“Danger! Official Notice” Sign, Spring Street (Newton, NJ) originally uploaded by
takomabibelot
According to this article which appeared recently in SunThisweek, the Burnsville City Council has decided that rental units must be inspected by the city every three years as part of its licensing ordinance. With this comes comparatively high cost per unit for single unit landlords and the potential for serious invasions of privacy of renters.
From the article:
Given the age of the rental-housing stock and past problems, “this is a problem which is now our problem,” Council Member Bill Coughlin said, endorsing mandatory inspections despite what he said is his aversion to greater government regulation.
While mandatory inspections for common areas are clearly a non-issue, mandating that the city come through individual apartments every three years may seem excessive to some. As if living with on-going issues for three years really solves the true problem that some individuals simply are unwilling or unable to properly care for their properties.
Burnsville’s proposed inspection fees, to be paid annually, range from $140 for a single-family rental unit to $8,750 for the 400-unit The Woods, the city’s largest apartment complex.
This fee, $21 per unit for The Woods, is a burden on single-family rental unit landlords at $140.
The unit inspections would cover more than building and fire codes. Under proposed ordinance changes, corrective action or license revocation could be applied to units declared “unfit for human habitation.”
“The city has found numerous hoarders in multifamily units over the past year,” said a city staff report.
This is the most concerning issue of the entire lot. While individual homeowners are free to live their lives as they see fit, renters living in Burnsville open themselves to government intrusions into their living space every three years.
Do you think that it’s right for the City of Burnsville to place these restrictions on its landlords and renters? Do you believe the City should be intruding into the personal lives of others? Are you fearful that their standards for quality of life may change over time in the same way the ordinance has and perhaps the level of cleanliness the city inspectors require may tighten causing people to lose their living spaces? Do you think that this is a wonderful idea and that the recent issues with Burnsville poorly kept rental units forced the council to take this action and no other options are available to them? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
May 17th, 2012 at 8:23 am
when the wife and I lived in St. Louis Park we had yearly city inspections of the apartment. I was in the apartment when they showed up for one of them and they spent a total of 30 seconds in the apartment. Mostly just checking the detectors and sprinklers.
It was a little annoying, but we did have a week’s notice that they’d be coming. So as far as privacy went, we would have had time to hide anything we didn’t want seen had we cared.
As far as the hoarders comment goes… I think there’s a bigger issue on the landlord’s side if an apartment/rental is allowed to get out of control. Regular maintenance of a property saves money in the long run for the landlord and you are allowed access to a property you manage if you give 24 hours notice. Coming from a landlord who learned the hard way with a packed house I’d say this is just fine.
May 17th, 2012 at 8:39 am
This minor inconvenience will only last a few years…until Big Brother gets the cameras installed in the rental units. Just be patient, and remember it’s for your safety.
May 17th, 2012 at 8:58 am
Is hoarding against the law?
I get that there are things that ultimately to break the law in a hoarding situation, especially when people hoard live animals. What I don’t know is where the line is when a person goes from having a lot of things to “hoarder”.
I wonder if the person who wrote that report has been watching a bit too much reality television.
May 17th, 2012 at 9:23 am
I certainly understand the intent of the ordinance, however, I think it is inappropriate. For those property owners (and tenants) who never see complaints or issues, this is excessive. In my opinion, it feels odd to penalize those owners who are doing their jobs in maintaining safe, well maintained properties. If there are noted violations or complaints, then inspections seem warranted. But, otherwise, this feels wrong.
May 17th, 2012 at 9:54 am
Burnsville has experienced major catastrophic events concerning “slum landlords” and their rental units. These “slum landlords” run properties into the ground then force the city/county to get involved at considerable taxpayer expense in the rehabilitation of these properties. This ordnance should pertain to this type of housing only.
May 17th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Government, at all levels, sticking their nose into our lives is getting to be a significant problem. The 1st and 4th amendments certainly are eroding lately. e.g.: Stop & Frisk in NYC, Domestic Drones in the U.S., NSA & Google relationship, cameras at protests (documenting police tactics), warrantless cellphone tracking, the list goes on. City inspections? … undecided.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Re: hoarding… It can be a major danger to police/fire/medical people if they have to enter the housing unit for some reason, and I know I’ve seen regulations about being able to move around within a housing unit (but I forget where I saw it or which jurisdiction it applied to). I’m usually very opposed to government intervention, but I’m much more concerned about the examples that C&V posted. In fact, Congress’ vote later today about the NDAA is much more worrisome than a Burnsville city ordinance.
Re: inspections… Our rental home in Rochester required an inspection to extend the rental license, but the property manager was present when the inspection took place. I see why they happen, but I also see the downside of over-regulation in my ‘hometown’ Minneapolis. It seems like the best time to inspect would be between renters. Or, if a unit is occupied for a long time, maybe the city could contact the tenants for an optional inspection. Ultimately, the inspection is for their benefit, so it should be up to the tenant if they want to allow a city inspector in or if they’d rather maintain their privacy in the matter. This seems like a reasonable compromise.
May 17th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
I live in Burnsville and have considered eventually buying another home and renting the one I currently live in once it’s paid off. Both as a former renter and potential future landlord, this ordinance is annoying and frustrating to say the least.
So, I wrote a letter to Coughlin. Gustafson’s support doesn’t surprise me and I don’t find his input worth responding to for a number of reasons. But here’s the email to Coughlin I just sent him:
May 17th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Farmington may not follow in Burnsville’s footsteps it seems…
From: http://www.farmingtonindependent.com/event/article/id/20144/
May 17th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
I sincerely hope that they don’t end up doing this. People should have a right to privacy in their homes unless there is a reason that they should lose that right. But, who decides that? And what would be good reasons?
If you were someone who had some sort of a problem in the past that was documented, such as an unsafe environment, or certain (but not all) criminal records maybe? Even that is a really, really gray area. But, if you haven’t had any issues, people should not be allowed to go into your home whenever they want to just because.
If your rental unit has a history of problems, this would be a help for those particular renters, but the renters should be able to set appointments for inspections. Or be able to ask for an inspection if something is wrong and isn’t being addressed.
I lived in an apartment complex in Crystal and actually moved, though I didn’t want to, because they started doing this. The lease said that they were supposed to give you 24 hours notice before entering your apartment unless there was an emergency. I would get notices slipped under my door after I left for work in the morning stating that there was going to be an inspection the next day. Technically, I guess they gave me 24 hours notice because the note was likely slipped under the door early in the day and the inspection was the following day, probably 24 hours or more later. But, I would not receive the notice until sometime in the evening when I returned from work, so my “real” notice was often less than 10 or 12 hours at most. I never had any issues that would be a problem for an inspection, but I did have a diabetic cat that would attack anyone that entered my apartment when I was not home if he didn’t know them. He was fine with strangers if I was there. Because of this, I would have to make a phone call to my boss asking to stay home the next day or make arrangements to board him for the day, which is next to impossible to do after hours. And then I would have to pay for it, too. Putting him into a closed room was not an option as they had to have access to every room. And they wouldn’t even give any times that they would be doing inspections or a window of times so I could take a partial day off from work. They could show up early or late, whenever they wanted to.
They would not make any exception for me, even though I had never had any issues and it was just not worth it to stay there when they started doing these inspections every six months and sometimes more frequently. I guess there were issues in other units so they felt they had to come back more often. When I would stay home, often they wouldn’t even come to my apartment. They just had to notify me that they might. So I had to be there.
I hope the people in Burnsville are able to stop this from happening!
May 17th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
For the record, Coughlin responded. He’s holding his ground. Given his campaign as a conservative who would help curb the expansion of city government, I’m pretty irritated to say the least. This is the closest I’ve ever come to thinking I may actually get so fed up I’ll actually run one day. I’m sure common sense will prevail though and I’ll go back to just being irritated on the sidelines…
May 17th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Joey, It sounds like you are someone who should run. Oh, but you probably would never get elected for anything using the platform of common sense and other such rational thoughts.
I used to think I should get more involved in certain areas to try to make a difference, but then I realized that I would never make a difference unless other like-minded people did too – and people like that got elected as well.
A lot of us are sitting on the sidelines and maybe shouldn’t be. Food for thought.
It would be great if you shared his response.
May 17th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
I have 3 kids 2 and under and hate – and I meant HATE! – knocking on doors. I’m on the board of my townhome association and that’s probably as far as I’ll go. Raising money and shilling for votes just sounds horrible. Helping set policy sounds awesome. Too bad it takes the former to get to the latter.
May 17th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
I live in SLP and, as a renter, am glad that we get inspections every year. My landlord is a pretty cheap bastard and I’m certain the inspections are the only thing that keeps my building slipping into slum status, especially since the caretaker is leaving (she’s on a first name basis with our city inspector).
May 17th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
I completely understand the hate for knocking on doors. I feel the same way.
I work for a company where every couple of months we have to ask for donations for a charity. It is a good charity, but I have to ask my regular customers, who come in with exact change for what they are buying, if they can come up with more to donate to this cause just to make my goal. I am so uncomfortable with this, but have to do it anyway.
What would our government be like if real people could actually be the ones elected rather than only those that can afford to run? Or those that have no problem asking everyone for money?
We need someone with common sense and business sense running our state / country, not just the people who have the money to promote themselves and convince us that they can do it.
When I was in elementary school we had to write an essay on what we wanted to do with our lives. I said that I wanted to either be a lawyer or the president. How funny is that?
May 17th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Aliecat, that is what I meant exactly. If you are in a place where there is a need for inspections to keep your home habitable, you should have them, but that should not mean that everyone in your city should have to deal with those inspections. They are an intrusion on your privacy and if there haven’t been problems, they aren’t needed. If you need them to keep your landlord fixing things and such, then, yes, you should have them. For those of us that are fortunate enough to live in a place where there have been no issues, they should not be able to just announce that they are coming. Especially with little or no notice, which is what I have had to deal with in the past.
May 18th, 2012 at 8:13 am
Joey,
Once the public gets wind of you riding around town on the Pedal Pub every Thursday afternoon, your campaign will be dead in the water.
lefty
May 22nd, 2012 at 2:06 am
KMS, how should a city design a law by which the “good” landlords and their tenants are not subject to inspections, and the “bad” ones are?
In the interest of guaranteeing good conditions for all renters, is it possible to fashion a law — a legally DEFENSIBLE law — that risks favoring one landlord over another?
It may be open to interpretation whether one complex vs. another has, in your words, a “need for inspections to keep your home habitable.”
If I were a lawmaker, I’d be extremely careful about crafting ordinances that may seem to play favorites.
Maybe an ordinance could be refined to order MORE inspections of proven bad properties.
But no ordinance regarding mandatory inspections of prescribed types of properties should begin with an assumption that some will be exempt.
May 22nd, 2012 at 8:35 am
This year will mark twenty years that I have lived in Burnsville, all in the same house. In the last couple of years, my neighborhood has seen a steady increase in the number of single family homes that have gone from owner-occupied to rental units. The neighborhood has seen larger family groups and multiple roommate situations move into these homes. As a result, I have seen a deterioration in the neighborhood as people take less care of their yards, and more cars overflowing driveways and being parked in streets.
It’s frustrating to see our once-cozy neighborhoods change so drastically.
As I see changes in the outside appearance of these rental units in my neighborhood, I can only wonder what the inside of these rental units must be like. Therefore, I think that it is prudent of the City to inspect these units on a regular basis – for fire hazard and health reasons especially.
For instance, one home in my neighborhood has a revolving door of young people living there. They also have an in-ground pool that is filled with black murky water when not filled with green scum. The owner does not live there any longer and has turned the house over to his son and various roommates. Who knows what kind of health risks that pool is harboring, much less the condition inside the house? If the owner is renting the house, I would want to have inspections so that the rest of the neighborhood can feel safer.
I don’t feel that this is an issue of privacy, but rather preserving the public health and safety. It seems that these days caring for the welfare of the public has taken a backseat to merely taking care of one’s self. I say, go ahead, inspect these rental properties. I know I would have no problem with these inspections if I were renting – it’s called increased peace-of-mind! I applaud the Council on this action.
May 22nd, 2012 at 9:06 am
I understand the concern with hoarders. If you are living in an apartment and are hoarding you are putting your neighbors at risk because of the fire hazard in your home. While someone that is hoarding and owns their own home also has a fire hazard on their hands, the risk to their neighbors life and property is not as high as when you are literally connected to dozens of people above, below and beside you.
May 22nd, 2012 at 5:45 pm
I can see the intent behind this, and it’s always tough to balance property rights/privacy against other people’s safety and the cost to taxpayers of problems that get out of hand. But I think the execution is very flawed.
For example (I don’t live in Burnsville, but let’s say I did), I live in a townhome community that has both rental and owner-occupied units. It’s about 25% rentals, up from 10% when I bought my home seven years ago. So, someone renting out their unit would be subject to these inspections, but a person who owns their unit and lives there wouldn’t, if I am understanding this ordinance correctly, even though they might live next door to each other and have shared walls and everything. For all the city knows, the homeowner who lives in their unit could be a hoarder, have a defective smoke detector, etc. too, which could cause just as many problems for the people living around them. It’s not just renters or landlords who do these things, after all.
Plus, how does the city know who’s renting and who isn’t? Let’s say I take an overseas assignment for six months and let a relative or friend live in the house while I’m gone, but don’t charge them anything. Does that make it count as a rental unit (this situation happened a couple of times in my HOA back when we had a rental cap, and people were able to get around it that way).
And this isn’t even getting into things like the frequency of the inspections, giving sufficient notice, and all that.
In short, yeah, I can see why they want to do this. But they way they’re going about it isn’t going to work and thus there’s no point to the ordinance.
May 22nd, 2012 at 8:29 pm
There are also other ordinances in place to deal with some issues mentioned, like number of vehicles in driveways (which I think Burnsville regulates) exterior up-keep, etc. If the City thinks there’s an issue, use the current laws on the books to solve them, don’t create more. Also, as has been mentioned, this new ordinance would require additional staffing to enforce, which is not a good idea these days with the current budget crises being felt everywhere.