The rental housing ordinance as it is currently proposed is drastically improved over the initial draft. I appreciate having had the opportunity to participate in the formation of the new document. Nearly all of my concerns were addressed and a majority of my suggestions were actually incorporated into the new proposal.

Voting NO, and being the only one on the task force to vote no, reflects my view of the historical effects of government regulation intended to “help.”

In the current economic environment, where the well-intended Sarbanes-Oxley (“let’s fix the problem”) “mark to market” regulation has unintentionally precipitated a financial crises out of what should have been a simple economic retrenchment, the government has to take drastic measures.

In the current economic environment, the proposed rental ordinance will also create unintended consequences. Like the overleveraged failing banks, numerous overleveraged landlords will be unable to meet to the obligations created in the ordinance, and foreclosures that otherwise may not have occurred or would have been scattered over an extended period, will be precipitated within a much shorter period.

Not only will this result in a depreciative affect on neighborhood values, there will also be a significant increase in placarded properties that the strict enforcement of previously minimally enforced standards will make unattractive as investments. Like it or not, the cost to raze the condemned structures will ultimately fall on the city.

In the long term, the objectives of the rental ordinance may be accomplished. The consequences of poor timing, however, may initially be more negative than positive. The cost to the city will be significant.

The City Council had the wisdom to see that the content of the original ordinance had significant flaws. Hopefully the council will also have the wisdom and good judgment to recognize the importance of appropriate tuning and implementation of this proposed mandate.

Steven Kurth

Albert Lea