I have not had the heart to write about what has been going on at City Hall of late, as I have found their antics far too depressing. So, since I am not a drinker, I have spent far more time burying myself in world financial markets trying unsuccessfully to drive these council actions and this hypocritical back slapping and self aggrandizement from my mind. Can you tell I am displeased? Good, I always knew that my readers were smart.
So, here we are in the middle of a depression, and jobs are becoming more scarce by the day. The Mayor says he doesn’t have to make any changes in the city this year, because he anticipated the unallotments, and built his solutions into this year’s budget already. Hmmm… What is our City Council’s response to our current economic crisis? How have our wise leaders prepared for this rainy day?
We seem to need more business regulation and more inspectors, so we can collect more fees to pay more salaries. As of May 22, we will now make it harder for rental properties to change hands in the City, but even while we continue to pressure the rental real estate market, we are projecting the collection of an additional $612,000. Here is how this addition to ordinance 244 breaks down:
******244.1870. Point-of-conversion or change of ownership inspection.
(a) A license or provisional license issued hereunder is nontransferable. A new license application shall be required for each change of ownership of a rental dwelling and whenever a dwelling is converted to rental usage.
(b) Whenever a dwelling is converted to rental usage or when a rental dwelling changes ownership, the dwelling or dwellings shall be promptly inspected for compliance with the minimum standards set forth in section 244.1855 of this article. The fee for the inspection required by this section shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for the inspection of any dwelling converted to rental usage and four-hundred fifty dollars ($450.00) for the inspections of a rental dwelling which has a change of ownership. This fee shall be in addition to the annual license fee. This provision shall not apply to condominium buildings containing six (6) or more dwelling units nor to any rental dwelling owned by a nonprofit entity, as that term is defined in this title. The director of inspections may waive this provision if a property received a certificate of occupancy within three (3) years of the application date.
(1) Conversion shall be defined as single dwelling buildings and buildings /units with separate PID numbers (condominium or townhouse with 2-5 dwelling units) that have been unlicensed for the previous twelve (12) months for which the owners are applying for a rental dwelling license.
(c) Noncompliance with written orders duly issued pursuant to the inspection required under this section shall constitute cause for the imposition of adverse license action, including but not limited to license denial.
(d) If the licensee discontinues rental use and re-occupies the converted dwelling as an owner occupant within twelve (12) months of paying the inspection fee, the owner may be eligible for a fifty (50) percent refund of the inspection fee, upon written application. The provisions of this section shall apply to any property re-converted to rental use after application for this refund. ******
I know! We can help all those who have been foreclosed on find new homes by charging their landlords a $450 inspection fee for each unit they are going to put on the market! My guess is, the cost of applying to rent a new apartment will reflect this new fee, but who ever said the DFL endorsed City Council was friendly to the poor who will be most adversely affected by this ordinance? If you were thinking about renting out a condo in a small complex, or a house, and you were going to apply for a new rental license, get ready to shell out the $1000 fee. Since non-profits are exempt, I guess the poor will just have to make do with the projects that the City council has spent the American Recovery and Reinvestment act on. I always find it funny that the same groups are always at the public trough when community block grants are available.
Now let’s look at Title 12, ordinance 249:
******** 249.80. Vacant building registration.
(a) The owner of a residential building or building located in a residentially zoned area shall register the building with the director of inspections within five (5) days after it becomes a vacant building. In this section, a "vacant building" is one that is:
(1) Condemned; or
(2) Unoccupied and unsecured for five (5) days or more; or
(3) Unoccupied and secured by means other than those normally used in the design of the building for thirty (30) days or more; or
(4) Unoccupied and has multiple housing maintenance, fire or building code violations existing for thirty (30) days or more; or
(5) Unoccupied for a period of time over three hundred sixty-five (365) days and during which time an order has been issued to correct a nuisance condition pursuant to section 227.90. ; or
(b) The owner of a building designated as vacant pursuant to this section may appeal such designation within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the designation or a billing statement therefore to the nuisance condition process review panel pursuant to the procedures established in section 249.45. The notice of designation or billing statement shall notify the building owner of such appeal rights.
(b)(c) The registration shall be submitted on forms provided by the director of inspections and shall include the following information supplied by the owner:
(1) A description of the premises;
(2) The names and addresses of the owner or owners;
(3) The names and addresses of all known lienholders and all other parties with an ownership interest in the building.
(4) The period of time the building is expected to remain vacant; and a plan and timetable for returning the building to appropriate occupancy or for demolition of the building. (, or within a reasonable period of time thereafter to be determined by the director of inspections)
(c)(d) The owner shall submit a plan and timetable that must comply with the guidelines adopted by the director of inspections. The guidelines are adopted for purposes of preventing nuisance conditions and maintaining compliance with this code. These guidelines shall be made available to building owners. The plan shall be submitted at the time of registration.
(d)(e) The owner shall comply with all applicable laws and codes. The owner shall notify the director of inspections of any changes in information supplied as part of the vacant building registration within thirty (30) days of the change. If the plan or timetable for the vacant building is revised in any way, the revisions must meet the approval of the director of inspections.
e)(f) The owner and the subsequent owners shall keep the building secured and safe and the building and grounds properly maintained until the rehabilitation or demolition has been completed.
(f)(g) Failure of the owner or any subsequent owner to maintain the building and premises that result in abatement completed by the city shall be grounds for revocation of the approved plan and shall be subject to any applicable penalties provided by law.
(g)(h) The new owner(s) shall register or re-register the vacant building with the director of inspections within thirty (30) days of any transfer of an ownership interest in a vacant building. The new owner(s) shall comply with the approved plan and timetable submitted by the previous owner until any proposed changes are submitted and meet the approval of the director of inspections.
(h)(i) The director of inspections shall include in the file any property-specific written statements from community organizations, other interested parties or citizens regarding the history, problems, status or blighting influence of a vacant building. (i)
(j) Vacant building fees:
(1) The owner of a vacant building shall pay an annual fee as established in the director's fee schedule pursuant to section 91.70. The fee is imposed to recover all costs incurred by the city for monitoring and regulating vacant buildings, including nuisance abatement, enforcement and administrative costs. This fee may be waived or suspended for the current year as a term or condition of a written restoration agreement or order issued pursuant to section 249.50. This fee may be waived for the current year and previous years if the property is acquired by the Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) Department.
(2) The first annual fee shall be paid no later than five (5) days after the building becomes vacant. Subsequent annual fees shall be due on the anniversary date of initial vacancy. The fees shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of any building permits, with the exception of a demolition permit.
(j)(l) A building owner shall provide access to all interior portions of an unoccupied building in order to permit a complete inspection for the purpose of enforcing and assuring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. ********
Now we can consider all we know of the building inspector’s ability to cite and board up property that they had on residential property, and expand it to apply to commercial property as well. Let’s see, exactly how did that work out in North Minneapolis? It seems that we have allowed some copper and fixtures to be salvaged by those who did not have any right to those assets. We have also taken and torn down quite a few homes, including the home that was the topic of an article in the Star Tribune last weekend. I guess the City will have a better chance of collecting the $6000 board-up fee from owners of commercial buildings than they did when they went after home owners and banks who were in the process of foreclosure. If money makes the world go around, then CPED (City Planning and Economic Development) is the cornucopia of City Government.
At this point in time, I am worried about the abuse of eminent domain and the ability of our local government to find excuses to seize property. The right to own property has led to prosperity in our country, and after hearing about the latest inspection sweep thru some of our poorer neighborhoods, I am beginning to doubt that home ownership rights exist at all.
If I were going to open a business, I certainly would not want to locate it in Minneapolis proper when the suburbs have far more to offer. I have seen our future if we choose to continue down this road. I have been to St Louis, where all business development has migrated to the collar suburbs, leaving the downtown business district vacant. With the exit of Brookfield development and the failure of block E, the end of the Warehouse District as the center of metro entertainment is in sight. I am just waiting to see which hotel is going to fail first, which will start the domino effect whereby the vacancy rate downtown will soar.
Downtown Minneapolis could look a lot like downtown St Paul; it won’t take much for us to catch up. I talked to Pat Todd, the city tax assessor, about this very situation. He was quite sure that the requirements of lawyers that practice in the Hennepin courts will be the salvation of downtown office space occupancy rates. I still feel that he is too optimistic, and that his projected revenues are going to be off if we don’t start providing businesses an incentive to come and provide employment in our city.
Whether our current City Council is at fault, or it is a lack of leadership on the part of our mayor, we are facing desperate times that can’t be blamed solely on the Governor. After all, when you know that you are facing an unallotment out of the amount of money that you are supposed to receive from Local Government Aid, it is not prudent to continue the Great Streets program and spend through your capital improvements budget. It is also not particularly wise to chase our homeowners AND our landlords out of town on the same rail. We might just need those resources to provide police and fire protection, repair some roads, and keep our bridges from falling.
