Please note: this meeting's minutes have not been finalized yet. Actions taken on legislation and their results are not available. Details Meeting Name: City Council Agenda status: Final Meeting date/time: 5/13/2020 3:30 PM Minutes status: Draft   Meeting location: Council Chambers - 3rd Floor Please see below for new meeting guidelines due to the COVID-19 health pandemic emergency. Published agenda: Agenda Published minutes: Minutes   Meeting video: Video   Attachments: Meeting Items (15) Public Comments (141) 15 records Group Clear sorting Clear grouping Group by Type Group by Result Export Export to Excel Export to PDF Export to Word Show: Legislation only Legislation only All agenda items File # Ver. Agenda # Type Title Action Result Action Details Video RES 20-627 1 1 Resolution Approving the Memorandum of Agreement for the December 7, 2019 Wage Correction and 2020 Wage and Fringe Adjustment for the United Association Pipefitters Local No. 455.     Not available Not available RES 20-685 1 2 Resolution Establishing the rate of pay for the new classification of Aquatics and Special Services Program Supervisor in EG 09, SPSO.     Not available Not available RES 20-701 1 3 Resolution Approving the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Saint Paul and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 21 with respect to the Fire Supervisory Association Collective Bargaining Agreement to address out-of-title and overtime scheduling of Fire District Chiefs in the event of a third district.     Not available Not available RES 20-715 1 4 Resolution Approving the Memorandum of Agreement for the 2020 Wage and Fringe Adjustment for the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association, Local 633.     Not available Not available RES 20-716 1 5 Resolution Approving the Memorandum of Agreement for the 2020 Wage and Fringe Adjustment for the Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local Union 1 Minnesota/North Dakota.     Not available Not available RES 20-676 1 6 Resolution Authorizing the Department of Parks and Recreation to donate potted plants from the Como Zoo and Conservatory to the Minnesota State Fair that would otherwise go to waste as a result of COVID-19.     Not available Not available RES 20-650 1 7 Resolution Approving the application with conditions, per the Deputy Legislative Hearing Officer, for Liquor On Sale - 291 or more seats, Liquor On Sale - Sunday, and Entertainment (B) license(s) for The Essence Event Center Inc, d/b/a The Essence Event Center (License ID # 20200000193) at 1217 Bandana Boulevard North.     Not available Not available RES 20-464 1 9 Resolution Opposing deportations of refugees.     Not available Not available SR 20-44 1 8 Staff Report Staff report from the Administration.     Not available Video RES PH 20-105 1 10 Resolution-Public Hearing Amending the Ford Site Zoning and Public Realm Master Plan for use with the Ford zoning districts for the Ford site redevelopment area.     Not available Video Ord 20-17 2 11 Ordinance Amending sections of the Legislative Code pertaining to the Ford Districts (Leg. Code §§ 66.900 Ford Districts and 64.500 sign regulations by zoning district), and amending the City’s Zoning Map (Leg. Code § 60.303) to adjust Ford zoning district boundaries to follow realigned streets.     Not available Video Ord 20-14 2 12 Ordinance Creating Chapter 193 of the Legislative Code (Title XIX) pertaining to Tenant Protections.     Not available Video RLH RR 20-11 5 13 Resolution LH Substantial Abatement Order Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 174 PAGE STREET WEST within fifteen (15) days after the February 26, 2020 City Council public hearing. (Public hearing continued from May 13) (Amend to grant 180 days)     Not available Video RLH VBR 20-27 2 14 Resolution LH Vacant Building Registration Appeal of Thinh Pham to a Vacant Building Registration Fee Warning Letter at 624 STATE STREET.     Not available Video RES PH 20-121 1 15 Resolution-Public Hearing Amending the budget to reflect receipt of a Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund, Inc. grant in the amount of $10,000.     Not available Video  Add New Comment 141 records Group Clear sorting Clear grouping Group by File # Group by Name Group by District Group by Opinion Export Export to Excel Export to PDF Export to Word Data pager Data pager 12  Page 1 of 2, items 1 to 100 of 141. File # Date  Name District Opinion Comment Action Data pager Data pager 12  Page 1 of 2, items 1 to 100 of 141. Ord 20-14 7/7/2020 3:53 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against An omnibus ordinance of this magnitude should be published in full in the St Paul Pioneer Press for full transparency for a well informed proper public hearing. It was obvious from the limited selected telephoned testimonies that many people are unaware of the ordinance"s contents and context. Those most effected by economic disparity may not have access to this council Legistar page, nor know how to navigate it. +1 Ord 20-14 7/6/2020 10:55 AM SharonSenate64   Against Sharon also Challenge Councils Jurisdiction/Authority None were Sworn in on Christian Bible or USA CONSTITUTION, Treason is not tolerated, http://stpaul-code-cops.blogspot.com Citys Dirty Dealings re USSC 10-1032 titled Magner vs. Gallagher exposing Corrupt Obama DOJ lawyer Tom Perez current DFl Chair,Councils BLM/ANTIFA Endorsements mandates Removal from Office. Councils RICO Patterned Enterprise now Tenants Remedys vs. Landlords,Private Property Homeowners. Ord 20-14 7/5/2020 5:13 AM Scott Hesselgrave   Against Since, under this new law, landlords will be mandated to rent to dangerous convicted felons, the city should provide liability protection to landlords for occurrences where they are required to rent to a convicted criminal, and that criminal injures or kills another resident or guest of the property. +1 Ord 20-14 7/5/2020 5:04 AM Scott Hesselgrave   Against An omnibus ordinance of this magnitude should be shown transparently to all St Paul citizens by printing the full text of the ordinance in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press. Those most impacted may not have convenient access to view it. Most people are unaware of this Legistar page, and how to navigate it, especially those who lack resources. The cost of this printing should be negotiated with the newspaper, the balance should be paid from the trust fund which was provided to perform research due diligence on the issues and impacts of the ordinance. THEN, a better informed, proper, less limited public discussion should be allowed. It was obvious during the limited phone comment testimonial that many people testifying were unaware of the wording and full context of the ordinance. +1 Ord 20-14 7/5/2020 4:41 AM Scott Hesselgrave   Against If advance notice to the city of intent to sell any NOAH property is mandated, then that list of notices should be immediately accessible to all St Paul citizens, fully transparent for no collusion. +1 Ord 20-14 7/1/2020 3:47 PM Katherine   For Housing disparities are a major way racism and other forms of oppression show up and are exasperated in St. Paul - I fully support these protections as one step toward undoing these systemic issues and creating a more equitable St. Paul! -1 Ord 20-14 6/26/2020 9:00 PM Sarah   Against Sec. 193.05(a)(3) allows a landlord to evict tenants at the end of a lease for lease violations. I can envision a tenant attempting to overstay by disputing warnings he received about violations. In such a dispute, would the landlord need to go to court because she did not agree to renew an expired lease? +2 Ord 20-14 6/26/2020 8:37 PM Sarah   Against Sec. 193.04(3)(c) reads "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 the same or lower ratio of income to rent." My test is 33% of the combined income of the renters, usually three unrelated adults. This provision seems to imply that a single applicant can contest the entire income test based on his or her income, when the determination is made on the basis of multiple incomes. +2 Ord 20-14 6/26/2020 7:31 PM Sarah   For Sec. 193.04(b)(1) provides criteria for evaluating the criminal background of applicants. The criteria are detailed enough to be useful. I plan to use the criteria and reference this section of the ordinance, should it p***, in the "how we screen" do***ent provided to would-be renters. -1 Ord 20-14 6/26/2020 11:45 AM Emily   Against The city is infringing on private property owners constitutional rights by using unreasonable police power to take control of their property through regulation without compensation. If they vote this ordinance in, they will only be costing its property owners and tax payers MORE money to fight it in court. WORK WITH your influential community, not against it. +5 3 Ord 20-14 6/24/2020 8:16 PM Charles Tiller   Against As a long-time St. Paul citizen and landlord: (1) the City has no right to control tenant screening so long as I do not do so discriminatively toward protected cl***es based on state law; (2) the City has no right to force me to continue a private contract past the end date agreed to by the parties - for any reason; (3) the City has no right to prevent me from selling my property when I choose with whatever notice meets state statute and the lease; (4) The City does not cover the costs incurred by tenants skipping the final rent or the repairs after destructive tenants leave, so the City has no stake in controlling how I protect myself from financial risk via the security deposit; (5) the City will cause rents to rise and disruptive tenants to proliferate if landlords are forced to enforce the ordinance on themselves; and (6) the City will lose most of the provisions in court and tax all of us to pay for it. How about that for a win-win? +4 Ord 20-14 6/24/2020 8:00 PM Charles Tiller   Against I listened to a recording of the public hearing today (which skirted the very edge of open meeting laws). The most recent edition of the ordinance is hardly improved from the flawed original. The ordinance is so amateurishly drafted that it still does not even state which rental properties it would apply to or exempt. Moreover, it is a one-sided punitive ordinance directed at discouraging equity in St. Paul; guess what: no owner, no rental - affordable or otherwise. Once this ordinance p***es, as the council has signaled, the City had best prepare its lawyers for the inevitable lawsuits and costly losses. Our state is quite clear on landlord obligations, and this ordinance far oversteps the city's legal authority to interfere with independent contracts; the courts will swiss cheese it. Beyond that, the urge to look good for doing something nice will certainly result in the complete opposite of the council's intended outcomes. Worst council ever? Still time to do this the right way. +4 -1 Ord 20-14 6/23/2020 5:11 PM bMv   For If landlords are using socially and racially equitable practices, and are following the law with their efforts, these Ordinances should have no effect on how they do business. If not now, when? When homelessness increases? When more of our community members of color are evicted? When more children are sleeping in cars with their parents? The Ordinances set a foundation for treating renters fairly and humanely, and pushing landlords to communicate with tenants. Methinks the landlords do protest too much. +4 -4 Ord 20-14 6/23/2020 4:48 PM Lin Qian   Against I've been a tenants much longer than I've been a landlord. Most landlords have been tenants at certain stages of our lives. Providing affordable housing is one of my goals being a landlord. So landlords understand both sides. I doubt city council who proposed this has any experience being a landlord or even a property manager. I appreciate the effort of Public Housing Projects decades ago, which were true efforts to take on the problem. The failure was also the proof that government never really understood how to solve the issue. +6 -2 Ord 20-14 6/23/2020 3:59 PM Lin Qian     "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" Does this ordinance address any of these? For the last goal, could the city provide some cases and let's see if the ordinance actually solve the problem. We should not simply create laws to address non-existing problems. +6 -1 Ord 20-14 6/23/2020 12:00 PM SharonSenate64   Against https://sharia4law.blogspot.com/ encomp***ing Land Grants,Patents,USSC 10-1032 mAGNER VS. gALLAGHER dIRTY dEALS, BAD LAWYERS,JUDGES Complicit with DFL/BLM/ANTIFA +1 -2 4 Ord 20-14 6/19/2020 1:17 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against In psychological terms, the overall effect of this collection of offensive defenses will be destabilizing to the city, creating insecurity among its law abiding citizens, and it will reward irresponsibility and unaccountability by removing measures to evaluate those traits in applicants The beneficiaries of this destabilization will be the supposedly empathic organizations referred to as "preservation buyers", who hope to buy citizen owned properties with money provided by grants from huge foundations. Of course those organizations support the ordinance which will EMPOWER them, while stealing power and opportunity away from citizens' where the American system means to preserve equal power to own real estate. If the politicians and organizations were truly working for the benefit of the city's citizens, they would write laws and create programs to help less fortunate citizens grow into home OWNERSHIP and eventual direct purchases of their own multi-unit buildings.The titles are GASLIGHT +3 -2 Ord 20-14 6/19/2020 12:55 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against 650+% increases in property taxes over the span of only 2 decades CAUSED the supposed "housing crisis", with unavoidable rent increases to pay those taxes. That equates to systematic oppression created BY government and politicians. Landlords could not, an did not raise rents as much nor as fast, yet are now demonized by the legislators, targeted to justify these abusive provisions. +3 -1 Ord 20-14 6/19/2020 12:43 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against This ordinance will have the same effect as we saw in Minneapolis when they p***ed a similar law; large landlords focused on high end remodels and amenities to exceed the affordable housing threshold, and developers focus more on luxury developments. In effect, laws like this create a larger cl*** separation and more division within the cities. Therefore, it DECREASES supply of affordable housing and creates systematic oppression, which in turn prompts city councils to propose rent caps which make the cities unattractive for investment and development. +3 -2 Ord 20-14 6/18/2020 10:02 AM SharonSen64   Against What a Waste of Cable Time Confusing Amendments, Renters Mita and Nelsie huge Conflicts,City's override State and Federal Constitutions re USSC 10-1032 titled Magner vs. Gallagher Dirty Dealings http://sharangel.blogspot.com Further each and every Comments must be shown on the Screen on Cable 18 This is another TRASH issue +5 4 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 10:45 PM Tina Connelly   Against ?? where the hell is it freedom of choice, to do with your property to do as you see fit. Living in apartments should be a matter of personality fits because I sure don't want to live with 5 to 150 other households that don't fit with my safety. +3 -1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 9:31 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against 90 day sale notice to city enables insider real estate trading by city council members, city employees, and their cohorts +1 -1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 9:15 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against Prohibiting payment of last month's rent in advance will eliminate an option which is used to accept applicants with questionable housing or credit history. That clause is systematically oppressive +3 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 9:13 PM Scott Hesselgrave     Prohibiting payment of last month's rent in advance will eliminate an option which is used to accept applicants with questionable housing or credit history. That clause is systematicaaly oppressive +1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 9:10 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against Stripping private housing providers of their right to discern who may occupy their private property opens them up to lawsuits from any party injured by those whom they are forced to accept into, and provide keys to common areas of their properties. Risk insurance rates will increase, thereby destroying more affordability. The Titile of this ordinance is a bold LIE +2 -1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 7:35 PM Ronda Isakson   Against One months rent does not even come close to covering turnover expenses, especially if FORCED to file for eviction. No landlord decides not to renew a lease for good tenants that are, paying rent, good neighbors and not destroying the property. Those people are encouraged to stay. If the City feels that problem tenants need extra breaks then the city should foot that bill themselves instead of pushing it off to landlords which WILL raise rents; failing to "protect" non-problem tenants. Programs exist to ***ist with deposits. There is no "TENANT PROTECTION" for good tenants to help them stay in their home when someone horrid has moved in next door. There is nothing to help a landlord who made the mistake to renting to the wrong person. You cannot enable people AND remove all penalties as well!!! +4 -1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 7:33 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against Stripping private housing providers of their right to discern who may occupy their private property opens them up to lawsuits from any party injured by those whom they are forced to accept into, and provide keys to common areas of their properties. +1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 7:29 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against 501c3 tax exempt nonprofit organizations are prohibited from "spreading propaganda". Supporting this ordinance with its obviously dishonest title should revoke their tax exempt status, especially after Mitra Jilalli announced in her zoom interview with Betsy Voss that her intent with this ordinance was to replace "for profit housing" with "nonprofit housing", thereby attacking citizen's small businesses with the hammer of government, for the benefit of crony organizations. . +4 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 7:21 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against City council should be required to perform due diligence research on the issue they legislate about, especially since they received over a half million dollars for that research +1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 7:20 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against 90 day sale notice to city enables insider real estate trading +1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 7:17 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against The 'Just cause' clause eliminates mutual contracts. Only one party may sever the relationship when the relationship is unfavorable. It will INCREASE faster evictions' +1 -1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 7:05 PM Ronda Isakson   Against It is unfathomable to me that the Council would even consider forcing any individual into signing a contract against their will, lease renewal cannot be a totally one sided option. Please provide the constitutional reference or any justification that makes this legal. +4 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 6:36 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against City council states that there is a "housing crisis", while avoiding the cause of high rents... 666% property tax increase since the year 2000. THAT is systematically oppressive +2 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 6:33 PM Scott Hesselgrave     'Just cause' provision will increase eviction filings +1 -1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 6:32 PM Scott Hesselgrave     90 day advance notice to city of all affordable housing sales gives politicians and their supporting nonprofit cronies unfair market advantage. That clause should be eliminated based on conflict of interest. +1 -1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 6:30 PM Scott Hesselgrave     City council should be required to perform due diligence research on the issue they legislate about, especially since they received over a half million dollars for that research +1 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 6:27 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against Owner occupied apartment buildings should be allowed to restrict residence to predatory felons +2 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 6:26 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against Apartment buildings fewer than 10 units should not be required to rent to predatory felons +3 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 6:24 PM Scott Hesselgrave   Against Rental applicants should meet the same standard as employees living onsite. +3 Ord 20-14 6/17/2020 4:15 PM Luke   Against I am adamantly AGAINST this proposed ordinance as it will: 1) INCREASE the cost of rental housing in St. Paul by forcing landlords to substantially increase rents to keep irresponsible tenants out. 2) INCREASE the number of evictions by not letting landlords properly screen tenants to determine if they are responsible enough to afford or decide to pay for the apartment or home. 3) INCREASE crime and drugs in rental housing and our neighborhoods by turning St. Paul into a magnet for felons and other criminals. 4) INCREASE the difficulty of removing problem tenants from apartment buildings who disturb the right to peace and quiet enjoyment of other renters or pose a health and safety risk. 5) INCREASE the number of responsible renters choosing NOT to rent in St. Paul. I strongly urge you NOT to p*** this legislation. +6 Ord 20-14 6/16/2020 8:38 PM Ronda Isakson   Against PLEASE WAIT – IT IS NOT THE TIME! Not only is the entire world dealing with its largest Pandemic and the resulting socioeconomic uncertainties but the United States of America is dealing with MAJOR racial unrest that was sparked right here in Minnesota. Thousands of people have lost their lives or family members and have been left with lifelong health issues due to COVID 19. The numbers WILL continue to rise. Jobs have been lost at record rates. Businesses closed. The Federal Government has issued both payments and collection restrictions that impact housing on a national level. Our Sister City is faced with an immediate crisis regarding its police force. Riots and protest continue throughout the state and the country, leaving much loss and destruction to be dealt with. The State of Minnesota is holding a Special Session to address much of what has been indicated as justification for this Ordinance. There is absolutely nothing that is not up in the air right now! There is f +3 Ord 20-14 6/15/2020 10:31 AM Concerned Neighbors   Against Dear City Council members, I am against this proposed ordinance. I was born & raised in the city of St. Paul. We want an ordinance that will ensure all our neighbors & community stay safe with lower crime rates. Recently, my father who has resided in the city of St. Paul, for the past 35+ years has decided to sell his home due to increase crime & violence in his neighborhood block. His particular block had seen s dramatic increase in rental properties. The tenants residing in those rental properties were dealing in narcotics & crime. These so called tenants were bullying the neighborhood block & causing fears for families with young children. Your proposed ordinance will not solve these current issues. - Concerned Neighbors +8 Ord 20-14 6/13/2020 2:43 PM Cha Moua   Against Having experienced working with landlords and tenants I have seen both sides of this coin. In my experience, I have never met any tenant who had issues that were not brought up. All tenants who needed further accommodation for bills were also considered and even picked in some cases. I believe that the sample population used does not clearly reflect the true overall data you are trying to represent. I would argue that instead of forcing this new ordinance onto private business landlords that you make affordable home programs more appealing to all parties. +6 Ord 20-14 6/13/2020 1:12 AM Chelsea   For Please VOTE YES on the SAFE ordinance as written and VOTE NO on any amendments that would reduce tenants protections. I support this ordinance in solidarity with the members of the Equity in Place Alliance, the City of Saint Paul HREEO Commission, the Teamsters Local No. 120, the Saint Paul Regional Labor Federation, and many Saint Paul residents including both landlords and renters, for all the reasons expressed so well in the Pioneer Press op ed written by Hernandez, Mowry Voss, and Swift: “If you’re serious, St. Paul Council, approve these housing protections.” Please consider that the volume of the complaints in these public comments are disproportionate to the increasingly tremendous need for housing security on the East Side. +1 -7 Ord 20-14 5/20/2020 10:31 AM Salina Amey   Against When pockets of neighborhoods deteriorate due to bad neighbors, good neighbors flee and the deterioration of safety and quality of life escalates. Don’t make this choice for St Paul. Don’t make St Paul the dumping ground for problem tenants. +10 -1 Ord 20-14 5/20/2020 10:31 AM Salina Amey   Against People who own rental housing should not be micro-managed by the City of St Paul with burdensome legal rules that will result in them being subject to lawsuits that can destroy their economic stability. We need stability in St Paul, and this is not achieved by weaponizing ordinances such that the courts will become arbiters on a regular basis. Changing St Paul rules such that there will be a constant trend toward rental properties being full of tenants that the landlords are experiencing as problematic, but the landlord’s hands are tied in terms of what they can do about it. Neighbors are impacted, as well. This ordinance seeks to open the gate for more troubled people to become St Paul residents, and nobody wants problem neighbors. If these rules are p***ed, the word will quickly spread that St Paul is the place to go apply for housing, if you have bad credit, a criminal history, and a history of being a bad tenant. When pockets of neighborhoods deteriorate due to bad neighbors, good +4 -1 Ord 20-14 5/19/2020 4:10 PM James Wilkinson   For Please see my detailed letter and others setting out the reasons for supporting this ordinance. The online comments are largely negative on the proposal but the written comments show much greater support. See attachment 11. +1 -6 Ord 20-14 5/15/2020 12:34 AM Eric Lein   Against A different item, RES 20-745, highlights barriers to personal safety and cites: "WHEREAS, perpetrators of domestic violence are often gone from the scenes of their crimes prior to arrival of the police, ‘gone on arrival cases,’ making investigation and successful prosecution of such cases very difficult.." ••• NOW THEREFORE, today is a good time to consider how "just cause tenant protections" will restrict landlords' ability to maintain rental properties that are not neighborhood nuisances. When trying to collect evidence that proves in court that a tenant has engaged in disruptive or illegal activities, ‘gone on arrival cases’ will subject neighbors to long periods of aggravation. Reluctant witnesses will be called to testify, successful prosecution will be very difficult, and perpetrators will face few, if any, consequences for bad behavior. It’s the neighbors who will suffer. ••• Let's discourage bad behavior by tenants, not protect it. PLEASE DELETE THE JUST CAUSE RESTRICTIONS. +10 -1 Ord 20-14 5/14/2020 10:24 PM Chad Skally   Against What are other options? If people are not able to rent an apartment because they have poor credit, then the City should finds ways to help these people improve their financial habits and credit through community outreach and education. If specific landlords are constantly evicting residents, then the City should address any issues with those specific landlords. If the City wants to increase housing for people with criminal backgrounds then the City should develop incentives for property owners to rent to these people. If there is not enough affordable housing, then more should be built. If rents are too high, then property taxes on multifamily properties should be lowered and charged at the same rate as residential property. I think the best option is to move to rescind the proposed ordinance. Then, create a working group of renters, landlords, and staff that can draft policy language to be brought back to the Council. +13 Ord 20-14 5/14/2020 10:24 PM Chad Skally     What are other options? If people are not able to rent an apartment because they have poor credit, then the City should finds ways to help these people improve their financial habits and credit through community outreach and education. If specific landlords are constantly evicting residents, then the City should address any issues with those specific landlords. If the City wants to increase housing for people with criminal backgrounds then the City should develop incentives for property owners to rent to these people. If there is not enough affordable housing, then more should be built. If rents are too high, then property taxes on multifamily properties should be lowered and charged at the same rate as residential property. I think the best option is to move to rescind the proposed ordinance. Then, create a working group of renters, landlords, and staff that can draft policy language to be brought back to the Council. +2 Ord 20-14 5/14/2020 10:23 PM Chad Skally   Against Will this proposed ordinance cause more harm than good? As can be seen from the University of Washington's research on a similar ordinance in Seattle, 1) rents went up, 2) local owners sold their properties to larger owners, and 3) larger owners spend less in the local economy and are more likely to have higher rents. This will decrease the amount of affordable housing in Saint Paul. (https://www.seattle.gov/Do***ents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/UWSRHSFINAL.pdf) Based on the fact that 80% of the online public comments are against this ordinance, it is apparent that zero input from stakeholders were used from the "public meetings" held last April and October in developing this proposed ordinance. None of the specific language in this proposed ordinance was presented to any of the stakeholders at these meetings. This proposal is completely one-sided. +11 Ord 20-14 5/14/2020 10:22 PM Chad Skally   Against Is this proposed ordinance needed? I believe most landlords in Saint Paul are actually doing a very good job. If you look at the some of the "whereas" statements in the proposed ordinance they imply a problem that does not exist, specifically: 1,071 evictions in 2017, comes to 0.2% of renters being evicted every month. This means 99.8% of renters are not evicted. Over 90% of evictions are from non-payment of rent, which would not change with this ordinance. "Stagnant wages" is not a true statement because over the last 5 years wages have gone up on average 2.6% per year, while inflation has average 1.7% per year (Source MN DEED). "Skyrocketing rents" is also not a true statement. Rents have averaged a 3% increase in the last year. However, over the last 5 years my multifamily properties have averaged a 9% yearly increase in property taxes. +10 Ord 20-14 5/13/2020 8:55 PM     Against Interjecting convicted criminals into safe communities will destabilize their security. Removing those boundaries is sociopathic. This legislation, with its efforts to create a protected victim cl*** of felons, is a sociopathic law, and all city citizens deserve more considerate and empathic representation from their elected politicians. +2 Ord 20-14 5/13/2020 5:01 AM Jeff   Against This ordinance was written from a moral standpoint; “housing is a human right.” Landlords and property managers must use a practical application standpoint; “how can I apply these rules and what changes in my day-to-day operations?” The section about Just Cause For Lease Termination turns all leases into lifetime agreements on the landlords part, but not on the tenant's part. This is not equitable. Mandating lifetime contracts while also limiting the information landlords can use to determine if a tenant is qualified increases risk for the landlord and neighboring tenants. The section on Relocation fees provides a powerful disincentive for property owners to update their apartments, which leads to worse living conditions, lower property values, and lower property taxes. Limits on Security Deposits takes away a useful tool for property owners to use for potential tenants that don't have stellar rental history and can't get a co-signer. Let landlords help draft a revised ordinance. +8 Ord 20-14 5/12/2020 4:36 PM Bill   Against I've owned a duplex on the West Side for 54 years. I charged my last tenant less than $800/mo. for a 2-bedroom unit of 1,000 square feet. I believe this puts it in the affordable range. It's currently vacant and will remain that way until this legislation is no longer a threat. The trash hauling fiasco was enough of an insult but this crosses the line. If the St Paul City Council wants us to believe that they are in favor of affordable housing, then they should demonstrate it by their actions, which this proposal doesn't do. +15 Ord 20-14 5/12/2020 3:48 PM Michael Behan   Against Putting restrictions on the financial and criminal screening of tenants adversely increases risk and disincentives buying, maintaining, or improving property in St. Paul. The City will become a safe haven for tenants with delinquent payment or rental damage history. One bad tenant can send a small landlord into bankruptcy. Normal financial screening of prospective tenants is a valid, non-discriminatory practice that has been upheld by the courts. Government units across the country have attempted similar measures and have experienced poor outcomes. Exorbitant annual levy increases (~10%) and ballooning budget proposals are directly affecting the affordability of St. Paul's housing stock. Putting restrictions on how we can ensure good, viable tenants jeopardizes the safety of our community and property values. Property values and investments that you rely on to pay for important City services. I support educating tenants about their rights, but am against the remaining four components. +8 Ord 20-14 5/12/2020 3:24 PM Chris   Against This will have the opposite reaction of its intention. It will reduce affordable housing. Unless that is the intention. It also violates the Constitution as AGAIN you are trying to compel speech, which the Courts already ruled against ('voting-information' ordinance). All of these "protections" are already covered in Minnesota state. This new proposal simply increases the difficulty to operate or invest in Saint Paul, making if more difficult than even Minneapolis. You seem to be pulling wishes out of thin air. 90 days notice versus 60 or 30, 3x month rent as a relocation penalty, limiting deposits, and background checks, and eviction causes. Again, stuff is already covered in other laws. You are creating a divide between owners and renters, punishing N.O.A.H. owners, you know, the ones who work with people who have bad credit, and criminal or rental problems. A private landowner has the right to create a voluntary contract to use his land. The renter can opt-in or opt-out. +9 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 5:25 PM Telee     Amendment: Pg. 8 Sec. 193.05 Just cause notice for tenants. Part d Notice requirements - Once again, this is forced speech. We are not the mouthpiece of government. This is NOT the responsibility of landlords to communicate out government policies. If we are mandated to take a unit out of the rental pool, it should be up to the government to notify those citizens it is affecting, not the landlord. +4 -1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 5:23 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 8 Sec. 193.05 Just cause notice for tenants. Part b Landlord responsibilities - Delete this section. This is forced speech. We are not the mouthpiece of government. This is NOT the responsibility of landlords to communicate out government policies +5 -1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 5:21 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 8 Sec. 193.05 Just cause notice for tenants. Part b Landlord responsibilities - This is forced speech. We are not the mouthpiece of government. This is NOT the responsibility of landlords to communicate out government policies +3 -1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 5:10 PM Telee     Amendment: Pg. 8 Sec. 193.05 Just cause notice for tenants. Part a7 - Change notification period for rehab and renovation to 60 days. Getting contractors and workmen in place too far in advance is not realistic for small owners since many of us do not have in-house plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. Many of these other small business owners operate in 1 - 2 month scheduling timeframes. (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 60 days’ written notice to the tenant, and shall provide Relocation ***istance 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. +1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 5:06 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 7 Sec. 193.05 Just cause notice for tenants. Part 2a -l Change the minimum times a late payment can be made before a lease can be terminated. It also makes accommodations for shorter lease periods. If a tenant is late only twice so far but has only been in the unit for two months, it is very likely that they will continue to be late. (2) Repeated late payment of rent. The tenant repeatedly makes late payments of rent, no fewer than three times in a 12-month period or 50% of the time spent in the lease. 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 three 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 +4 -1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:57 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 6-7 Sec. 193.04 Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants. Part 3c - Change the minimum income test to 3 times the rent. This will be more in line with how most financial planners recommend people to live within their means for financial success. If a tenant is spending more than half their income on rent, they really can't afford that place. This is an example of how well meaning intentions setup tenants to further fail with unrealistic expectations. c. If a landlord uses a minimum income test requiring an income equal to three (3) 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 three (3) times the rent. +2 -1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:52 PM Telee     Amendment: Pg. 6 Sec. 193.04 Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants. Part 3a - Like bankruptcies, evictions should stay relevant for similar time frame or 7 years. a. An eviction action pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 504B or other equivalents in other states if the action occurred seven (7) 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 seven years prior to the application; +1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:49 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 6 Sec. 193.04 Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants. Part 2a Credit History - adds an accomodation for medical debt and allows UD's to still be a part of our credit evaluation a. Credit score without accomodation for medical debt. However, any unlawful detainers can still be a disqualifying event. +1 -1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:46 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 6 Sec. 193.04 Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants. Part I and J - By using the HUD guidelines, it makes part I and J redundant Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:44 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 6 Sec. 193.04 Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants. Part h - same as last comment. this is unnecessarily confusing and with HUD already having clear guidelines, it makes sense to just use them... h. Any conviction for misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony per the HUD guidelines offenses for which the dates of release are older than three (3) years except in cases involving violence (physical and sexual) and property damage; +1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:42 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 6 Sec. 193.04 Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants. Part g - this part is confusing and the wording should be simplified. my suggestions is... g. Any misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor or felony conviction stemming from the following traffic offenses: reckless driving and other moving violations that did not result in additional charges for injury to a person or loss of drivers license and privileges; +1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:39 PM Telee     Amendment: Pg. 5 Sec. 193.04 Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants. Part b - As explained to me many times by legislative staff and proponents of the ordinance, the wording was confusing. It had orginally stated that landlord cannot disqualify for ANY of the followiing reason when it was explained that it should have been for SOLELY only one of the following reasons. I believe you meant to word it this way instead. (b) Uniform screening criteria. A landlord must apply uniform screening criteria and cannot disqualify an applicant for SOLELY any of the following reasons: +1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:33 PM Telee     Amendment: Pg. 5 Sec. 193.04 Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants. Part a - make the ordinance relevant to the times and technology by changing the screening criteria to be posted or made available (a) Screening criteria made available. Before accepting applications for rental housing, a landlord must post or make available screening criteria to all applicants. Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:29 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 5 Sec. 193.03 Security Deposits. Part a Change the security deposit to 2 months rent but makes exception for cases with extremely low rent, allowing for 3 months security deposit if the owner is charging less than 60% AMI (a) Limit on security deposit amount. No landlord shall demand, charge, accept, or retain from a tenant more than two month’s rent as a security deposit except in cases where the landlord is charging 60% AMI or lower, three months rent as a security deposit will be allowed. +1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:26 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 4 Sec. 193.01 Definitions. Part 15 Change the tenant protection period to 60 days (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 sixty (60) 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). Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:23 PM Telee     Amendment: Pg. 4 Sec. 193.01 Definitions. Part 14 Defining Tenant to include a WRITTEN notification, lease, or contract. As it currently is written a tresp***ing squatter on the property could be considered a tenant. (1314) Tenant shall mean an authorized occupant of a residential rental building under a written notification, lease or contract. Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:21 PM Telee     Amendment: Pg. 4 Sec. 193.01 Definitions. Part 13. Clarify the Single Month Rent to be more straightforward 13) Single Month Rent shall have the following meaning: Rent amount will cover from the first day of the month to the end of that month. Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:18 PM Telee     Amendment: Pg. 3 Sec. 193.01 Definiitions. Part 9 Lease should be a WRITTEN agreement. (109) Lease shall mean a written agreement creating a tenancy in real property. Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:16 PM Telee     Amendment: Pg. 3 Sec. 193.01 Definiitions. Part 2. Change the AMI to 60% (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 sixty (60) 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. Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:13 PM Telee   Against Amendment: Pg. 3 Sec. 193.01 Definiitions. Part 1. Change the the definition of Affordable Housing Building to apply to 5 or more units and changing threshold of AMI to 60% (1) Affordable Housing Building shall mean a multiple-family rental housing building having five (5) 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 (60) 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. +1 Ord 20-14 5/11/2020 4:08 PM Telee   Against I believe in fair housing and real world tenant protections. The best way to protect tenants is to promote good rental property ownership, promote good tenants, and increase the supply of available units to rent. The ordinance in its current form does NOT do any of this. Instead it is punitive, unrealistic, and undermines good tenants and owners. The ordinance as it is written does not ultimately protect tenants or set up the housing market for success. +8 Ord 20-14 5/10/2020 5:03 PM Danette Lincoln   Against After reviewing the proposed ordinance as second time, it has been brought to my attention that if a property owner wants to make substantial repairs to a rental unit that would require a renter to re-locate, two things are required: 90 days notice to vacate and re-location fees. I really have no objection to lengthy notices; however, as far as requiring re-location fees, I believe the ordinance proposal has gone too far. I maintain an A property and in order to do so, I need availability to my units. If I can do minor, small repairs while the renter is occupying the unit, I will do so; however, it has been my experience that renters are often extremely annoyed by the inconvenience. So how to address large repairs that require an empty unit? (floor refinishing, carpet removal, painting, etc.) The proposal makes clear that those repairs are not allowed unless one can work with or around the renter in place or by ***uming a hefty re-location fee. +11 Ord 20-14 5/8/2020 5:25 AM Bill   For Some may claim that this hurts small landlords. The reality is that the majority of renters in the city are leasing from small landlords. If we believe we need renters rights (which I do), then we also must come to terms with the fact that renter issues are located with less than adequate small landlords. I know this might not be a popular or politically nice statement, and I think we must confront the reality. I am not saying all small landlords are bad - I am a small landlord and believe I am a good landlord. I’m saying these tenant protections will without a doubt protect renters who live with small landlords who get in to this business for supplemental income, might be over their head, and often are not educated on the state and federal housing laws. It’s a reality. These tenant protections elevate the expectations for all landlords and hopefully will weed out the marketplace of small landlords who can’t meet that standard. I take pride in being a small landlord and want the best. +2 -7 Ord 20-14 5/6/2020 7:35 PM Tim B   For I have a good friend who works as a case worker for a social service agency in St. Paul, and based on the stories that I hear from her about how difficult it can be to help people find housing, I fully support these ordinances. Families facing homelessness are asked to pay multiple months worth of rent for a security deposit, but they're earning just enough to make it by each month and can't save up for large deposits. The cap would help so many. Also, the homeless people that we see in our neighborhoods frequently get cited for loitering or public indecency (often for public urination) - because they have no where else to be! I don't understand why we are letting crimes stemming from homelessness further perpetuate homelessness. I'm happy to see the city changing lookback periods on certain crimes, because I'd rather have a homeless vet be my neighbor than continue to see him struggle on the streets. +2 -7 Ord 20-14 5/5/2020 8:58 PM Simon O.   For When I first read these ordinances, I was surprised that they weren't already in effect. Limiting security deposits to one month's rent just makes sense. When I was paying student loans, I wasn't able to save up for large purchases (or large security deposits) but that didn't mean I couldn't pay my rent on time. Also, giving people 90 days notice when their building is going to be sold and they could potentially be forced to move out is the humane thing to do. I wouldn't want to have to pick up my life and move with 30 days notice. I need time to make plans and find safe and stable housing. Just cause notice is another one that just makes sense, because I should be given a reason why I have to move out. I've been lucky to rent with great landlords who do these things anyways, but I know that too many people don't have that privilege. I hope these ordinances ensure that the treatment I get from my landlords is extended to renters across the city. +2 -9 Ord 20-14 5/5/2020 7:09 PM Patty McDonald   Against I am against the "Just Cause Notice" I am a landlord with 4 single family homes. We take great pride in the condition of our rentals and are very conscientious landlords. We also care a lot about the neighborhood and the people that live next door to these houses. The home owners are there to stay and it is our duty to contribute positively to the neighborhood. That includes being able to not renew a lease if the renters are not good neighbors. Renters have the ability to not renew their lease, they don't have to give a reason - why do landlords? Isn't that why we have a lease? I would be okay with a 60 day notice - for both parties. But we should be able to ask people to leave when that lease is over. I used that option once to get some really nasty people to leave who were mean to the neighbors - even after talking to them several times. +17 -2 Ord 20-14 5/4/2020 5:35 PM Jerry Ratliff   Against In 2020 it is amazing to me you are using language like landlord and tenant- try renter and RPO (rental property owner) that are not derogatory and gender neutral. We live on a block with 5 rental homes and would like to not have any more due to the impact from the renters: noise, overcrowding allowed by inspectors, too many cars on street & not moved when needed, trash left on street and blvd. I meet with renters every fall with info for them. We did not see these issues addressed- why? When government takes sides on an issue, you take on a lot. Perhaps having an RPO rights and responsibilities would be a start. Owning rental property is a high risk business. That needs to be balanced with the need for housing, of course and the neighborhood. The RPOs pay higher taxes -getting more help might be a good faith start for RPO & neighborhood. Perhaps the city could put up the deposit to guarantee high risk renters for the RPO and the neighborhood? Money could be used to clean up. +2 Ord 20-14 5/1/2020 4:26 PM Chad Skally   Against This ordinance will cause: 1) less affordable housing, 2) lower rental property values, and 3) higher property taxes for homeowners, because: 1) setting screening & criminal criteria for management companies will cause rents to go up, 2) with just cause notice respectful renters will move out of St. Paul, because residents who cause conflict will be more difficult to give notice to move , 3) limiting security deposits & pre-paid rent will cause an increase to monthly rents to help offset future non-payments, and 4) having to give 3 month notice & pay a resident to move in order to renovate an apartment will cause less improvements to rental properties in Saint Paul. In Seattle they are already seeing less affordable housing because of their similar rental ordinance: over 20% of landlords that increased rent said that one of the reasons was their City's new rental ordinances, and 40% of landlords reported that they have already adopted stricter rental requirements. +24 -1 Ord 20-14 4/29/2020 3:53 PM Adam Fitzpatrick   For Information Asymmetry is really challenging when it comes to figuring out the terms of this debate and figuring out how to navigate the housing landscape in general. The landlords have one perspective, the housing advocates have the opposite and it's hard to find what is accurate. It's the same challenge when trying to rent or buy a place, a wealth of information exists that most people don't have access to. I will say this, housing is not the only investment opportunity present and in terms of dollar-for-dollar profit, I don't even think it is a good one especially since we've overvalued our housing stock. From my rental experience, I was lucky to only be in rental complexes with charged a 1 month or a half month security deposit, albeit not in Saint Paul. This was a great help to me as I was just starting out because I didn't have money to put a 2-3 month deposit down because I wouldn't have been able to find a place. Please p*** protections for renters to create a balance. +1 -8 Ord 20-14 4/21/2020 11:41 PM Charles Tiller   Against Regarding Ord 20-14 Chapter 193: I write as a 23-year St. Paul homeowner and conscientious landlord of a St. Paul rental duplex. The proposed ordinance is a textual mess, likely violates state statute, results in tangible harm to hometown investors, and won't enhance housing stability. It is strikingly unclear if the ordinance applies to specific properties or to all rental landowners. If it applies, my ability to operate a small rental property effectively and profitably will be severely compromised. If this ordinance p***es, I will likely be forced to sell my rental property this year. The prospective buyer would either hike rents 30+% or add the property to a portfolio of small-margin slumlord holdings to insulate from the forecastable costs of complying with the city's ordinance - both recipes for quality-of-life degradation. Moreover, I may have to consider selling my home to escape the widespread expansion of unpoliceable rentals. What a loss of equity to this city! Bad choice! +15 Ord 20-14 4/18/2020 4:01 PM Barbara Sarapas   For I support all five proposals of this legislation. +1 -9 Ord 20-14 4/16/2020 1:27 AM Bill Johnston   For This legislation prevents landlords from using high security deposits as a way of de facto filtering out low-income families. It requires landlord to give a tenant 90-days to find a new residence if the property owner wants to upgrade his or her property, and to give a tenant just cause for not renewing a lease. Aren't these things that property owners should be doing anyway? Yes - please p*** this legislation. -8 Ord 20-14 4/14/2020 6:56 PM Nancy Sabin   For The increased rental deposits, along with the background check fees charged for every family member, have made it much harder for families and first-time renters to find affordable housing. Most landlords are ethical, good people, however there are some who have exploited the poor by not properly maintaining rental housing stock and by retaining rental deposits after the tennants do their best to clean up the rental unit for incoming tennants. Landlords should not be expected to subsidize the cost of fixing up rental units, once a tennant causes damage either. But a more equitable way to balance the risks and rewards needs to be developed, discussed and implemented. -4 Ord 20-14 4/13/2020 11:09 PM Abdulrahman Wako   For I am for the change. We have too many housing disparities especially in the rental market and many of those disparities are akin to redlining. +1 -8 Ord 20-14 4/7/2020 6:44 PM John Slade   For These are critical protections to have in times that are even harder for renters. For too long free market fundamentalists have told us that housing is an investment first. It is not. We need to respect the rights of the renter as well as the landlord, and understand that in a time of tight rentals, the landlords have the upper hand. They should not abuse this power. +1 -5 Ord 20-14 3/29/2020 9:45 PM Jasmine 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. +1 -5 Ord 20-14 3/25/2020 9:42 PM Tram   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. +2 -6 Ord 20-14 3/25/2020 12:34 AM Ben W   For Renters need more protections! Landlords shouldn't be getting rich by exploiting poor people. +1 -7 Ord 20-14 3/23/2020 6:21 PM       Are you guys nuts +3 -4 Ord 20-14 3/21/2020 11:43 PM Eric 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. +14 -1 Ord 20-14 3/21/2020 2:55 PM Melissa 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. +2 -6 Ord 20-14 3/18/2020 4:59 PM Alyssa   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. +15 Ord 20-14 3/17/2020 6:24 PM Terry 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. +9 -1