Landlords Win!!!

[swisher]

We won at council the other night! We beat your whiny neighbor butts! Years ago we fought to make the noise and nuisance ordinances completely unenforceable by not having any responsibility put on us. This week we beat back any new rules that would have us landlords us do anything. We don't need to register or get a permit and we don't have to evict any tennant even if they have 10 citations for noise or garbage, or anything else. Now I can rent my home and only worry about picking up the rent check! The way it should be. They even torpedoed a plan with no fees, paperwork, or inspections. My thanks to Mayor Narvaiz and council members Couch, Porterfield, Guerrero. I knew it would pay off to name Mayor Susan Narvaiz the Citizen of the Year at the SM Board of Realtors. Of course I need to move out of town now since I might get a nuisance rental next to my home.

[semi-native]

I must have missed something, because the issue was hardly even discussed. Most of the conversation centered on the suggestions from the police.

I missed the tail-end of the meeting. Was there a vote or something?

[Immis]

BS ! The landlords did not "win" a dang thing. It is going to be reviewed in July. It was the very last thing talked about. I stayed till the bitter end.

[swisher]

Ok Immis, obviously I am being sarcastic. But seriously, no requirements of landlords or property owners were considered part of the assistant chief's ideas. Her ideas were Party Class and Citizenship class for students. Not bad ideas but hardly anything with teeth to hold a landlord accountable at all, no matter the impact on neighbors. The council did say they were not interested in permits, and wanted to study things until July. Another stall tactic in my opinion. Study it to death and it goes away.

[Immis]

Trust me.. It will not go away

[DanMartian]

Well, Immis, I?m not entirely sure you?re right about this. I got the impression that the council as a whole were not particularly interested in permits or registration at the moment and maybe not in July, either. Even the biggest advocate of either of these, was no longer talking about fees or inspections, which in my opinion are worse and worst. The City Attorney pretty much said that inspections, due to Constitutional reasons, were pretty much out of the question.

I would consider these things pretty much wins for the landlords and, in the case of handed down fees, their tenants. Regarding the inspections, that was probably a win for everyone out there, except curmudgeons.

Semi is essentially correct in saying that issue was hardly discussed, and where it was, it was pretty much ?we-can?t-do-it? (inspections) or ?we-don?t-want-to-do-it? (paperwork, licensing or registration. They did come up with a few good ideas and even brought the school to the table, something I never thought would happen (Did you, Semi?), despite their contribution to the problem. That isn?t to say that they won?t consider some of this in July or later.

This is where I agree with you, Immis: the problem won?t go away. Noise, rowdiness, littering, parking and alcohol need to be addressed, and the mechanisms are mostly in place. We still have to see if the city can manage it with what the solutions they proffered. I only have so much faith, but I see their solution as a step in the right direction. Even so, I doubt anyone is going to advocate the same proposal again; in certain regards, they can?t. That?s where I don?t agree, because such a proposal is a political suicide pill.

As far as stall tactics go, Swisher, you could be right, although I suspect that it could be far worse that you think, if this issue remains divisive. As for study it to death? I?m less certain, because I feel that the studies are focusing in on the problem areas and it may actually lead to a solution that most everyone can live with.

As it stands, I think I can live with their decision right now. Too bad if that upsets anyone?

[brete]

There's already state law that allows the city to deal with nuisance renters and landlords, the city just chooses not to enforce current law. Why penalize the non-problem landlords and tenants with a needless law?

[swisher]

Originally Posted by brete

There's already state law that allows the city to deal with nuisance renters and landlords, the city just chooses not to enforce current law. Why penalize the non-problem landlords and tenants with a needless law?

The state laws are almost impossible to enforce, by design. Surely they were written with the help of the Real Estate industry. The city laws are full of loopholes at best and are ineffective at worst. The city must wait 6 months and then place a lien on a house then send it to district court for a fine of only $150.00? Takes more $$ and time to follow the laws then it's worth. By the time this happens the bad renters move out and it starts over again.