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

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


Click here for full text
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. 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