City staff members do not want compromise

Published 8:47 am Friday, August 1, 2008

The landlord license program proposed for the city of Albert Lea has potential significant costs and hardship for both landlords and tenants.

Regarding, the situation where the police are called to a tenant’s abode three or more times for some type of disturbance, the landlord is to evict the tenant.

1. Is it not the responsibility of the police department to protect the public from disturbance of the peace?

Email newsletter signup

It is reasonable for parents to be responsible for the behavior of their children but no that a landlord be responsible for the behavior of another adult.

2. To evict a tenant is a costly procedure. Landlords need rent to make payments. It doesn’t seem right that the city can potentially force a landlord into bankruptcy for things out of their control.

Although, the rental application process and the Minnesota approved lease are good, they cannot predict the future behavior of any tenant.

3. It is not possible to fill the vacancy the next day after eviction. Perhaps a month or two of rent money is lost as well as advertising and utility costs. This represents financial hardship to a landlord.

4. Aside from the economic hardship, this is discrimination of both the tenant and the landlord.

Why, aren’t occupants who own their homes in the city forced to move out and find a new location for such an offense?

5. It appears that the city officials are not familiar with or have direct experience with the difficulties that already exist in being a landlord.

6. The city staff have not shown an attitude of compromise on these and other issues. Is it not time to discuss working solutions with the landlords? Was the “task force” set up to fairly discuss the issues or is the city just going through the motions and it is really a “tax force?” I say, “no, thanks,” my taxes are already triple of homestead properties and my tenants do NOT want their rent raised to pay for this.

Scott Knutson

Albert Lea