HOME Line Organizer, Eric Hauge, submitted a terrific opinion article to MinnPost  (or click for PDF version) on needed prevention of disastrous living conditions that result from landlord negligence.  City governments are taking serious action against landlords who fail to address major repairs and infestations, allowing their buildings and tenants’ living conditions to fall into squalor.  By the time local governments take action, however, the question at hand is whether tenants are better off living in unsafe or unhealthy conditions, or are they better off displaced (leaving those most vulnerable in danger of homelessness).  The answer Hauge asserts is that it should not come down to dire straits, but rather, there are other more preventative tools already available to local governments, and that legislation allowing tenants to screen prospective landlords should be passed.  Preventing the situation from getting this bad would save money, time, and difficulties for all parties involved.

What else should tenants know?

Tenants who find themselves living in a building that has either been condemned by a city, or whose landlord’s license has been revoked, may not be obligated to pay rent.  If the home has been condemned, the tenant may also request in writing to have their full security deposit returned to them within 5 days.  Collecting this deposit could take some work a tenant’s part, however, possibly by taking the landlord to conciliation court.  Because each situation is different, it is best for tenants to consult with an attorney (at HOME Line, Legal Aid, or other legal counsel) before deciding to withhold rent.

What else can tenants do?

Share with us your thoughts how screening your landlord before signing your lease would have helped you make a more informed (or different) decision about where you chose to live, or where you will choose to live next.

Here in Minnesota, a number of legislators are introducing or have introduced budgetary amendments that, if passed, will:

• (HF 1598)  require a “super majority” or a 3/5 of a majority vote to pass a tax increase—instead of the current simple majority of 51%
• (HF 1661/ SF 1378) limit general fund spending in each biennium (every two years) to 98% of expected income for the state and
• (HF 1612/ SF 1364) limit all spending to the amount of all income (revenues) collected in the previous biennium.

People are still suffering the effects of the recession, and many are out of work or really scraping by right now, so saving on taxes sounds really good, doesn’t it? Especially since the state government shut down last summer all because they couldn’t agree to much of anything.  Why should they have our hard-earned dollars to sit around and bicker?

Well, on the surface, that’s a pretty sound argument, but let us dig a little deeper and see what it really means for Minnesota’s future and how it can affect each of us as individuals.

The first point to make is that in summer of 2011, we witnessed a legislature so torn in half that getting anything passed seemed nearly impossible.  As a result, the government shut down for two weeks.  That happened with a simple 51% majority vote required to get something passed.  Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be if a 60% majority vote were needed to pass a tax increase?  What if the I-35W Bridge collapsed or North Minneapolis was ravaged by the tornado under such a law?  How would our state be able to handle such an emergency when a speedy consensus to provide aid is so critical?

Another point of concern is that this type of legislative gridlock can lead policy makers to make back-room deals in order to meet their constituents’ needs.  There is no transparency in that type of process, and it allows for more corruption and shady dealing.

Limiting the state budget from future growth means limited funding toward things that most people value, such as a vibrant education system, viable roads, workforce training, and public safety. It also doesn’t allow for long-term goal setting.  This would tie the budget to yesterday’s issues, rather than the unimagined possibilities for tomorrow.

If these three amendments pass both houses of the Minnesota legislature, the plan is for them to be included on the 2012 election ballot for voters to choose.  This way, the governor will not be able to veto them.

Passage of these bills are guaranteed to harm assistance for low income renters.   Each year, we fight to preserve the renters credit, and keep funding alive for housing that lower income families can afford.  If these are issues you care about, then these budget amendments should also matter a lot to you.

The Minnesota Budget Project has great information on these three amendments (that I raided for this blog) as does the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.  CBPP has excellent information about how similar laws are  harming other states .

If you would like to learn how to follow these bills, Speak for We has a great tutorial on how to use “MyBill” on the Minnesota Legislature’s website. Check these sites out and stay tuned to HOME Line’s site for ways you can help stop these and other harmful measures in Minnesota.

December 22^nd, the StarTribune published an insightful opinion article, “Downtown 2025 plan must include job equity,” by Avi Viswanathan of Hire MN, responding in part to the Strib’s Dec. 14^th Editorial, “By 2025, a bigger, livelier downtown Minneapolis.”

In his own article, Mr. Viswanathan writes, If we want a healthy economy… our approach to solving the problem of our disparities cannot be separated from any of our long-term strategies and grand visions, much less from our plans for large public and private investments. We must have a systemic and integrated approach so that equity becomes a necessary component of each and every plan for how our city and region develop.

I would like to piggy-back on these comments by raising further concern over the lack of housing affordable to people with low, very, and extremely low incomes.  Solving homelessness must also be part of a long-term strategy and grand vision, rather than a side note, intended to get some more people off the streets for a night or two. “By 2025…” credits the city with its idea to provide …permanent shelter and support services for the 300 to 500 people who will sleep outside in downtown Minneapolis tonight and most nights this winter. And that the project, …anticipates both significant corporate donations to pay for projects and funding help from all levels of government. Both will be required to accomplish this plan’s goals.

That said, I would like to now shift gears and turn some attention to a federal program called Section 3.

Have you heard of Section 3? Me neither. I never knew about this program until someone recently asked me about it.  I had to look it up. NLIHC offers a great (and more complete and accurate) description of it in their Spring issue of Tenant Talk and in their 2011 Advocates’ Guide.  Section 3 was designed as part of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to provide work opportunities for public housing residents, businesses owned by public housing residents, HUD Youthbuild participants, residents of the neighborhood or businesses that provide economic opportunities to individuals in the neighborhood, and homeless individuals.

What, you may ask, does this have to do with Minneapolis’s grand vision for its future, and the need for racial and economic equality to be addressed within the plan? 

In short (kinda), Section 3 determines that with any number of particular HUD grants used for public and Indian housing or for certain development projects (like this one, perhaps), the grant recipient is supposed to give preference for 30% of its new hires (related to the development project), to eligible individuals that are low-income, homeless, live in the neighborhood, etc. Therefore, if this project were to come to life, and becomes even partly funded by HUD grants, the city and contractors must be held accountable to hiring some of the folks experiencing homelessness and individuals with low-incomes who are already living in the neighborhood to assist with the project.

Developing sustainable communities that connect jobs and transit with more affordable housing options for low-income residents and creating job opportunities for those who need greater housing stability would be an excellent companion piece to advancing racial equity within the plan.  Not only that, but enforcing Section 3 would help to create a financial return for HUD and local housing authorities, as residents would be increasing their own contributions in rent.  That would be a much better way for the government to save than by cutting HUD programs at a time when people need jobs and housing.

According to the NLIHC, enforcement of Section 3 has been neglected until the Obama Administration began taking steps to hold grant recipients accountable to report on their hiring practices.

If advocates are vigilant in holding local governments and contractors accountable to complying with Section 3 on HUD funded projects, much of the same effort can be simultaneously and equally applied when ensuring that people of color are given a fair shot at those work opportunities as well.  What’s that saying again?  “We all do better when we all do better?”

Senator John Marty

Affordable housing has been an issue that policy makers and politicians have dealt with for decades.  To be considered affordable, no more than 30% of a household’s income should go toward rent. The remaining 70% should go toward food, clothing, medical expenses etc. Currently, millions of Americans pay over 30% of their income toward rent/housing needs.

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. If one person works full-time (40 hours per week) at the federal minimum wage level, affordable housing for this individual would be $348 per month to cover both housing and utilities. Unfortunately, finding housing at that rate is next to impossible, so many people use federal subsidy programs, which pay the difference between market rate and what is affordable for the individual.

In this podcast, you will hear from Dr. Jeffery Crump, Associate Professor of Housing Studies at the University of Minnesota and State Senator John Marty, who represents District 54 encompassing Roseville, Shoreview, St. Anthony, and Vadnais Heights. Dr. Crump and Senator Marty took the time to sit down with me and talk about affordable housing, what has been done, and what could be done.

To listen to the 11min podcast, click here.

As the 2012 legislative session approaches, it is important to stay informed on and watch for rental housing issues in Minnesota. Many important developments about housing concerns are occurring throughout the state, and it is more important than ever to make your voices heard in the coming months.

Recently, the Star Tribune’s Randy Furst reported on the crackdown of landlords throughout Minneapolis.  The city has revoked 17 rental licenses belonging to Ronald Folger on the North Side.  According to Folger, this revocation, if approved, would be the third largest license revocation of landlords by the city council since 1999.   Folger has incurred 368 code violations on 15 of his properties since 2009.  In order to dodge these revocations, Folger has reportedly attempted to sell six of the properties through a “contract for deed”.  In this way, property owners are able to earn income without facing inspections.  As Faust writes: “Once again, the city is grappling with the dilemma of its crackdown on negligent landlords — that it
disrupts the lives of tenants in a bitterly tight rental market, especially people with low incomes.”

These types of violations make it ever-necessary to pass Truth in Leasing legislation that would allow Minnesota renters to see landlord history.  Renters have the right to be educated about their landlord’s past in order to acquire equitable housing, and to avoid situations where their homes could become jeopardized in the future.  HOME Line will be working on legislation to protect tenants from landlords like Ronald Folger and to allow tenants to make more informed choices about their housing.

Furst’s Article: http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/134951388.html

After a tumultuous summer and one of the longest state government shutdowns in Minnesota history, followed by cuts to many vital social programs, it came as a surprise when the state announced last week that it forecasts an $876 million surplus for the next biennium.  The immediate questions that jump into the minds of nearly every Minnesota taxpayer is:  How will the money be spent? and Where is my share?

Many organizations and interest groups have been taking interest in the news as well, some that were affected by the July budget cuts, each wanting their piece of the pie (not to mention convenient timing for proponents of the Vikings stadium). The fate, however, of the budget surplus appears to be mostly predetermined. According to the Minnesota Budget Project, state law requires that the first $255 million of the surplus be used to refill the state’s cash flow account and the remaining go to the state’s budget reserves.

So, will this money pass through our hands in the form of a tax break or social relief program? Unfortunately not directly, but it is important to remember that the state is working with a little more cushion going into the next biennium, which is good news for those of us pushing for restoration of programs that were cut this year, including the renters’ credit.

For additional information from the Minnesota Housing Partnership concerning the surplus click here.

Michael Dahl

Perhaps some of our readers have already heard the news that Michael Dahl will no longer be serving as Public Policy Director at HOME Line. His contribution to HOME Line is appreciated, and his enthusiasm and spirit will be missed. His work on preserving the Renters’ Credit and passing the Tenant Bill of Rights was instrumental in carrying out HOME Line’s mission of advocacy, policy improvement, and citizen engagement. In addition to his advocacy work, he pioneered an outstanding internship program that will continue in his absence.

In my time as an intern at HOME Line I had the opportunity to work with Michael for just shy of four months. In that short period of time, with Michael’s guidance, I learned valuable lessons about advocacy, communicating with policy makers, and the legislative process. But even more important than what I’ve learned are the tangible teamwork, independent thinking, and leadership skills that have helped to shape my future and career goals.

Michael’s fight for justice in our community and the world doesn’t end at HOME Line. Through his new blog, Speak for We, he will continue to share his ideas, personal stories, and as always deliver a call to action for social change. Wherever Michael chooses to take his public policy expertise, you can be sure that he is out there fighting for you. Join us in thanking Michael for his contribution to HOME Line and wishing him the best in his future endeavors.

Residents of the Country Village apartment complex in Burnsville, MN are the most recent victims of landlord neglect. The complex is infested with insects and has severe water damage causing ceilings to sag and mold to grow. In a recent article, the Star Tribune reports that the management, Lindahl Properties, had their license suspended this week. The 138 unit complex has had 129 cases of building code violations since April. Fire Marshall, Lee Le Tourelle, said that 75 percent of fire code violations have not been fixed.

Country Village in Bursville isn’t the first problem apartment that Lindahl Properties has had. Last year, another complex in Shakopee had issues with bedbug and cockroach infestation. Local police wer forced to intervene and a criminal nuisance complaint was filed. In addition properties in Wayzata and Mankato are also experiencing problems with infestation, mold and water damage.

Rent for a one bedroom apartment at the Burnsville property is $625 a month according to the Dakota County Community Development Agency. With vacancy rates as low as 3 percent, options for affordable housing are sometimes limited to apartments with conditions such as Country Village. Burnsville is stepping up to try to solve the problem, “We’re not going to allow conditions like this to go on any further,” said Council Member Dan Kealey, but with tightening budgets cities have increasingly limited resources to police problem landlords.

This is just another reason HOME Line thinks landlords should be required to disclose their rental history to cities and tenants before obtaining a license and signing a lease. Wouldn’t you want to know if the landlord you were signing a lease with had a record of maintenance neglect?

For additional stories about Lindahl Properties click here.

Nicole Witstine - Public Policy Intern

MPR News reported in a recent article that Landlords in the state of Minnesota will see property taxes on their rental units increase by about 4.6 percent. This is due to the redesign of a property tax system intended to relieve homeowners of the property tax burden. The redesign saves the state $261 million a year and shifts the tax burden from low-value homes to higher-value homes as well as commercial and industrial buildings that include apartment complexes.

An informal survey was done of landlords at the Minnesota Multi-Housing Association’s annual convention last week and found that many landlords are considering raising rents starting next year.  Atop an increased demand for rental housing, record low vacancy rates, and the average income of renters dropping by more than 20 percent in the last decade, tenants in Minnesota will have a harder time making ends meet if affordable housing options aren’t made available.

Yesterday, a few of us at HOME Line had the opportunity to discuss the affordable housing situation in Minnesota with Senator John Marty from District 54 (Northern St. Paul Suburbs). Look for a podcast in the next couple of weeks featuring Senator Marty and our conversation about affordable housing.

With an increase in the property tax burden on renters and an expected decrease in the renters’ credit, now is the time to let your legislators know how important renters’ credit is to you. Contact your legislator and tell them what you used your renters’ credit for this past August.

We’ve kept you updated play-by-play of the status of the Renter’s Credit this past summer. In this podcast of “Renters’ Voice”, we summarize the work of hundreds of people to save the Renters Credit last legislative session.

With the help of legislators, Minnesota renters, and HOME Line interns, we explain the origin of the renter’s credit, hear testimony from renters, and bring you inside the state shutdown this past July.

Make sure you contact your legislators to tell them how you used your renters’ credit this year. This is not the end of our fight to defend the renters’ credit!

Click here to listen to the podcast.