Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
File #: Ord 20-14    Version: Name:
Type: Ordinance Status: Third Reading Public Hearing
In control: City Council
Final action:
Title: Creating Chapter 193 of the Legislative Code (Title XIX) pertaining to Tenant Protections.
Sponsors: Mitra Jalali, Jane L. Prince, Nelsie Yang, Rebecca Noecker, Amy Brendmoen
Attachments: 1. Real Estate Equities Letter, 2. MHA Letter, 3. Online Comment re Ord 20-14, 4. Comment rec'd by Council, 5. Alliance - Equity in Place letter

Title

Creating Chapter 193 of the Legislative Code (Title XIX) pertaining to Tenant Protections.

 

Body

Section 1

WHEREAS, under City Council RES 89-1273, the Council directed the creation of a fair housing workgroup to make policy and budget recommendations “with the goal of eliminating housing disparities, lowering barriers to affordable housing, and ensuring access to economic opportunity in the City of Saint Paul”; and

WHEREAS, under City Council RES 17-2064, the Council directed the development of a fair housing strategic plan “to continue to research and work with housing partners on strategies to further Fair Housing goals such as…improved tenant protections, Tenant Remedies Actions, Advance Notice of Sale policy, gentrification studies, just cause eviction, non-discrimination policies, and others”; and

WHEREAS, under City RES 18-1204, the City Council acknowledged that “the housing crisis in our city and region, and the urgent need to address the crisis as our population grows,”; and

 

WHEREAS, in 2019 the City created the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, with five objectives:  to meet the needs of those with the lowest incomes by increasing supply; to invest in low and moderate income residents by investing in existing supply; to explore innovative approaches to meeting housing needs; to build wealth for residents and communities; and to promote fair access to housing for us all; and .

 

WHEREAS, in 2019, The the Office of Financial Empowerment, which housed the Fair Housing Coordinator Position, was created and subsequently developed the framework for a citywide fair housing strategy identifying decreasing housing displacement, increasing housing access and affirmatively furthering fair housing as the overall objectives; and

 

WHEREAS, Tenant Protections is one of four focus areas including education and engagement, enforcement and compliance, and preservation and production, to address strategy objectives based on the current housing landscape; and

 

WHEREAS, stagnant wages, skyrocketing rents, a lack of affordable housing, and a consistently low housing vacancy rate are making it harder for Saint Paul residents to find housing and to afford it over time; and

 

WHEREAS, the number of renters has increased by 12 percent from 2000-2016 and the City of Saint Paul has now become a renter-majority city, with 51% (57,621) of city City residents being renters; and

 

WHEREAS, renters are disproportionately people of color and are disproportionately representative of individuals from low wealth backgrounds; and

WHEREAS, more than half of our renter households earn 60 percent or less of the Area Median Income, and more than half of our renter households of color earn 30 percent or less of the Area Median Income D demographically 83% of African-American households are renting, compared to 41% of White households; and

WHEREAS, more than half of our renter households earn 60 percent or less of the Area Median Income, and more than half of our renter households of color earn 30 percent or less of the Area Median Income; and

WHEREAS, in St. Paul, 51 percent of our renter households are housing-cost burdened, resulting in seventy-five percent of our low-income renter households being are housing cost burdened and thirty-nine percent are being severely housing cost burdened; and

WHEREAS, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 requires that we the City affirmatively further fair housing, meaning the City must take meaningful action to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination; and

WHEREAS, in April 2016, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development issued warning that blanket policies of refusal to rent to people with criminal records could violate the Fair Housing Act if “without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another”; and

WHEREAS, as of January 1, 2020, people of color make up 47.9 percent of the MN prison population, but only 15.9 percent of our state population; and

WHEREAS, criminal justice research supports that the effect of a criminal offense on a residents housing outcome declines over time and becomes insignificant; and

WHEREAS, our current credit scoring system has a disparate impact on people and communities of color, rooted in a long history of housing discrimination and wealth inequities.C  even though credit score itself does not reflect positive rental history or timely rent payments or probability of on time rent payments; and

WHEREAS, in 2017 there were an estimated 1,710 residential evictions filed against tenants in the City of Saint Paul; and

WHEREAS, E evictions, regardless of outcome, impact a renter’s ability to secure future housing, and Rresearch suggests that “Informal evictions” occurring outside of the court process are occurring at twice the rate of formal evictions; and

WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul has approximately 11,000 units of housing which are considered Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) affordable at or below 60 percent Area Median Income and NOAH buildings are most at risk for ownership changes; and

WHEREAS, historical and ongoing discrimination in housing makes tenant protections a fair housing, racial equity and economic justice imperative; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does Ordain:

 

 

 

 

Section 2

 

Chapter 193 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby created to read as follows:

 

Sec. 193.01                      Definitions.

For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section.

(1)                      Affordable Housing Building shall mean a multiple-family rental housing building having three (3) or more dwelling units where at least twenty (20) percent of the units rent for an amount that is affordable at no more than thirty (30) percent of income to households at or below eighty (80) percent of area median income, as most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) purposes, as adjusted for household size and number of bedrooms.

(2)                     Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit shall mean a rental dwelling unit in an affordable housing building that rents for an amount that is affordable to households at or below eighty (80) percent of Area Median Income, as most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, as adjusted for household size and number of bedrooms.

(3)                     Available for Sale shall mean the earliest implementation of any of the following actions including, but not limited to: negotiating to enter into a purchase agreement that includes an affordable housing building, advertising the sale of an affordable housing building, entering into a listing agreement to sell an affordable housing building, or posting a sign that an affordable housing building is for sale.

(4)                     For Cause shall mean that the tenant or a member of the tenant's household materially violated a term of the lease in accordance with Sec. 193.05(a).

(5)  Common Areas shall mean the spaces in a housing building that are, or can be, used by any tentants.  Examples of these spaces may include rental offices, laundry rooms, hallways, and entrances.

(65) Curing Cure the Deficiency shall mean that a tenant pays all monies rightfully owed, or fully complies with an order to correct a lease violation or notice to cease an activity that is in violation of a lease.

(76) Eviction shall mean a summary court proceeding to remove a tenant or occupant from, or otherwise recover possession of, real property by the process of law, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 504B.

(87) Family Member shall mean a property owner’s child, step-child, adopted child, foster child, adult child, spouse, sibling, parent, step-parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandchild, grandparent, or registered domestic partner as defined by Saint Paul Code of Ordinances section 186.02 and any individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the property owner is the equivalent of a family relationship.

(98) Landlord shall mean the property owner or agent of the property owner.

(109) Lease shall mean an oral or written agreement creating a tenancy in real property.

(10) Rental Application Fee shall mean a fee paid by the potential tenant to a landlord, in order for the landlord to screen the background of the potential tenant before signing the lease.

(11) Relocation Assistance shall mean a payment in an amount equal to three times the rental housing affordability limit at sixty (60) percent of Area Median Income for the Twin Cities metro area as published by the Metropolitan Council.  Annually updated payments calculations can be located on the met council websites Affordability Limits for Ownership and Rental Housing: https://metrocouncil.org/

(1112) Security Deposit shall have the meaning stated in Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.178.

(1213) Single Month Rent shall have the following meaning:  for a lease in which rent is paid once each month in the same amount, single month rent means that amount. When a tenant’s rent is supplemented by a rental subsidy, rent means the total contract rent for the dwelling unit. For a lease in which rent is paid once each period in the same amount but the period is not one (1) month, single month rent means that the amount paid per period divided by the number of days in the period and then multiplied by thirty (30). For other leases, single month rent means the total amount of rent due under the anticipated length of the lease divided by the number of days in the anticipated length of the lease and then multiplied by thirty (30).

(1314) Tenant shall mean an authorized occupant of a residential rental building under a lease or contract, whether oral or written.

(1415) Tenant Protection Period shall mean the period that commences with the transfer of ownership of an affordable housing building and runs through the end of the ninety (90) calendar days following the month in which written notice of sale is delivered to each affordable housing dwelling unit tenant pursuant to Sec. 193.08(a). 

(1516) Transfer of Ownership shall mean any conveyance of title to an affordable housing building, whether legal or equitable, voluntary or involuntary, resulting in a transfer of control of the building, effective as of the earlier of the date of delivery of the instrument of conveyance or the date the new owner takes possession.

(1617) Termination of Tenancy shall mean the end of a tenancy following a written notice given by a landlord to a tenant requiring the tenant to move, including nonrenewal of lease.

Sec. 193.02                     Tenant rights information packets and tenant rights posters.

 (a) Tenant rights information packets and posters for landlords and tenants.  The Office of Financial Empowerment (the Office) will create and maintain a Tenant Rights Information Packet that includes:

(1)  A summary of the City of Saint Paul Chapter 193 (Tenant Protections), the Minnesota Attorney General’s booklet on Landlords and Tenants Rights and Responsibilities pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §504B.275, and a summary of federal fair housing laws describing the respective rights, obligations, and remedies of landlords and tenants thereunder; and

 (2) A list of tTenant resources, including but not limited to: information regarding community organizations, government departments, and other resources entities and organizations that tenants can use to support their housing stability, seek legal advocacy, amoung other and provide information or resources for other housing needs.

(b)  Tenant Rights Information Poster.  The Office of Financial Empowerment will create and maintain a poster summarizing tenant rights and responsibilities that includes a summary of City of Saint Paul Chapter 193 (Tenant Protections).

(c) Online availability.  The Office will make the information packets and posters described in Sec. 193.02 available online.

(d) Non-English versions.  The poster and packet will be printed in English and any other languages that the department determines are needed to notify tenants of their rights under this chapter.

 

Sec. 193.03.                     Security deposits.

(a)  Limit on security deposit amount. No landlord shall demand, charge, accept, or retain from a tenant more than a single month’s rent as a security deposit.

(b)  Pre-paid rent limitation.  No landlord shall demand, charge, accept, or retain from a tenant pre-paid rent an amount that exceeds the equivalent of one month’s rent.  This provision should not be read to prohibit a landlord from demanding, charging, accepting, or retaining a security deposit, pet deposit, or application fees, pursuant to Sec. 54.03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.

(c) Governing law.  Any security deposit furnished herein shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 504B.178, together with this section.

 

Sec. 193.04.                      Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants.

(a) Screening criteria made available. Before accepting applications for rental housing, a landlord must provide written rental screening criteria to all applicants.

(b)  Uniform screening criteria. A landlord must apply uniform screening criteria and cannot disqualify an applicant for any of the following reasons:

(1)                      Criminal history.

a.                      Any arrest or charge that did not result in conviction of a crime;

b.                      Participation in or completion of a diversion or a deferral of judgment program, including but not limited to: pre-charge or pretrial diversion, stay of adjudication, continuance for dismissal, or a continuance without prosecution;

c.                      Any conviction that has been vacated or expunged;

d.                      Any conviction for a crime that is no longer illegal in the state of Minnesota;

e.                      Any conviction or any other determination or adjudication in the juvenile justice system, except under procedures pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260B.130.

f.                      A petty misdemeanor offense is not a criminal offense. For the purposes of this Chapter, a petty misdemeanor cannot be grounds for a denial;

g.                      Any misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor or felony conviction stemming from the following traffic offenses: reckless driving, driving without a license, driving with a suspended or revoked license, and DUI that did not result in additional charges for injury to a person;

h.                      Any conviction for misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offenses for which the dates of sentencing are older than three (3) years;

i.                      Except as indicated in paragraph (j) below, any criminal conviction for felony offenses for which the dates of sentencing are older than seven (7) years; however, a landlord may deny an applicant who has been convicted of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), or for those same offenses that mandate denial of tenancy in federally assisted housing subject to federal regulations, including but not limited to when any member of the household is subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program.

j.                      Any criminal conviction for the following felony offenses for which the dates of sentencing are older than ten (10) years: first-degree assault (Minnesota Statutes section 609.221), first-degree arson (Minnesota Statutes section 609.561), or aggravated robbery (Minnesota Statutes section 609.245), first-degree murder (Minnesota Statutes section 609.185), second-degree murder (Minnesota Statutes section 609.19), third-degree murder (Minnesota Statutes 609.195), first-degree manslaughter (Minnesota Statutes 609.20, subds. 1, 2, and 5), kidnapping (Minnesota Statutes section 609.25, subd. 2(2)), or first-degree criminal sexual conduct (Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subds. 1(b) and (g)).

(2) Credit history.

a.                      Credit score by itself; however, a landlord may use credit report information to the extent the report demonstrates a failure to pay rent or utility bills; or

b.                      Insufficient credit history, unless the applicant in bad faith withholds credit history information that might otherwise form a basis for denial.

(3) Rental history.

a.                      An eviction action pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 504B or other equivalents in other states if the action occurred three (3) or more years before the applicant submits the application; however, eviction actions resulting in a judgment against the tenant may be used to disqualify a tenant if such judgment occurred in the three years prior to the application; 

b.                      Insufficient rental history, unless the applicant in bad faith withholds rental history information that might otherwise form a basis for denial.

c.                      If a landlord uses a minimum income test requiring an income equal to two and half (2.5) times the rent or higher, the landlord must allow an exception to that test where the applicant can demonstrate a history of successful rent payment with an income less than two and a half (2.5) times the rent.

d.                      Exception.  Whenever local, state, or federal funding or loan requirements for tenant screening conflict with any portion of section Sec. 193.04, the funding or loan requirements will take precedence over only those portions in conflict.

Sec. 193.05.                      Just cause notice for tenants.

(a)                     Just cause notice. A landlord must may not issue a notice terminating tenancy unless the landlord is able to establish one or more of the following grounds:

(1)                     Non-payment of rent. The tenant fails to Cure the Deficiency after receiving a non-payment notice from the landlord, and the landlord does not pursue a valid non-payment eviction action under Minn. Stat. § 504B.291, subd. 1(a), but decides to terminate tenancy at the end of the lease.

 

(2)                     Repeated late payment of rent. The tenant repeatedly makes late payments of rent, no fewer than five times in a 12-month period. The landlord must provide the tenant with notice following a late payment that a subsequent late payment may be grounds for termination of tenancy. If the tenant continues to make a late payment on no fewer than five occasions per year, the landlord must give the tenant notice to vacate at least equal to the notice period outlined in the original lease agreement terms.

 

(3)                     Material non-compliance. After receiving a written notice to cease from the landlord, the tenant continues, or fails to Cure the Deficiency, to a material breach of the lease. This subsection shall not diminish the rights of a landlord, if any, to terminate a lease for actions permitted under Minn. Stat. § 504B.281, et seq.  

 

(4)                     Refusal to renew. The tenant refuses to renew or extend the lease within fifteen to thirty days after the landlord requests in writing, after the lease expires, that the tenant do so. The landlord shall give the tenant notice to vacate at least equal to the notice period outlined in the original lease agreement terms following the tenant’s refusal to renew or extend the lease.

 

(5)                     Occupancy by property owner or family member. The property owner, in good faith, seeks to recover possession of the dwelling unit so that the property owner or a family member may occupy the unit as that person’s principal residence. The property owner or family member must move into the unit within 90 days from the tenant’s vacation. If a substantially equivalent replacement unit is vacant and available, that unit must be made available to the tenant at a substantially similar rental rate as the tenant’s current lease.

 

(6)                     Building demolishment and dwelling unit conversion. The landlord (i) elects to demolish the building, convert it to a cooperative provided the landlord complies with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 515B, or convert it to nonresidential use; provided that, the landlord must obtain a permit necessary to demolish or change the use before terminating any tenancy, or (ii) the landlord seeks, in good faith, to recover the unit to sell it in accordance with a condominium conversion, provided the landlord complies with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 515B, or (iii) the dwelling unit is being converted to a unit subsidized under a local, state or federal housing program and the tenant does not qualify to rent the unit under that program.

 

(7)                     Rehab and renovation. The landlord seeks, in good faith, to recover possession of the dwelling unit that will render the unit uninhabitable for the duration of the rehabilitation or renovation. The landlord must provide 90 days’ written notice to the tenant, and shall provide Relocation Assistance to the tenant upon delivery of the written notice. If a substantially equivalent replacement unit is vacant and available in the building, that unit may be made available to the tenant at a substantially similar rental rate as the tenant’s current lease.

 

(8)                     Complying with a government order to vacate. The landlord is complying with a government agency’s order to vacate, order to abate, or any other order that necessitates the vacating of the dwelling unit as a result of a violation of Saint Paul city codes or any other provision of law.

 

(9)                     Occupancy conditioned on employment. The tenant’s occupancy is conditioned upon employment on the property and the employment relationship is terminated.

 

(10)                     Exceeding occupancy. Tenant exceeds the occupancy standards under City of Saint Paul Code 34.13, except for that no tenant may be evicted, denied a continuing tenancy, or denied a renewal of a lease on the basis of familial status commenced during the tenancy unless one year has elapsed from the commencement of the familial status and the landlord has given the tenant six months prior notice in writing, except in case of nonpayment of rent, damage to the premises, disturbance of other tenants, or other breach of the lease.  Any provision, whether oral or written, of any lease or other agreement, whereby any provision of this section is waived by a tenant, is contrary to public policy and void.

 

(b)                     Landlord responsibilities.  All residential tenant leases, except for state licensed residential facilities and subject to all preemptory state and federal laws, shall include the following Just Cause Notice language:

The landlord under this lease shall not terminate or attempt to terminate the tenancy of any tenant unless the landlord can prove in court that just cause exists. The reasons for termination of tenancy listed in the City of Saint Paul’s Just Cause Notice (Sec. 193.05), and no others, shall constitute just cause under this provision.

(c)                      Application.  This section applies to every lease, written or oral.

(d)                      Notice requirements. With any termination notices required by law, landlords terminating any tenancy protected by this Chapter shall advise the affected tenant or tenants in writing of the reasons for the termination and the facts in support of those reasons.

 

Sec. 193.06.                      Advance notice of sale (of affordable housing).

(a)                     Notice of proposed sale. Any owner or representative of the owner who intends to make available for sale any affordable housing building shall notify the Director of the Department of Planning and Economic Development. The notice shall be on a form prescribed by the city stating the owner's intent to make available for sale the affordable housing building and which may include, at the city's sole discretion, some or all of the following information:

(1)                     Owner’s name, phone number, and mailing address;

(2)                     Address of the affordable housing building that will be made available for sale;

(3)                     Total number of dwelling units in the building; and

(4)                     Number and type (e.g., efficiency, one bedroom, two bedrooms, etc.) of affordable housing dwelling units in the building and the contract rent for every dwelling unit in the building.

(b)                     Manner and timing of notice.  The notice shall be mailed, or hand delivered to the Director of the Department of Planning and Economic Development no later than ninety (90) days prior to the affordable housing building being made available for sale. The notice shall also be delivered directly to all affected tenants and include the following language requirement: “This is important information about your housing. If you do not understand it, have someone translate it for you now, or request a translation from your landlord.” This advisory must be stated in the notice in the following languages: English, Spanish, Somali, Karen, and Hmong. This notice shall be delivered to all affected tenants no later than ninety (90) days prior to the affordable housing building being made available for sale. Upon request by the tenant, the owner must provide a written translation of the notice into the tenant’s preferred language of ones listed above.

(c)                     Exclusions.  This section shall not apply to the sale of transfer of title of an affordable housing building already subject to federal, state, or local rent or income restrictions that continue to remain in effect after the sale or transfer.

Sec 193.07                      Relocation Assistance. 

(a)                     Relocation Assistance required. If, during the tenant protection period provided in 193.08(b), the new owner of an affordable housing building terminates or refuses to renew any affordable housing dwelling unit tenant's rental agreement without cause, then the new owner shall pay Relocation Assistance.

(b)                     Relocation Assistance upon written notice of termination. If, during the tenant protection period provided in 193.08(b), the new owner of an affordable housing building raises any affordable housing dwelling unit tenant's rent, or rescreens  an existing affordable housing dwelling unit tenant, and the tenant or new owner delivers written notice to terminate the rental agreement because the new owner has determined that tenant does not meet the new screening criteria, the new owner, shall within thirty (30) days of receiving or delivering written notice of termination of the rental agreement, pay relocation assistance  to the tenant.

Sec 193.08                     Notice of sale (of affordable housing).

(a)                     Written notice required. When a transfer of ownership occurs, the new owner shall, within thirty (30) days of acquiring ownership of the property, deliver written notice to each affordable housing dwelling unit tenant of the building that the property is under new ownership and all of the following information:

(1)                     Name, phone number, and mailing address of the new owner.

(2)                     The following statement: "Saint Paul Code of Ordinances Sec. 193.08 provides for a ninety (90) day tenant protection period for affordable housing dwelling unit tenants. Under Sec. 193.07, an affordable housing dwelling unit tenant may be entitled to relocation assistance from the new owner if the new owner terminates or does not renew (pursuant to the City of Saint Paul Just Cause Notice) the tenant's rental agreement without cause within the ninety (90) day tenant protection period following delivery of this notice. Affordable housing unit tenants may also be entitled to relocation assistance from the new owner if the owner raises the rent or initiates a tenant screening process within the tenant protection period and the tenant terminates their rental agreement.”

(3)                     Whether there will be any rent increase within the ninety (90) day tenant protection period with the amount of the rent increase and the date the rent increase will take effect.

(4)                     Whether the new owner will require existing affordable housing dwelling unit tenants to be rescreened to determine compliance with existing or modified residency screening criteria (pursuant to Sec. 193.04) during the ninety (90) day tenant protection period and, if so, a copy of the screening criteria.

(5)                     Whether the new owner will terminate or not renew rental agreements without cause during the ninety (90) day tenant protection period and, if so, notice to the affected affordable housing dwelling unit tenants whose rental agreements will terminate and the date the rental agreements will terminate.

(6)                     Whether, on the day immediately following the tenant protection period, the new owner intends to increase rent, require existing affordable housing dwelling unit tenants to be rescreened to determine compliance with existing or modified residency screening criteria, or terminate or not renew affordable housing dwelling unit rental agreements without cause.

(b)                     Tenant Protection Period.  The Tenant Protection Period commences with the transfer of ownership of an affordable housing building and runs through the end of the ninety (90) calendar days following the month in which written notice of sale is delivered to each affordable housing dwelling unit tenant pursuant to this Section. 

(c)                     Delivery of notice to Department of Safety and Inspections.  This same written notice shall be furnished to the Director of the Department of Safety and Inspections at the same time notice is delivered to tenants. The new owner or representative of the new owner of an affordable housing building shall not terminate or not renew a tenant's rental agreement without cause, raise rent, or rescreen existing tenants during the tenant protection period without providing the notices required by this section. The notice shall also include the following language requirement: “This is important information about your housing. If you do not understand it, have someone translate it for you now, or request a translation from your landlord.”  This advisory must be stated in the notice in the following languages: Spanish, Somali, Karen, and Hmong. Upon request by the tenant, the owner must provide a written translation of the notice into the tenant’s preferred language of ones listed above.

Sec. 193.09                     Enforcement, penalties, and prohibitions.

(a) Private right of action created Penalties for violation. In addition to any other remedy available at equity or law, failure   Failure to comply with the provisions of this Chapter may result in criminal prosecution, and/or administrative fines and restrictions.  In addition, Aany tenant aggrieved by a landlord’s noncompliance with this Chapter may seek redress in any court of competent jurisdiction to the extent permitted by law. 

(b)                     Damages for violation of 193.05, Just Cause. A landlord who terminates a tenancy using a notice which references Sec. 193.05 as the ground for termination of tenancy, without fulfilling or carrying out the stated reason for or condition justifying the termination of such tenancy, shall be liable to such tenant in a private right for action for damages equal to relocation costs under Sec. 193.07(b), costs of suit or arbitration, and reasonable attorney's fees.

(c)                     Administrative fines and notice requirement for violation of 193.08, Notice of Sale.  A violation of Sec. 193.08 as to each affordable housing dwelling unit shall constitute a separate offense.  A notice of violation shall not be required in order to establish or enforce a violation of the section. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, the administrative fine for a violation of Sec 193.08 shall be the sum of the applicable amount of Relocation Assistance.  Within thirty (35) days after receipt of this money by the City, the City shall pay to the displaced tenant of the affordable housing dwelling unit for which the violation occurred an amount equal to the Relocation Assistance as defined by this Chapter.

(d)                     Prohibition of waiver.  Any lease provision which waives or purports to waive any right, benefit or entitlement created in this Chapter shall be deemed void and of no lawful force or effect.

(e)                     ‘No just cause’ as lawful defense.  In any action commenced to non-renew or to otherwise terminate the tenancy of any tenant, it shall be a defense to the action that there was no just cause for such non-renewal of lease or termination as required in this Section.

(f)                     Mutual termination.  This Section does not preclude a landlord and tenant from agreeing to a mutual termination.

 

 

 

SECTION 3

This Ordinance will take effect and be in force on January 1, 2021 following its passage, approval, and publication.

 

Sec 193.10   Effective date.

This chapter shall become effective on January 1, 2021.

 

 

Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
3/29/2020 9:45 PMJasmine Parker  For Im for the change . We need more stability and access to safe housing systems. Not just with new housing developments but with the current available housing as well. The rent needs to be capped based off of the geometric location as well. Inner city renters paying suburban prices for rent. Rent spiking up due to the economy falling. .. We are the people. Hard everyday working people still stuck in the struggle because of the systemic deprivations we've already been subjected to. Less fortunate communities need to be protected from homeless as well.
3/25/2020 9:42 PMTram For Currently, countless renters are barred from housing because of discriminatory screening practices and high security deposits that further harm communities of color who have already suffered disparate policing and incarceration, as well as economic marginalization. What is clear is that housing is a public health issue. Increased housing stability for St Paul residents is crucial in creating safe and thriving communities, and that only happens when we increase access to homes through systemic changes like these ordinances. As a renter, I fully support these ordinances. I don't fall for the fear-mongering narrative that's supposed to scare me into denying housing to my fellow community members. I believe that everyone should have a chance to access housing - especially those who have previously been evicted, don't have a strong credit history, or have served their time. If tenants don't follow the rules of the lease, the formal eviction process is still 100% in play. -1
3/25/2020 12:34 AMBen W For Renters need more protections! Landlords shouldn't be getting rich by exploiting poor people. +1
3/23/2020 6:21 PM    Are you guys nuts -1
3/21/2020 11:43 PMEric L Against DO A CITY’S WELL-INTENTIONED ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? Locally, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been spent on lawsuits in which courts have said, “No.” //// EXAMPLE #1: Requirements that landlords distribute voter information to tenants. Excerpts from the Court's decision: “… the government is ‘putting particular messages in the mouths of private speakers,’ namely, unwilling speakers. … The Court recognizes Defendants’ laudable goal of encouraging participation in such a fundamental practice of our democracy as voting. But this goal cannot be achieved by the unconstitutional means of compelled speech. … Defendant City of Saint Paul is Permanently Enjoined from enforcing Saint Paul, Minn., Code of Ordinances ch. 48, Sec 48.02.” //// EXAMPLE #2: City of St Paul's denial of voters’ sufficient petition for a referendum on coordinated collection of trash. MN Supreme Court decision, “Put it on the ballot.” //// City leaders should listen to all stakeholders - Not a select few. +1
3/21/2020 2:55 PMMelissa Wenzel For We all appreciate landlords wanting to have rights to protect themselves from bad tenants. However, landlords ALREADY HAVE a lot of protection and ways they can take actions, illegally. What we're concerned about is discrimination and illegal activity taken on behalf of tenants, which happens with enough frequency to require p***ing ordinances like this in the first place. Over half of our city population are renters, which means over half of our population is paying property taxes and mortgage through their rent. Many renters want a stable home and a stable life, so they can provide for themselves and their family. Providing more security and safeguards for renters (preventing discrimination, unreasonable damage deposits, etc) will provide for more stable housing opportunities for many. Laws already exist for landlords to take action on the minority of renters cause problems for them. But keeping inconsistent and restrictive requirements on renters does very little good for anyone. +1
3/18/2020 4:59 PMAlyssa Against As a small landlord in St. Paul, we bear the burden of policies like this. Rents at my fourplex are affordable (50-60% AMI). The reason I have raised the rent in the past few years has been due to the fact my property taxes have gone up no less than 15% yearly over the past 5 years and our garbage bill quadrupled with the new trash collection service. Margins are thinner than you’d think for most landlords, so increased costs impact affordable rent. I understand there are bad eggs in this business like every business. Please don't limit our ability to screen tenants based on factual criteria. Consider incentivizing landlords (especially landlords with over 250 doors) to help solve the problem of affordability and finding a safe place for everyone to live. Small landlords provide a significant amount of affordable housing in the city. You will push away these types of owners with policies like this resulting in making housing less affordable not more. +3
3/17/2020 6:24 PMTerry King   There's been no community engagements and discussions on this ordinance from City Councils. How and when is it ok for the City to mandate Sexual Predators and Murderers to live next door to me. I am an extremely concerned single mother of 3. City Councils should be ashamed of yourselves to try and p*** an ordinance without engaging with your constituents. +2
3/15/2020 4:59 AM  Against I searched years for an apartment that I could afford and where I felt safe. I've lived in an owner occupied 4-plex on the West Side for the better part of two decades. I've been a renter for more than 30 years. I'm appalled at what the City Council is trying to p*** as "Tenant Protections." I sincerely hope the Council will act in the best interests of tenant protection by not stripping away the rights of responsible landlords to manage their properties in the best interests of community. +4 -1
3/14/2020 6:49 PMBetsy Mowry Voss For I've heard so MANY illegal and unethical actions against renters,it’s sickening.There may be honest landlords-but the immoral make ordinances a necessity. Villages on McKnight was purchased by Bigos, and at least 2 seniors had to put down 6 MONTHS of rent to stay in their units; a separate renter was reqd to put down first+last months rent, PLUS a deposit; another was given 30 days to find a new home when his bldg. sold(which he was unaware of); another has had basement mold in her townhome for 2+ yrs; in another, women were being sexually preyed on by the mngr, or risk losing their home. We also know that landlords don’t clearly share rental requirements, and they accept high app. and “admin” fees for people they know they’re not going to take. Laws are needed because of the unethical landlords conducting business illegally and acting predatorily. Owners and landlords-start demanding greater accountability and ethics in your industry! +3 -1
3/13/2020 9:38 PMBarb Lager Against My husband and I own rental properties. After reading this ordinance which deeply effects our choices, our responsibilities and finances. I was wondering where are the landlord's rights? Why were we not notify? Please do not p*** this ordinance. +4 -1 1
3/13/2020 8:27 PMRamsey Against As a renter I feel unsafe with the bill that up. I am drawn to move to an owner occupied plex on west side because I know the owners care about their tenants and it is a safe haven for those like myself. I know they care about the condition of the property. They live there and make it a safe community in which to live. The bill is completing unfair and makes me as a renter feel unsafe. It feels like an abuse of power when the only people who should have a say in who lives on their property is the owners of that property. I would say no and please stay in your lane and respect what rentals owners have spent years building and providing excellent housing. +5
3/13/2020 7:02 PMEllen Against As a 26 year resident, parent and grandparent, I am not in agreement with the proposed changes. I think the property owner should have the ability to not re-rent to a tenant at the end of the lease without penalty. I also believe the property owner has the right to determine if they rent to a newly released criminal who was in prison due to one of the listed convictions. Past behavior is often a predictor of future behavior. Safety in our community is a real priority and concern. +5 -1
3/13/2020 7:01 PMDanette Lincoln Against I would also recommend slowing this process down to allow for thoughtful deliberation and input on these ordinances. There is no rush. Let's get it right. Also, the public hearing is a concern for me as the corona virus makes it way through the community. I believe it is in the public interest to push the public hearing to a later date not only for the safety and health of attendees and council members, but so the virus will not become a barrier to those who'd like to address the council in person regarding these ordinances. +4
3/13/2020 6:27 PMDanette Lincoln Against Although I believe tenants should have rights, the landlord has rights as well. I believe many of the proposed ordinances are an over reach of government and which only apply to certain sectors of landlords. Developers of market rate housing will not feel the impact of these ordinances as they have rental prices well beyond the reach of the people these ordinances are intended to protect. Gentrification in Ward 4 is happening with the approval of City Council. Single family homes on Marshall are being demolished to make way for higher density apartments at market rate. Additional market rate apartments are going up on University, Snelling, Dayton, St. Clair. None of it "affordable housing". Yet those landlords that do serve the community with lower rents are being held to account for the city's lack of planning, gentrification, displacement policies by taking away certain landlords' rights to make a determination on who gets the responsibility of taking care of their property. +4
3/11/2020 8:49 PMCharles Borden Against These ordinances will actually decrease safe & affordable housing in St Paul. The notification & procedural requirements for every single rental turnover will create overwhelming financial & time costs. The provisions requiring proof of “just cause,” & compensation for evictees are onerous. The restrictions on screening tenants block our ability to provide tenant safety. But then the ordinance imposes crushing procedures for buying & selling buildings with additional penalties & potential prosecutions? Stop! Please slow down this process long enough to get some common sense input. No renter or property owner who truly understands it would support it. 25 years ago my wife & chose a life of living in & providing affordable housing in the inner city. This is the first time that we’ve ever thought about selling & leaving Saint Paul. +11 -1
3/11/2020 8:15 PMG Brooks Against I live on the West Side and have rented for 25 years. I think this ordinance is an extreme overstretch (not a first for this council!) and threatens to raise my rent to unsustainable levels (for me). How many landlords, or tenants for that matter, have you interviewed regarding this ordinance?? Like many of the councils recent decisions, I'm concerned that this, too, will have unexpected (at least by the council) consequences that will make life more expensive for many and be difficult to come back from. Please pull your head out and come up for air !! +14 -2
3/11/2020 6:41 PMBob B   MPLS and St. Paul do not exist in a rental market vacuum; i.e. people are free to move about the metro area, state and nation. Everything that is being proposed will have the opposite effect of affordable housing, these proposals will drive rents up. +7 -1
3/11/2020 4:30 PMTim Wheeler Against Property owners should have more of a say about this issue. Gather your input then show the science behind the decision that would justify this move. Tenants families and children's safety are more important than the speed of this process surely? +9 -1
3/11/2020 3:36 PMTou H Against As a property owner within district 2, Ward 6, I am greatly concern if this ordinance p***es. I believe housing is a universal basic human need, and we all should have access to safe and affordable housing. While the overall ordinance's intention is to meet these basic housing needs, some of the language within the provision is concerning. Instead of taking a "one size fit all approach" to restrict landlord ability to mitigate risk, counsel member should reconsider p***ing the ordinance until all unintended consequences are considered from both renters, landlords, and residents of St Paul. If the ordinance p***es, I have no choice but to sell my property. While selling my property may not have a large implication to the community, if other homeowners and property owners within the city liquidates their properties as a result of the ordinance, this will cause a major wave of unstable housing and increased rents to the most vulnerable residents of St Paul. +8 -1
3/11/2020 2:51 PMBob B   MPLS and St. Paul do not exist in a rental market vacuum; i.e. people are free to move about the metro area, state and nation. Everything that is being proposed will have the opposite effect of affordable housing, these proposals will drive rents up. +6 -1
3/11/2020 8:36 AMTopper Against Abandon this STICK and find some CARROTS. +11 -2
3/11/2020 5:20 AMMeng Her Against I have just finished reading the whole chapter and section of this proposed tenant protection ordinance; although for a very noble cause, I am against this Ordinance 20-14. I will be a resident of Saint Paul shortly and I sure"DO NOT" want my safety and my rent increase due to the stipulation of this ordinance. This ordinance defeats the purpose of housing affordability. Just watched a do***entary on the Seattle rent crises and if that's the Road the Leaders of Saint paul wants us to go then so be it. I Fully support tenant protection right because there are bad and discriminatory landlords out there, but that shouldn't be an excuse to gun down all landlord. Leave the transaction and ramification to the people that sign the contract when renting. These choices are purely and consciously agreed upon by two parties that have their own rights. And if the legal matters are of that concern there are proper channels to consult. This ordinance will hurt both Landlord and renter in STP. +13 -1
3/11/2020 5:15 AMMai Bao Xiong  Against As law abiding, hard working individual that have worked tremendously to provide for my family and purchase my home. My home, safety, piece of mind has been taken away from me at no fault of mine with these ordinances I am frantically considering selling and moving out of Saint Paul completely. Sadly, my home is surrounded by numerous commercial apartments that are currently well maintained . With these new ordinances taking away the ability to properly screen and make decisions based on safety for the greater community my family no longer are safe . I have four small children under the age of 10. This will not only affect my family but all my neighbors whom are proud home owners. Our kids will no longer be able to play in our own yard due to safety! +11 -1
3/11/2020 4:20 AMTony Against This is not fair for the rest of Saint Paul, for you have wrongfully made a bad decision based off of less than 100 peoples opinions. I'm a young investor living here in Saint Paul, and I wanted to reinvest money back into my city so I can say that I've helped my own city by providing families with a place to stay. I am now reconsidering this because of these new ordinance laws that are being pushed to p***. Please consider the views of both the renters and landlords. Preventing landlords to conduct credit checks, running criminal background checks, and etc. just doesn't make any sense at all. How do we determine where to draw the line for our renters? These decisions will draw away investors, and local investors will spend their money else where. The prices of rent will go up for liability reasons to protect the property if renters choose to neglect it. This is just beyond me that something like this is really going to happen. Please take our words into consideration! +9 -1
3/11/2020 3:32 AMAdam J Wiensch Against The tenant nonrenewal exception to the just cause requirement does not make sense. The language “after the lease expires” doesn’t make sense. It refers to the time when the landlord requests in writing that the tenant renew or extend the lease. I cannot imagine a cir***stance when a landlord would wait until after the lease expires to first offer to renew a tenant. +6
3/11/2020 3:29 AMAdam J Wiensch Against The time period for being able to include a criminal conviction in your screening analysis is based on the time from the “dates (sic) of sentencing.” Sentincing is the date when the sentence is handed down by the judge. In the case of serious crimes the sentence will often be longer than the permissible time period for inclusion of the criminal conviction in your screening process. Example: an individual murders his landlord and burns down the duplex he lives in because the landlord filed to evict the tenant for nonpayment of rent. Sentenced to and serves 10 years. The proposed ordinance prohibits you from refusing to rent to the murderer/arsonist the day after he leaves prison. If you mean for the time period to run from the end of a person's sentence you should say so. +8 -1
3/11/2020 3:23 AMAdam J Wiensch Against I am confused by the credit history language. 193.04(b)(2) says a landlord cannot disqualify an applicant for . . . “Credit score by itself; however, a landlord may use credit report information to the extent the report demonstrates a failure to pay rent or utility bills.” The language about failure to pay rent or utility bills makes no sense. The word “however” implies that what comes next is an exception to the just stated general rule about credit score. But no person would think that a statement that you cannot use credit score by itself could ever mean you could not use the substantive information in the credit report itself. What is the reason for this extra language? +6
3/11/2020 3:21 AM  Against This ordinance is most likely to discourage construction of lower-end market rate housing. +8 -1
3/11/2020 3:21 AMAdam J Wiensch Against I am confused by the credit history language. 193.04(b)(2) says a landlord cannot disqualify an applicant for . . . “Credit score by itself; however, a landlord may use credit report information to the extent the report demonstrates a failure to pay rent or utility bills.” The part about not using a credit score “by itself” is clear. It means that you cannot have an application criterion that says that you must have a credit score of at least X. Implicit in this provision is that you can use a credit score in conjunction with other factors. Whether this means other unrelated criteria or other information from the credit report is unclear. +3
3/11/2020 1:55 AMJeffery T Against Tennant and community safety is very important. Please continue to allow landlords to do background checks. +10 -1
3/11/2020 12:52 AMTeng Against According your Tenant Protections Engagement Policy Report August 2019, you had a total of 186 participants - 98 individuals in one session, another 71 additional participants in another session (could be the same individuals from the first session), and then 17 property managers and staff. According to the U.S. Census, as of July 1, 2019, the estimated St. Paul population is 307,695. Let's go with the highest number - 186. You engaged 186 participants, which is 6% of the population and created a tenants ordinance over it. If we want to play dirty, we can also take 186 landlords and create a landlord ordinance to make evictions faster, make it harder for bad tenants to find a place to live etc etc. City council members -- your data is invalid! Caught you playing dirty!!!! +8 -2
3/10/2020 11:56 PMMary Vang Against This ordinance is taking screening rights away from landlords, forcing them to make poor decisions, putting them at financial and legal risks and putting their tenants at safety risks. Please also put into considerations the smaller landlords, like myself, who cannot afford any financial or legal risks. As we've seen in Minneapolis, Seattle and other places with tenant screening ordinances, rents have skyrocketed. If your ultimate goal is affordable housing, this has proven not to be effective. Just like the trash issue, this ordinance was going to p*** before I even became aware of it. We need transparency and trust with the leaders in our city! I urge all city council members to work with landlords and tenants to come up with better solutions. +9 -1
3/10/2020 10:28 PMJamie Hendricks Against This ordinance would affect whole communities, from renters, to homeowners, to sellers, and buyers. Tenant protections should include those who wish to keep their families safe. These decisions need broader community input. +10 -1
3/10/2020 7:37 PMDaniel Ph.  For I think this ordinance is a good start to making housing more secure in St. Paul. We desperately need to move away from market based housing and towards a more socialized structure. The first step in that is limiting landlord’s ability to summarily kick tenants out of their (the tenant’s) home. I would love to see this ordinance go even further in extending notice of sale and relocation ***istance protections to all tenants. Not just those in affordable housing. I would also love to see a provision for a right of first refusal for tenants to have a chance to buy their home or have a proxy such as a Community Land Trust do it for them. +7 -17 1
3/10/2020 6:19 PMChue Against This ordinance does not take the safety of other renters and neighbors in the area into consideration. This policy also force landlords to take on more risks of getting sued for negligence, if the renter with a known criminal behavior, causes harm or sexually ***aults other renters in the building or the neighbors that live in the area. +9 -1
3/10/2020 5:19 PMTou Fang Against 1. The study sited for this ordinance is flawed. It only have 98 participants out of the 304,442 in Saint Paul, which is 0.03%. That sample size is hardly a representation of the city. https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Mayor%27s%20Office/Fair%20Housing%20Convenings%20Report%20Aug%202019.pdf 2. (Sec. 193.03. Security deposits) Security Deposit is a risk mitigation tool. If landlords are not allow to mitigate risk through security deposits, landlords will be forced to mitigate that risk through the rent. The tenants will end up paying for this through increase rent. YES, rent will increase. 3. (Sec. 193.04. Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants) Loose guidelines will create unsafe environment to other tenants and/or neighbors. 4. (Sec. 193.06. Advance notice of sale (of affordable housing)) 90 Days restrictions will reduce property values. There is also a cost to this, which will again increase rent. Tenants end up paying for this again. +13 -2 1
3/10/2020 3:52 PMBruce Clark   Unbelievable! When the Council next asks "why isn't there more affordable housing in St. Paul?" perhaps somebody will hold up this proposed ordinance as an example of politicians who (apparently) have never owned rental property and had to deal with dead beat and destructive tenants. The organizations lobbying for this also probably have leaders who have no direct experience dealing with those kind of tenants either. Micromanage another industry that you know nothing about (as you did with the trash collection issue), but don't be surprised by the unintended consequences of another short-sighted "do-gooder" ordinance. +14
3/10/2020 1:39 PMFong    Before you p*** this ordinance, I'm asking that you have more community engagement to see if the whole community agrees with this or if it's just a select few. I feel as if you City Councils are rushing to push this through as fast as possible so those who are looking for open dialogue cannot react in time. Your actions will result in higher rents over all should the Ordinance p***. How? Property Owners are small business owners, and they will adjust their pricing to cover the risk of loss, evictions, and court fee's and liabilities. The Ordinance if p***ed will also result in more oversight from the City. This will require more employees to run and oversee the program, resulting in higher property taxes to compensate for the additional employees, and in the end resulting in higher rents. Instead of shutting down dialogue with your constituents who are concerned, I'm asking that you as City Councils open up dialogue so we can all find a bi-lateral Ordinance that makes sense for all. +12
3/10/2020 2:00 AMAlisa Lein Against Please hit the pause ****on on this ordinance. Sure, you have to start somewhere, but you don't have to p*** these mandated rules so quickly after drafting up the ordinance. Now, engage in thoughtful dialogue with the public, landlords, tenants, etc and use the drafted wording now as your starting point. Don't p*** an ordinance just because on it's face "it sounds good". Do it right and do it fair. Don't ***ume changes to wording will happen later. Let's not relive the organized trash unintended consequences drama because "oops, we forgot about XYZ". We have all been there and this is headed quickly down the exact same path. We all want St. Paul to thrive, businesses to be successful, and people to have a place they call home. The ordinance as written will go against all of those things and it will do more harm than good to tenants and landlords. St. Paul landlords need flexibility, not negative mandated rules on how to run their business. +12 -1
3/9/2020 11:10 PMScott Hesselgrave Against This type of legislation will lead to disintegration of affordable and well maintained rental housing. Screening processes are proven boundaries which protect all residents from unsafe prospective neighbors within their secure environments, as well as protecting them from excessive rent increases which inevitably occur whenever government inflicts additional expenses and controls. I've kept my Eastside rents as much as $200/month under market value for 20 years. If this p***es, I won't sell nor move, I'll find another use for the property, which will end its 90 year history as affordable housing. As mentioned in other objections, this legislation is an egregious overreach akin to weaponized eminent domain, sold pseudo altruistically as tenant protection, which we as private landlords are only empowered to truly do ourselves with our own rules, legal boundaries and vetting... screening. Please don't do this to our city. You're driving private equity and affordable housing away. +10
3/9/2020 10:59 PM    This type of legislation will lead to disintegration of affordable and well maintained rental housing. Screening processes are proven boundaries which protect all residents from unsafe prospective neighbors within their secure environments, as well as protecting them from excessive rent increases which inevitably occur whenever government inflicts additional expenses and controls. I've kept my Eastside rents as much as $200/month under market value for 20 years. If this p***es, I won't sell nor move, I'll find another use for the property, which will end its 90 year history as affordable housing. As mentioned in other objections, this legislation is an egregious overreach akin to weaponized eminent domain, sold pseudo altruistically as trenchant protection. Please don't do this to our city. +6
3/9/2020 7:30 PMRobert For Thanks for introducing something that will help protect renters against screening that isn't based on science and instead on prejudices. These screening practices result in many people being unable to find housing at all and I hope this will help to maintain housing stability for renters. +8 -14 1
3/8/2020 8:36 AMEric Lein Against I echo the concerns submitted by Bill Bisanz of Real Estate Equities in his letter dated March 4, 2020 (one of the attachments to this file). My abbreviated statement of opposition distills down to the view that this ordinance constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation by the government to thousands of St. Paul property owners. For example: The proposed "just cause" lease termination restrictions dictate control of supposedly-private business transactions in which tenants can terminate leases for any reason, or for no reason; meanwhile, landlords are to be locked in to the mandated one-sided perpetual contracts until such time as fully-compliant (no problems) tenants agree to terminate their leases after landlords offer them big dollars to vacate their apartments -- all with ZERO compensation by the government to the landlord. As I see it, ORD 20-14 looks like Eminent Domain and Rent Control disguised as "tenant protection." +14 -1 1
3/8/2020 7:56 AMYer Against Sounds to me these cm are trying to push out privatization of rental real estate. Why are you doing that? If you get rid of all the private owners are you willing to lose millions in property tax revenue that you’ve been using to fund your housing and other social programs? What kind of Trojan horse is this? +7
3/8/2020 3:37 AMLori N Purdy Against Approval needs to be delayed until the kinks can be worked out of the proposed ordinances. According to Ord 20-14, Sec. 193.05(a)(7), I will have to pay $4050.00 to my existing tenant 90 days prior to the end of their lease term if I don't offer them a lease renewal & they don't want to move because I need/want to do renovations to their 2 bedroom unit that require it to be unoccupied. Do you follow? If I, the property owner, want/need to do work to a 2 bedroom unit that requires it to be unoccupied (i.e. bathroom remodel on only bathroom), but the tenant does not want to move at the end of their lease, I have to give them $4050 for "Relocation ***istance". It contradicts to monetarily penalize (Relocation ***istance) a landlord for maintaining their property while at the same time penalizing them for not maintaining their property (i.e. revoked Cert of Occupancy from the Department of Safety and Inspections). Alternative solutions to the city's housing problems need to be explored. +9
3/7/2020 3:11 PM5 Against My father is landlord of 2 properties on the east side, who rents out to section 8, and low income families. He has taken a chance on many people and has been blessed and burned on mulitple occasions. My concern is that with these new ordinances you are taking away a the choice landlord have with their own properties. Which I believe is a huge overstep. I believe this will only encourage many small businesses to sell, which will bring in large companies to buy. Which will then result in higher rents. Please do you due diligence to look into rent prices in Minneapolis and Seattle. They're rediculously high. Also, listen to your constituents, it seems like the people have lost their voice in todays government. We're trying to give you our opinions. People can't afford higher rents. +11
3/7/2020 12:32 AMDiane schray Against I've sent numerous emails to several CM. I own 4 buildings that house 8 families with children. Many of my tenants are low income single moms on sect 8. I work with 2 investors who own 130 units. If this ordinance p***es as is without any provision for owner protection or benefits I will likely be selling my units and advising my clients and other numerous colleagues to do the same. In my little sphere alone that impacts 138 units housing low income tenants. The retail market is robust and nice duplexes are commanding premium prices. I will be moving my business to the suburbs away from this socialist regime and to greener pastures of the burbs. If I tell all my colleagues and they tell their colleagues to sell in response to this ridiculous punitive list of idiocy imagine how that impacts affordable housing. Even if owner occupants only occupy 50% of the sales you'll see a housing crisis of pandemic proportions as owner occupants aren't held to the same regulations as for profit owner +9
3/6/2020 10:46 PMRichelle Schenfeld Against We own 2 4 plexes on the West Side. My husband & I live in one & spent 22 years making them beautiful. We have wonderful tenants who pay $200-300 under market value. I don't check credit scores & have rented to many diverse groups, single moms & dads, couples & singles & given many people 2nd chances. These ordinances terrify us! We will definitely sell one building if these p*** or raise the rents significantly to reduce the # of inquiries (over 50 inquiries last vacancy) if you are to micromanage & control my choice as to who lives in my property. I have a responsibility to my other tenants & community! Huge property tax increases, trash & water costs are the biggest challenges to keep rents low. I was in the original 4D program 20 years ago but would never sign up for this one with the restrictions on selling my buildings which are my life savings & retirement. I see these ordinances ultimately resulting in rents going way up as landlords try to protect themselves & their tenants +13