I visited Jessica Skaare's unit on Sunday. The windowsills and door frame look exactly
as they did when I first visited the property in May. The landlord's statement says these
problems are fixed or will be fixed. There has been no documentation submitted that
these problems actually have been fixed. The record has pictures, video, and the
declaration that residents have submitted about these problems. These were
confirmed by last week's fire inspection and orders, which we included as an exhibit to
our objection. The code violations need to be corrected. These are not minor. There is
flaking paint. Because this is in a building built before 1978, the law says the paint is
presumed to contain lead, unless the landlord says otherwise. There has been no
documentation on that, so it is presumed to contain lead. There are children that live in
and visit this property.
The foundation cracks have been raised since the start of this, and they are still there.
This leads to water infiltration and mold as well. If these increases are approved, they
will be paying $3,000 to $4,000 more per year in rent for these units with documented
problems. They have documented these problems with videos and more than 100
photos. They told the landlord about these problems and detailed if the problems were
there when they moved in. They took time off work to attend today and have put a lot
of effort in. They have put their necks out to raise these problems in the context of a
rent stabilization appeal, and it seems as if these problems are being swept aside. It's
been incredibly frustrating for them, especially because the law is written to consider
habitability. There's the implied warranty of habitability that Moermond mentioned, but
there is also substantial deterioration that must be considered. There is compliance
with local health and housing code that must be considered. Habitability language has
been in the ordinance since it was passed into law by voters.
We are asking that you follow the ordinance as it is written and follow the
non-controversial principle that if a landlord wants to deviate from that 3% cap, they
need to hold up their end of the bargain and provide a habitable home.
Scott Day: I'm the son of the owner, Judith Day, as well as her power of attorney. She
is dealing with health issues and is unable to manage the property. I've been living
abroad for the last 21 years and was brought back to the Twin Cities in November due
to her health situation. She has owned these buildings since 1998 and was a tenant
before she bought them. She's acted more of a mother figure to her tenants, rather
than just a landlord. I welcomed the inspectors when they came, and am working daily
with professionals to remedy the problems the inspectors noted. We've never had an
eviction. We are part of the community. I only did this because of my mom's health
issues. She never kept up with expenses. I had to go through all the books and
submit all the paperwork to justify the rent increase. We don't want to increase the
rent. We have to. Property taxes, insurance, and energy costs have raised our bills,
but rents have not increased. This was partly due to my mom's health. She didn't ever
want to raise rents on tenants. This was an economics decision. Rents are well below
the value right now. This is a great neighborhood, and these properties are right by the
governor's residence. This is something we had to do.
Bill Griffith: When I sent my letter earlier today, I wanted to indicate to the Council, in
real time, a response to a letter from September 8 about the status of the building. I
believe the appellants' counsel has misrepresented what Scott Day is doing to rectify
issues. Judith Day didn't raise rent more than 1% in 5 years. Her expenses have gone
up by 50%, so Scott triaged the complaints when they came in after this appeal. Mold
and electrical issues have been addressed. I welcome any of you, between now and
your next meeting, to walk out to the property. You can see where all the stairs have
been stabilized after previously being condemned. Landlords address the most
pressing concerns first. There was also some vandalism, so windows have been
boarded up and new windows have been ordered. No tenant is exposed to the
