doesnt matter if you are a homeowner, renter or landlord, you should want to have your 'home' look nice. Several of the homes in my neighborhood are rentals, and they show! All of the owner occupied homes are well kept and don't have crap all over in the yards.
Have you looked at some of these areas lately? James Ave has a large number of rentals, and with the exception of a few houses looks like horsecrap, Jefferson has several houses that are condemmed (and are owned by a landlord)... Madison, Pearl and Newton don't look any better.
As far as the three strike rule... So what! You are probably doing things you really shouldn't be if you are getting the cops called on you. I highly doubt, Truth that your neighbors are going to call the cops on you for having a BBQ in your back yard unless you are out there with the music blaring at late hours. Grow up!
From the other end of it I was an 'accidental' landlord for a few months. We moved down to Arizona for a job my husband got, and because our house didnt sell we rented it to a friend of a friend. We have a beautiful home, with the exception that the basement walls need a little work. She absolutely trashed the place, and I have the pictures to prove it. When we moved back and kicked her out because they were two months late on the rent and utilities. There were piles of garbage all over, they had a cat that pissed all over the brand new carpet, and had a fire in the brand new oven. They were smoking in the house the while time, which was against the contract we had drew up, and had several parties that lasted till the wee hours of the morning. They were there about 5 months and I dont think they cleaned a single thing even once. An ordanance like this one may have protected my investment.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mrthunder,
Every renter who has posted has said they are against this law. So are we all nuts? No we know we will have to pay for it. Albert Lea has nothing but low wage jobs. Now because you are trying to help me (Us) I have to pay more.
I thought I lived in a country that allowed me to live where I want. If I choose to live in a dump than so be it. I thought I had the right to spend my money where and how I want. I am not forced nor for that matter is anyone forced to rent a place in Albert Lea. Why not look deeper at the real issue people live where they want because they can afford it. You are making it harder to afford it. So what makes you mrthunder my protector or my savior?
You use the agrument that you are saving lives. Please give cold hard facts (names dates locations) where someone has died in Albert Lea due to proven neglect by a landlord. This is the chance to base your argument in facts.
This excuse that you are saving people holds little water. It is brought up anytime the government wants to take away our rights. It is used on guns, smoking, seatbelts..... anytime you want to prove a point it is done to save lives yet no one shows me the proof.
This law will drive rents up, there will be less places advaliable to rent, I will have to pay fees so to prove I have no evictions. I must admit it may be time to move to Clarks Grove or Hayward.
What makes you think this will cause Albert Lea to grow. I will bet you a ice cream cone that by this time next year. Albert Lea will have lost more people. I didn't ask for your help nor do I want it mrthunder.