So why do so many of our leaders seem indifferent to the success of landlords?
The latest affront is a bill by state Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) to limit access to CCAP, the Web site detailing court cases. Schneider tinkered with the bill last week, but he didn't fix the part that worries landlords. Under the bill, the system won't show cases until a court finds a defendant guilty or makes an eviction final.
Here's the problem: Landlords use CCAP to screen tenants. It's perfectly legal, says Tristan Pettit, a Milwaukee lawyer who heads the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin. It's a splendid way of learning that a prospective tenant is getting evicted for stiffing his current landlord.
While the bill makes the cases public eventually, the trick is that most evictions settle first, says Pettit. Landlords find that cheaper than months of legal process, and courts press for it. But under Schneider's bill, settlements leave no public record.
Worse, Schneider's bill would keep landlords from spotting troublemakers. Say a tenant is pushing drugs but, because there are witness problems, prosecutors make a deal on a lesser charge. The public record would no longer show the very real drug trouble, which can and should make a landlord wary.
"Basically, you're renting blind," said Tim Ballering, who owns 400 units in Milwaukee. Landlords, he feels, were collateral damage in Schneider's ongoing crusade to give criminals a second (or third or fourth) chance. Still, the lawmaker keeps trying to purge public records, landlords keep complaining, and all that happens is that more lawmakers sign on. Milwaukee Democratic Reps. Fred Kessler and Polly Williams co-sponsored Schneider's bill.
It's not just Schneider. Milwaukee city officials, too, don't make it easy for landlords. The city's an expensive place to own apartments, many say. Taxes are high, and "there are just so many regulations against us," said Pettit. Don't get him started about the nuisance property law, by which landlords can get in trouble if a tenant calls 911 needlessly.
The Department of Neighborhood Services until lately was a particular cross. "There was a real culture of hatred in the city towards property owners," said Ballering. "Starting with DNS."
Ballering, Pettit and others said things are improving under DNS's new commissioner. Others credit police with cleaning up prostitution and gang trouble.
Still, for every step forward, there are another couple steps toward proposals such as landlord licensing. A study done for DNS found that idea had "very uncertain benefits" elsewhere, while for landlords it's pure cost. Yet it seems to be moving forward.
Why? Why do Milwaukee lawmakers co-sponsor Schneider's regrettable lunacy? Why did our city, in which 55% of residents rent, ever come to make those who offer rentals feel as if they were at best merely tolerated?
"It doesn't seem that the city sees what we offer and that it's necessary," said Pettit.
The Public Policy Forum a few months back said Milwaukee's really short of low-cost rentals. If more people went into the business, researchers said, it could help. Yet Ballering, who's owned for 32 years, told his son to find another occupation: "It's such a difficult business," said Ballering.
"There's better things to do with your life."
Not what a city in need of rental housing wants to hear from entrepreneurs who provide it.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/59534347.html
Sounds like NYC is not as bad as it could be.
No comments:
Post a Comment