One WIn for Landlords
Click here for Top Ten Discussions. CLICK HERE for Q & A Homepage
Receive Free Rental Owner Updates Email:  
MrLandlord Q & A
     
     
One WIn for Landlords (by Blue [IL]) Nov 19, 2011 6:46 AM
       One WIn for Landlords (by RR [WA]) Nov 19, 2011 7:35 AM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Curious The George [NC]) Nov 19, 2011 7:41 AM
       One WIn for Landlords (by RR [WA]) Nov 19, 2011 7:47 AM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Robert,Ontario,Canada [ON]) Nov 19, 2011 1:21 PM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Jo [CT]) Nov 19, 2011 3:58 PM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Ken [NY]) Nov 19, 2011 4:32 PM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Jo [CT]) Nov 19, 2011 7:40 PM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Blue [IL]) Nov 19, 2011 9:20 PM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Smokowna [MD]) Nov 20, 2011 12:42 PM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Gary [IL]) Nov 22, 2011 9:40 AM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Kurt [TX]) Nov 22, 2011 11:01 AM
       One WIn for Landlords (by Rick Grubbs [NC]) Nov 22, 2011 5:10 PM


One WIn for Landlords (by Blue [IL]) Posted on: Nov 19, 2011 6:46 AM
Message:

Landlords Claim Discrimination, Judge Agrees

Landlords were handed a victory by an appeals court in Minnesota that determined a city’s aggressive rental housing inspection program may be discriminatory.

The landlords earlier filed a lawsuit over the onerous building inspection program that forced some of them out of business, and made affordable housing in St. Paul a thing of the past.

In 1993, the city of St. Paul passed a Housing Code that encompassed typical safety issues. A few years later, the city created The Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement to oversee the housing law.

At first, enforcement of the Housing Code was conducted with cooperation between landlords and city officials. For instance, landlords who were being investigated may have received a Progress Report or participated in sit-down meetings to discuss problems.

Beginning in 2002, the directorship of the Department changed, and so did the focus of the program. According to court documents, the new Director was known to “favor owner-occupied housing over rental housing for the sake of the neighborhood.”

During his tenure, the new Director significantly increased the level of enforcement targeted at rental properties. For example, in addition to investigating complaints, inspectors were told to conduct “sweeps” of rental properties, and were instructed to “code to the max” which meant inspectors were to write up every violation, not just those reported, and were to investigate and write up all nearby properties.

The Department also created a system designed to increase the number of complaints received. The Director indicated that his goal was to increase revenues for the Department to $500,000 to cover the costs of the program.

Central to the enforcement plan was the identification of “problem properties.” The Department’s website defined a problem property by saying: “If you live next door to a problem property you know it! Constant calls to get rid of the junk, intolerable behavior by occupants and guests, etc.” The Department sought to “compel rental property owners to take greater responsibility for their properties or, alternatively, to force changes in ownership.”

To achieve its objectives, the Department employed a variety of strategies for renter-occupied dwellings, including orders to correct or abate conditions, condemnations, vacant building registration, fees for excessive consumption of municipal services, tenant evictions, real-estate seizures, revocations of rental registrations, tenant-remedies actions, and court actions. It coordinated its efforts with the St. Paul police and an assistant City attorney.

In addition, the city used a procedure known as “Code Compliance Certification” to require rental properties to meet current housing and building standards. The judge hearing the appeal describes this procedure as “unclear”, but it appears that the city required rental property owners to acquire Code Compliance Certification if a property was remodeled, deemed a “dangerous structure”, a “nuisance building”, or was vacant.

Code Compliance inspections were conducted to evaluate a building’s structure, plumbing, electrical condition, and mechanical condition. Code Compliance Certification allegedly forced property owners to undertake expensive renovations, especially with regard to older properties that were exempt from current building codes under Minnesota law.

The common complaint raised by landlords was that the city issued false Housing Code violations and punished property owners without prior notification, invitations to cooperate, or adequate time to remedy

Housing Code violations. Punishments included fines, evictions, condemnations, revocation of rental registrations, and the financial burden of Code Compliance Certification.

Over time, a trend began to emerge in the targeted properties, according to the landlords. They say investigations tended to focus on low-income tenants, a large percentage of whom were African-American. In fact, in one instance, a landlord reported that a building inspector made a flippant, derogatory remark about African-American tenants.

The landlords contend that as a result of the tactics of the city, affordable housing opportunities virtually disappeared as more and more rentals were condemned, and more landlords sold their properties rather than pay for extensive repairs.

The trial court that heard the case did not address many of the specific details of this claim, including the fact that a city inspector allegedly made derogatory remarks. The appeals court attributes this omission to the fact that the documentation submitted in the case was too overwhelming–thousands of pages, and the landlords themselves may not have brought it all to the judge’s attention. The trial court found for the city and dismissed the landlords’ claims that the onerous regulations were discriminatory

The appeals court, however, saw a possible direct link between the city’s actions and the lack of housing options for minorities in St. Paul:

The ity represented in its 2003 report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) that “the lack of affordable housing opportunities remains a major issue facing many Saint Paul lower income households, who are also protected class members,” and that “27.6% of Saint Paul’s lower income residents cannot find adequate affordable housing in the City.” Then, in 2005, the City estimated that 32% of the households in St. Paul had unmet housing needs (cost burdens, overcrowding, etc.).

St. Paul’s aggressive Housing Code enforcement practices increased costs for property owners that rent to low-income tenants. Appellants produced at least six affidavits describing the toll that the city’s aggressive Housing Code enforcement took on their rental business. They reported a substantial increase in costs, resulting in evictions for tenants and “forced sales” of their properties in some cases. These allegations are corroborated by an internal memorandum from the city’s fire marshal in 1995 concluding that the Housing Code was more strict in regard to 82% of the examined categories.

Documents from the city and the Public Housing Authority acknowledged that any decrease in federally assisted rental housing would reduce the amount of affordable housing in the city. Those predictions were supported by the city’s Vacant Buildings Report, which showed that the number of vacant homes listed in the city rose from 367 to 1,466 between March 2003 and November 2007, which was a nearly 300% increase. The landlords submitted affidavits from three tenants who alleged that they endured hardship when their homes were condemned for minimal or false Housing Code violations.

As a result of this evidence, the appeals court determined that the impact of the regulations may be discriminatory, and the city may have violated the Fair Housing Act. As a result, the appeals court reinstated the landlords’ discrimination claim. They now will have a new trial.

The appellate court also offered what could be interpreted as guidance to the landlords regarding how to effectively present their evidence and better support their claim the second time around.

With AAOA, landlords have resources at their fingertips. Check out our Landlord Forms page. --99.186.xx.xx




One WIn for Landlords (by RR [WA]) Posted on: Nov 19, 2011 7:35 AM
Message:

Whoa, that article makes me sick.

The landlords may have won this battle but lost the war.

"They" are trying to bring these programs to many towns, so be warned.

We are seeing programs like this installed locally and our rental housing association is opposing them for a variety of good reasons not the least of which is higher costs which will increase costs for these already-poor tenants.

--24.18.xxx.xxx




One WIn for Landlords (by Curious The George [NC]) Posted on: Nov 19, 2011 7:41 AM
Message:

The law of unintended consequences at work. --24.136.xxx.xxx




One WIn for Landlords (by RR [WA]) Posted on: Nov 19, 2011 7:47 AM
Message:

also, I notice the government likes to solve the problem of "poor people" by attacking their housing and making them move to "better housing" elsewhere. Well, these people are still poor, you just made them relocate to a different neighborhood and likely made them pay more money for their housing. All of this is just ignoring the real problems - lack of jobs, generations of welfare, entitlement mentality, drug dealing, drug using, etc.

--24.18.xxx.xxx




One WIn for Landlords (by Robert,Ontario,Canada [ON]) Posted on: Nov 19, 2011 1:21 PM
Message:

It has nothing to do with keeping rental units in good repair but a revenue tax scheme for the city. When rental buildings and houses were built around 1950 to 1970 the building codes and materials were not the same as today. If the town officials targeted owner occupied homes then that tax scheme would be shut down. As rental housing providers have deeper pockets then the city officials think that does not effect tenants. As the number of rental units declines then the government will end up being the sole provider of rental housing. Anything a government runs it runs at a huge deficiet where the taxpayer ends up paying higher taxes. It has been proven around the world that the private sector provides better quality rental housing at a lower price. Wonder if the collective farms worked for the Bolsheviks. --74.220.xxx.xxx




One WIn for Landlords (by Jo [CT]) Posted on: Nov 19, 2011 3:58 PM
Message:

In my town, we also have a new code enforcement officer, plus bi yearly inspections. I do agree that some LL's have slummy houses, live out of state, and don't care.

There are those of us that DO care and take care of our places. I have a set of "exterior stairs" aka " fire escape, going down the length of the house. The stringers and steps need to be replaced. I was in the town hall recently talking to the building inspector about the stairs, when the Fire Marshall over heard our conversation.

He interjected and told me that if the stairs passed by any windows...(which they do..2nd and 1st floor windows) then I would either have to put fire proof glass in those particular windows,(very expensive) or install sprinklers in those windows...Huh???

No one in my LL association had ever heard of this. I decide to go to the Fire Marshall's office to get this statute in writing, and to please call me so I can come and pick up the paper with the stature...oooh...questioning authority!!!

A week goes by, and I don't hear a word from him, so I take it upon myself to call the STATE Fire Marshall....I told him about this "requirement" and was it necessary. He told me he'd call me back...15 minutes later he calls, and NOOOOO, I DID NOT have to have the glass or sprinklers in my particular situation...he read me the statute, gave me the number, and I was satisfied.

....It's been 3 weeks now, and my town's Fire Marshall STILL hasn't called me with "his statute"...question authority??? you betch'a!!!

--69.177.xxx.xxx




One WIn for Landlords (by Ken [NY]) Posted on: Nov 19, 2011 4:32 PM
Message:

JO(CT)Every time I was in the building I would stop in and ask him about it,in a nice I want to be in compliance kind of way,until he finally admitted he was wrong,then I would leave him alone. --67.252.xx.xx




One WIn for Landlords (by Jo [CT]) Posted on: Nov 19, 2011 7:40 PM
Message:

Ken...good advice...I will do that... --69.177.xxx.xxx




One WIn for Landlords (by Blue [IL]) Posted on: Nov 19, 2011 9:20 PM
Message:

"plus bi yearly inspections" Only on rentals? Not Owner occupied? And no one's challenged this is court? --99.186.xx.xx




One WIn for Landlords (by Smokowna [MD]) Posted on: Nov 20, 2011 12:42 PM
Message:

Blue, you can't touch the city.

Everything in the article, every word, has been used in one of the towns where I own. Even the derogatory remarks.

There is no money in suing cities so there is no interest from the people that could put an end to it.

--95.40.xxx.xxx




One WIn for Landlords (by Gary [IL]) Posted on: Nov 22, 2011 9:40 AM
Message:

I have rentals in some towns that also target landlords. What we have is two standards. Rental properties are inspected every year. I even have an inspector looking inside the refrigerator of one of my renters. He told us to clean the oven! This is going far beyond safety issues. It gets worse. He is white; 95% of the renters are black. He is an employee of the village and also sits on the village board. Talk about a conflict of interest. Meanwhile Owner occupied homes next to mine have broken windows, fences falling down, trees hanging over the property line, etc. They are only inspected upon resale, hence two standards of housing. I am naturally argumentative, so I fuss a little bit. Every time I bring up the subject, they point to all the lawsuits that allow villages to enter private property and peek inside citizens refrigerators! Of course this raises costs, and I refuse to buy more property in this town. I don't have time and money for lawsuits, so I just take it. --99.11.xxx.xx




One WIn for Landlords (by Kurt [TX]) Posted on: Nov 22, 2011 11:01 AM
Message:

One of the many reasons I thank my lucky stars I live in Texas! Inspections? Only in the high-dollar 'burbs, and only upon resale, and only to the much lower scale Housing Code (Life Safety only). All my rentals are in H, so no inspections ever, unless you add on. --75.53.xxx.xxx




One WIn for Landlords (by Rick Grubbs [NC]) Posted on: Nov 22, 2011 5:10 PM
Message:

We recently had an attempt to start at government program in our city to harass landlords. The key to defeating it was labeling it as hostile to business and jobs. No one in the city government wanted to go on record as being against business in this economy. --24.148.xxx.xx





Reply:
Subject: RE: One WIn for Landlords
Your Name:
Your State:

Message:
One WIn for Landlords
Would you like to be notified via email when somebody replies to this thread?
If so, you must include your valid email address here. Do not add your address more than once per thread/subject. By entering your email address here, you agree to receive notification from Mrlandlord.com every time anyone replies to "this" thread. You will receive response notifications for up to one week following the original post. Your email address will not be visible to readers.
Email Address: