Custom Search

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Minneapolis out to evict landlord


Blogger Bob said...

The first revocation came after a man was arrested for selling drugs in one of Folger's houses. "You can imagine what impact this has on the neighborhood," Atchison said. Folger was supposed to give the city a plan within 10 days to prevent any future drug dealing from the property, but he didn't do it.

My response;
Any of you out there remember the days when politicians were held accountable for public safety?

Now a days politicians pass the buck and blame landlords and other business men for societies social ills. This strategy relieves politicians of scrutiny from citizens.

Are we to expect a landlord to babysit his tenants?

Government expects all of us to be our "brothers keeper", and if you don't submit to Big Brother he persecutes you. Personally I want to see the responsibility of policing back in the hands of trained professionals.

10:12 AM  
Anonymous Peter Brown said...

Peter Brown, a volunteer attorney with the Minnesota Tenants Union, a tenant advocacy group, said the city should have done more to keep tenants in those homes.

"It's a misuse of political, governmental power to basically work up solutions that totally kill housing opportunities in a tight market," Brown said.

He said the city should have asked the county housing court to put the 17 homes in receivership under the state Tenant Remedies Act, appointing an administrator to manage the properties, collect the rents and make repairs.

Assistant City Attorney Lee Wolf said that the act does not apply because Folger's license was being revoked for having two prior revocations, not for housing violations.

Brown said if that's the case, the city should have sought to invoke the Remedies Act before revoking the second license.

Wolf said it was a city housing policy decision and he could not comment on it.

If approved by the City Council's regulatory, energy and environment committee on Dec. 12, the revocation of Folger's licenses is expected to be acted on by the full council Dec. 16.

10:21 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

"It's a misuse of political, governmental power to basically work up solutions that totally kill housing opportunities in a tight market," Brown said.

That is the plan Peter! Kill housing opportunities for the poor.
They have been doing this in Saint Paul for years.

10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just ask some city officials to open their homes to rent, to the kinds of people landlords in St.Paul are renting to. Especially in poor and economically limited neighborhoods.

The point is, let them see that in most cases, it's not the landlord creating these problems of police issues and run down properties.

I used to be a caretaker for landlords in the past and have seen it all.

I have seen how the good landlord offers tenants a clean, well maintained and freshly painted unit upon first moving in.

A landlord does not always know the habits of his tenants until months after that tenant moves in.

Bob is right, and I think the responcability for many of the social ills of the country can be traced back to Government's attitudes of racial bias, preference, segregation policies, and political correctness when it's conveinent for them.

There are troubled tenants in poorer communities that give landlords a hard time and create problems for the landlord that draw the attention of DSI and police.

But, this guy in this story has many properties to manage and it seems to all have gotten to much for him to handle.

But is this landlord responcible for the unlawfull acts of his tenants if he has no knowledge of them ? No.

But if he knows of it, he is contractually and legally obligated to do something about it.

Jeff Matiatos

11:29 AM  
Anonymous CitySt.PaulTruthTax_no 86LennieAnderson said...

Bobby please post this video re: Truth in Taxaction City St.Paul Agenda. no 30 deleted to create confusion Lennie Anderson now 86
Lennie hired Matt Engel so the City is in for more Surprises Thanks 4 Blog

11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I always find interesting is when you compare Saint Paul to the rest of the twin cities metro area, this looks to be the easiest place to be a land lord and the place where your "property rights" are most protected.

Folger is in jeopardy of losing his income from 17 different properties in the City of Minneapols. He is looking at losing his license to be able to be in the business of renting his property out to other people. That can happen in many other suburbs as well, but it can't happen in Saint Paul because we do not have land lord licensing.

The interesting thing with land lord licensing is that it puts two "property rights" in conflict with each other. The first is that we the people maintain "police/regulatory" power over all lands. And, in cities like Minneapolis they determine that one of the rights of the public is to regulate the right the property owner has to transfer leasehold title to his property. They determine that some people can not make good decisions about who they allow to posses their property and take the ability to transfer occupancy to someone who doesn't own title.

So, if they take his license, Folger can live in all of his properties, he can sell all of his properties, he can do anything else that one can do with residential property, he just does not have the ability to transfer possession of the property to someone else.... rent.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if his tenants had long term leases. Since, they have possession of the property and the owner would have lost his right to lease the property, when would they have to leave? You could argue that he only rents the property on the day he signs the lease. Once he transfers leasehold title of the property to the tenant as long as they live up to their agreement, they have the title. I mean if in some of these buildings there is nothing wrong with the property and he "rented" the property out 3 months ago on a year's lease, he doesn't re-lease the property today. The act of transferring possession of the property occurred in the past and they should be able to stay until the lease runs out and he the gets possession rights back to the property.

I don't see how the City can take the right to posses the property that the tenant has away from them if they are not subject to the action. I can't see where the City can undo the existing leases, unless those properties are unsafe.


Chuck Repke

11:09 AM  
Anonymous Crimes against Humanity said...

Chuck City St.Paul and your buddy Dave Thune are complicit to Steal our Propertys and in Sharons Case the Theft of her 91 Chrysler with Disabled Plates, fully insured 2008 then the Illegal Ratification of Fees,Assessments with 12% interest has led to an Illegal Forclosure 2013 without Quiet Titles is Sicko St.Paul Crimes against Humanity FOLGER MUST FIGHT BACK

9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have a form of landlord licensing in St.Paul Chuck, it's called a Certificate of Occupancy.

But whether or not St.Paul is the best city where tenant rights are most protected, is a matter of opinion. Certainly DSI's track record for cracking down on whatever seems to be wrong in tenant housing sector is not without a doubt an aggressive method of enforcement which takes us back to the landlord's lawsuit's.

Even though the courts here dismissed the charges of corruption, different legal minds beg to differ as to whether the courts made a correct decision to dismiss those charges.

10 years or 20 years from now, a court in another state or district may rule the other way around when considering the same set of facts and allegations.

I disagree that the city can pull his license on all of the buildings because just a few of them have problems.

St.Paul's Certificate of Occupancy deals with that better in that if a guy owns 7 properties and 5 of them are substandards, the city pulls the certificate for just those properties in violation and not the other ones.

Clearly a better way .

Jeff Matiatos

12:07 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home