The authors of the MinnPost Voices commentary “On Nov. 4, St. Paul voters can make the city a fairer place for renters” offer plenty of their own statistics but very little context concerning the efficacy of administrative citations to address tenant issues. According to their website, complaints about repairs are the top concern for all the metro-area tenants who contact them. Apparently, cities with the authority to issue administrative citations also have tenant complaints.
Duluth residents are voting this November on a “right to repair” ordinance to allow tenants to have repairs made and billed to the landlord. Why aren’t Duluth’s administrative citations working? Minneapolis has had several high-profile actions against the same three landlords. A Hennepin County judge ruled against one Minneapolis landlord for deceptive leasing practices and “Infestations suggestive of Biblical plague proportions.” Minneapolis’ two biggest slumlords lost a $18.5 million class-action lawsuit over conditions with their buildings that “stretch[ed] back for close to a decade.” Why aren’t Minneapolis’ administrative citations working?
Related: On Nov. 4, St. Paul voters can make the city a fairer place for renters
St. Paul’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance reveals the complexity of ascertaining violations of the ordinance itself and maintenance standards. The Housing Justice Center represented tenants living in eight units in three buildings owned by the same landlord. The tenants were appealing a Department of Safety and Inspections’ determination that the landlord was justified in rent increases of 28% for six units and 52% for two units. Rents had not changed for several years.
The city’s legislative hearing officer recommended that the City Council deny all eight appeals, which would uphold the rent increases. The hearing officer’s report lists four different factors in determining whether the landlord’s rental increases met the Rent Stabilization Ordinance’s exemptions from the 3% annual cap: 1) an increase in real property taxes; 2) an unavoidable increase in operating expenses; 3) a capital improvement project; and 4) an increase in the number of tenants occupying a rental unit.
The tenants’ attorneys argued that property code violations were one reason to deny the landlord’s requested increases. City inspection staff reported that none of the units had code violations on record with the city before the tenants filed their appeals. Tenants acknowledged during the hearing that they had not reported any of the violations to the city that now appeared in their appeal letters.
Related: Explaining St. Paul’s newest enforcement tool — administrative citations
Five months elapsed from when the landlord submitted the exemption request to the city Department of Safety and Inspections until the council disregarded the hearing officer’s recommendation and decided in favor of the tenants on a 4-3 vote. Council members had a lengthy discussion on the difficulty in determining whether the units were habitable as a reason to grant or deny the appeal
Administrative citation proponents are proposing a quick solution to complex problems; problems that cities with administrative citations cannot easily solve. The proposed charter amendment allows the city to create civil penalties for any ordinance violation, not just ones affecting tenants. In a rush to make St. Paul more fair for certain residents, the authors fail to consider the negative consequences for many others, including renters, who could be penalized for any number of to-be-determined ordinance violations.
Peter Butler is a St. Paul resident and led the petition effort to allow residents to exercise their right to vote on the administrative citations charter amendment.
The post Counterpoint: Administrative citations aren’t a cure-all for renters’ complaints appeared first on MinnPost.
