Housing comments were rather off-base

Published 9:13 am Friday, June 6, 2008

I am writing in response to recent printed comments regarding the rental ordinance being proposed by the city of Albert Lea. Although the information that has been written has been factual in some ways, the context of the information has often been inaccurate. In one it was stated that the City Inspection Department handles “15 to 20” complaints per year, and that this means that only “one-half percent” of the rental units in Albert Lea are in poor physical condition.

While the statement from the Inspection Department was made, the fact is that it was also later qualified that many tenants don’t complain because of fear of retribution from the landlord. The assumption that one-half percent of the rental units need rehab is not accurate either, and this statement is based on the findings of the 2006 Housing Study.

In that study it was found that around 7 percent of the rental properties in the city were considered to be in need of substantial rehab with another 4 percent that might be candidates for demolition. It is important to note that the housing study received broad support in the community, including the support of several landlords. It has also been argued that in the event the ordinance is implemented, there should be no charges or fees associated with the additional workload that would be created.

Email newsletter signup

This simply makes no sense. There is no business, government or otherwise, that could take on the additional workload this process would create without charging some sort of fee or assessment. The fact is that in order to enforce this code the city would be required to hire additional staff, and in turn additional revenues would have to be raised to pay those costs.

Opponents of the ordinance have argued that “75 percent” of the placarded properties in the city are owner-occupied and then ask why the city isn’t enforcing minimum housing codes on homeowners. I think the fact that data shows that “75 percent” of the placarded houses are owner-occupied indicates that the city is making an effort here.

One individual suggested that the city consider adopting a “point-of-sale” type of provision rather than an ordinance. The fact is that the POS approach does not provide timely and consistent enforcement of the minimum housing codes and should only be used as a supporting measure to code enforcement.

One person argued that the general public has not been offered an opportunity to voice their opinion on the code issue. The fact is that the code was discussed during an Albert Lea City Council meeting and everyone in attendance had an opportunity to talk. In talking with the council members on the task force they have encouraged public input. What more do you expect the city do in this regard?

The landlords’ association has stated that an educational video will solve any problem in rental housing. While I agree that education is very important, the video simply does not answer to the need of enforcement of the minimum housing codes.

Jon Ford

executive director

Albert Lea Housing

and Redevelopment Authority

Albert Lea