9 landlords complain to feds about cities' rental codes

  • Article by: RANDY FURST , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 9, 2012 - 8:09 PM

Metro cities' rental codes are too strict, the filing to HUD claims.

  • 6
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 6 of 6
swmnguyNov. 9, 12 9:53 PM

It's terrible that the city of Minneapolis is preventing people from paying market rates for housing with plumbing that doesn't work, substandard electricity, no heat, broken window, vermin infestation, and the like. To think that people are being kept from dying in electrical fires, gas explosions, or carbon monoxide leaks.

Look. You have the right to go into business in America. There's no right to be successful or profitable. If you can't afford to keep your property in decent and safe shape, you can't afford to be a landlord. It's a business, and businesses fail.

OK, suppose we let these slumlords stay in business renting these dangerous dumps. Fine. Make them notify their insurance companies of all the violations and the related dangers. Make them sign agreements to be held personally liable, with their own homes and money, for any and all injuries and deaths caused by their dangerous buildings, and for any and all expenses incurred by their tenants when they can't live in the burned-out buildings, or buildings where the toilets don't flush or there's no heat in the winter.

I know I'm tired of having my insurance and taxes cover the costs of these irresponsible business owners.

12
1
drg258Nov. 10, 1210:07 AM

Not a major issue here, but trying to rent a unit in Minneapolis just isn't worth it. My house has a small upstairs apartment and is considered a duplex in Longfellow. My wife and I don't rent it out and just use it as extra space we really don't need (and have a license rental exemption for such). I'd be happy to rent it out at a decent rate, but I don't. The city has a $1000 initial fee for the rental license. This is well more than what a month of rent would be for this modest one bedroom. If I was hard up for cash maybe we'd do it. However, as is, it just isn't worth the risk of being a landlord or the high upfront cost to the city. This being said, I do have a relative (a small time d-bag) who boasts that he wants to be a slumlord and owns a few duplexes and what not, and maintains them accordingly. The city does need to keep tabs on that. It is just too bad that the regs trap the good and the bad.

4
0
mare1947Nov. 11, 12 6:14 AM

I am glad that the City has regulations that are strict and stringent. The safety of the tenants by the City for the tenants is a godsend. The tenants need reassurance that their rental unti is safe and is in good upkeep not only for safe living but for health reasons. We have too many people who don't mind living in unsafe buildings which in turn make it rough on the people who want a safe and upkept home.

4
1
keithreitmanNov. 11, 1210:54 AM

From the article, above: "Minneapolis City Council Member Don Samuels has called him a "slumlord," which Folger denies." Now I wish to ask: What practical benefit is derived from this City Councilman calling someone a dirty name? Conversely, what is the unanticipated negative outcome and consequence of repeated dirty name calling? Even when seemingly apropos to the particular target; dirty name calling may engender further disinvestment by more reasonable investors and more proper stakeholders who may fear being called a dirty name. Thus dirty name calling can cause disinvestment by reasonable participants in the already torn social and economic fabric of this community. Dirty name calling can further the Northside’s decline by leaving behind only the worst and lowest rental housing investors. Others will exit and go elsewhere. They will disinvest here and invest elsewhere because their small business acumen is welcomed elsewhere; or at least they are not subject to dirty name calling elsewhere.

1
2
proinspectorNov. 11, 12 3:25 PM

Being a well qualified inspector and having dealt with the City over the last 40 years, the main problem is the unqualified City inpectors who have no documented qualifications to conduct meaningful reports. Most of them are only political hatchet men for the City Council! I say all homes both owner occupied and rentals should be inspected!

2
2
EmilieQNov. 12, 1210:00 AM

I agree with Proinspector that all homes (owner occupied and rentals) should be inspected. That said, I've worked over the years with city inspections and found wonderful help from that department. THey do NOT have enough people (cuts from a budget that wasn't adequate to begin with) and the clock won't expand for them, either. That said, when dangerous violations are reported by neighbors, when suspended licenses were ignored and properties with those violations continued to be rented, when all sorts of things you wouldn't want anyone living with continued to go on, the folks from inspections worked with us for months, getting violations documented so they could go to court with a prayer of winning against the poor, targeted, abused landlord who insists on renting properties dangerous to the renters and to neighbors (without correcting violations). In the latest episode, an inspector has been unable to get into an apartment to inspect for over 12 weeks. You know what? I was curious about that unit before but now I want to know. That house is close to me so what is going on in there? The inspected apartment only had plumbing, wiring and smoke detector issues -- easy stuff like that. Does that make you wonder too?

1
1
  • 1 - 6 of 6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT