Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Local landlords wary of proposal

January 25, 2014

FAIRMONT — Local landlords are unhappy, at least the dozen who showed up Friday at the Sentinel to voice their concerns about a rental ordinance Fairmont City Council is considering....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(12)

nixroxcon

Jan-27-14 5:57 PM

Sylvia doesn't have a councilman in Fairmont!!!! She is an out of town landlord....I think from Blue Earth.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stubbornfive

Jan-27-14 4:29 PM

I guess this is another example of letting your city, oops I mean town go down the drain. Drive around and look from North North to State Street and from 3rd street to lets say tenth street. There are quite a bit of dilapidated buildings and homes. Its not just in that area either. Look at the store fronts throughout the city it is quite desimating to see how they ruin your town. Take pride and fix up those buildings and homes.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jeffkvb1

Jan-27-14 3:47 PM

"For landlord Sylvia Poetter, what's most unfair has been the way the ordinance was put together: "We've called City Hall to ask questions, and they've not asked for any input from us."

Contact your city council member, duh.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-27-14 9:12 AM

"They dont have enough people to enforce it so that means more hiring & extra $$ from the taxpayer's."

As my first comment said, "If the city of Fairmont doesn't have the manpower to inspect buildings/ code enforcement now, what will be the effect of a new seemingly unenforceable rule?"

So really this is all about MORE money for the city and government job creation? If code enforcement is lacking, it has probably been lacking for the last five years? So we will throw more taxpayer money at the wall and hope it sticks...

More regulation is ALWAYS the rule for progressives.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

upnorth

Jan-25-14 11:31 PM

Amen Jmaynard!!! Good post. Sheep still don't know what roll's down hill.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jmaynard

Jan-25-14 7:08 PM

Ron, there are already ways in place to deal with the problem you had that don't involve growing government that much more. Even if it only costs landlords $1.29 a month, how much will it cost the rest of us who don't rent? More government, more people, more salaries, more pensions, more paperwork, more more more. We don't need more. We need less. Badly.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

upnorth

Jan-25-14 4:44 PM

Blue. Like Doug said. They dont have enough people to enforce it so that means more hiring & extra $$ from the taxpayer's. Also if you ever see Doug ask him if he is the Doug that hurdled a catcher & scored a run??(long ago) Then I might know him.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nixroxcon

Jan-25-14 10:45 AM

Why are landlords so apprehensive? If their rental property is presently up to code, what are they apprehensive about? Three year registration costs, as proposed, are approx. a $1.29 per month, per unit. Surely they can afford that without raising the rents and causing our most vulnerable to thrown out in the cold. A rental property that exposes a neighborhood and our community to ongoing criminal activity and puts us in physical jeopardy should be closed. By the way, that is a much longer process, triggered by a series of problems. The proposed ordinance would NOTIFY landlords of problematic tenant behavior and activity in their rentals PRIOR to action.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-25-14 9:47 AM

"The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare"

Each issue that follows that statement in the article can be addressed NOW through existing law and/or regulation.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-25-14 9:40 AM

I lived in rental housing for 35+ years. Most of the time it was w/ out the "benefit" of a lease agreement.

In that time, only once did I have trouble getting the landlord to fix a critical issue. In that case the landlord refused to fix the septic system, so I exercised my "freedom to move" option.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-25-14 9:33 AM

If the city of Fairmont doesn't have the manpower to inspect buildings/ code enforcement now, what will be the effect of a new seemingly unenforceable rule?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nixroxcon

Jan-25-14 7:18 AM

10 LANDLORDS: A rental in our neighborhood, Woodland at Lake Park Blvd, has had four diff. convicted felons as tenants. First an ex-con selling dope 24/7 there, the next tenant an ARMED ex-con selling dope incl. near a park. His tenancy ended in a swat-style action as this paper reported. The next tenant was marijuana poss. and her residing boy friend was a well known level III sexual predator causing multiple disturbances. The latest tenant was arrested for felony domestic assault and violating a no contact order. this tenant has been convicted of four similar charges previously incl. a felony. His latest arrest at the rental was a month ago. Our families, especially our children, were exposed to this criminal activity and personal safety issues for two years until we formed a pro-active group of 40 neighbors and involved the police and city administration to fight this festering nuisance. Code issues continue. Ron Davison

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 12 of 12 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web