I think an ordinance of this type is appropriate, but I do believe there needs to be some revision, which is a post for another day.
As I mentioned on Monday, here is another point of view regarding this ordinance from Ronda Wiggers:
I am serving as the Government Affairs Director for the Great Falls Association of Realtors. As many property management offices are often integrated into real estate offices, they also monitor property management issues.
We recognize the problems facing the lower north and southside neighborhoods in Great Falls. However, we do not feel that this ordinance is necessarily the answer.
It would be a great service to landlords and property managers if they were contacted EVERY time the police went to their property. In the past, we have been told that the police cannot do this. Obviously, the time required in verifying ownership of every house involved in a police call would be astronomical. Secondly, I believe that when I was teaching landlord/tenant law we were told that there were due process issues involved that did not allow us to take action for criminal activity until AFTER they were proven guilty in court. I think the two of these issues have combined to keep the police from notifying property managers when they visit their property.
I don't really think the problems facing the northside residents will be addressed if the police wait until after the 3rd visit to notify the property manager. By this time it is really too late for the property manager to deal with the issue in a timely fashion. If you are to adopt an ordinance of some type, it would seem best if the property manager were notified every time the police visited their property. It is in the best interest of the property owner to protect their asset from damage. In most instances, the earlier that they are aware of the problem, the earlier the problem will be dealt with.
I also have some concerns about the time lines and notification involved. It appears that the city will have 3 options in how they notify the property owner. One of those options is to simply "post" the property. There is no way to keep the tenant from removing this notice or to insure that the property owner is actually notified. We would ask that you strike that option as a form of notice. Second, the proposal requires that the meeting be held within 5 days of mailing the notice rather than within 5 days of receipt of that notice. It would seem that there may be instances where the property owner is not even aware that there is an issue prior to the meeting time expiring. This should be changed to 5 days after "receipt" of notice to allow for mail time and people to be away from their mailboxes.
Third, the MCA very clearly details the relationship between a landlord and/or property manager and a tenant. The ordinance requirement that the property manager bring copies of their lease/rental agreement with the presumption that the city will then negotiate is simply unacceptable. There is a business relationship between the property owner and the property manager and the tenant. This relationship is governed by MCA, the Montana Board of Realty Regulation and, in many cases, by both state and federal Fair Housing Law. There is no logical reason to allow the city of Great Falls to enter into these contract negotiations. The city has a number of noise and public disturbance laws that can be applied without the need to use the lease agreement.
Further, the MCA clearly delineates the time line for evictions. These vary depending on the rental agreement. A simple month-to-month rental agreement can simply be terminated with a 30 day notice. (this would still take longer than the ordinance proposes for settlement) A long term lease requires that the tenant be allowed to correct the violation of the rental agreement on notification of the first offense (time varies depending on the offense) and then can be evicted with a 5 day notice if the same violation occurs within 6 months. There is an exception for intentional destruction of property that allows for a 3 day non-rectifiable notice to evict. A month-to-month rental agreement can also use these same options but it is usually easier to just give a 30 day notice. Now the bad news. That is the easy part. If they choose not to move then you must go to Justice Court and file for an eviction. They must be served papers. They then have 20 days to answer. After that 20 days has passed then you are scheduled for a court date. (I have found this is usually within 2 weeks in Cascade County) If the court finds in favor of the landlord then they usually give the tenant another 3 or 4 days to move. If they again do not move, you must go back and get a writ and have the sheriff move them (this takes a very long time as the sheriff does not like to do it). None of this fits into the time lines outlined in the proposed ordinance and all of it would happen faster if the police were to notify the property owner after the first visit rather than the third. And, during this entire time, the property manager has absolutely no control over the actions of the tenant. There is no reasonable way to hold the property manager legally and financially responsible for the tenant's actions.
Upon visiting with those that have proposed this ordinance, they indicated that the "solution" could be to evict the tenant and that they were aware that this would take time. I still believe that we need clear language that the landlord would not be liable if the police are called to the property while the eviction is in process.
Finally, if this would really clean up the neighborhood and stop all of the crime problems, we would be very willing to see what we could do to assist the city in getting around the state and federal laws that apply. But we don't believe this is going to solve the problem. It would be interesting to know how many locations have the police visit them 3 times in one month. I know that I owned over 30 units of rental property and I don't think the police visited them a total of 3 times per year! (and, most of those came because of 2 abusive couples) I also know that they do not visit the problem house next door to me on a monthly basis. Do they actually write tickets and make arrests? It would seem that this would be more of a deterrent than "you are probably going to get you and your landlord into trouble some time in the future".
Although I hate how long "the process" takes when someone else's actions are irritating my life, we all need to remember that due process is written into our laws for a reason. We are all innocent until a court finds us guilty and then the government can take action. This ordinance appears to allow the city government to order us into negotiations that change our business contracts and probably cause someone to lose their home without any court ever finding anyone guilty of breaking any law.
One last thought (you knew that was coming) Have you given any thought to the unintended consequences of this? If there is an abuse situation and the police are called on 3 occasions, then the tenant and the landlord enter into an agreement with the city that the police will not be there for 6 months and that they will get counseling or whatever (who is going to monitor this anyway?) the abused now knows that if she calls the police again, she will be homeless, and, maybe in jail for violating the city ordinance. Pretty scary. And, as I look over this, it would not have made it any easier for me to get rid of the "drug store" next door to my house.
Sincerely,
Ronda Wiggers
GFAR - GAD
899-5659
We recognize the problems facing the lower north and southside neighborhoods in Great Falls. However, we do not feel that this ordinance is necessarily the answer.
It would be a great service to landlords and property managers if they were contacted EVERY time the police went to their property. In the past, we have been told that the police cannot do this. Obviously, the time required in verifying ownership of every house involved in a police call would be astronomical. Secondly, I believe that when I was teaching landlord/tenant law we were told that there were due process issues involved that did not allow us to take action for criminal activity until AFTER they were proven guilty in court. I think the two of these issues have combined to keep the police from notifying property managers when they visit their property.
I don't really think the problems facing the northside residents will be addressed if the police wait until after the 3rd visit to notify the property manager. By this time it is really too late for the property manager to deal with the issue in a timely fashion. If you are to adopt an ordinance of some type, it would seem best if the property manager were notified every time the police visited their property. It is in the best interest of the property owner to protect their asset from damage. In most instances, the earlier that they are aware of the problem, the earlier the problem will be dealt with.
I also have some concerns about the time lines and notification involved. It appears that the city will have 3 options in how they notify the property owner. One of those options is to simply "post" the property. There is no way to keep the tenant from removing this notice or to insure that the property owner is actually notified. We would ask that you strike that option as a form of notice. Second, the proposal requires that the meeting be held within 5 days of mailing the notice rather than within 5 days of receipt of that notice. It would seem that there may be instances where the property owner is not even aware that there is an issue prior to the meeting time expiring. This should be changed to 5 days after "receipt" of notice to allow for mail time and people to be away from their mailboxes.
Third, the MCA very clearly details the relationship between a landlord and/or property manager and a tenant. The ordinance requirement that the property manager bring copies of their lease/rental agreement with the presumption that the city will then negotiate is simply unacceptable. There is a business relationship between the property owner and the property manager and the tenant. This relationship is governed by MCA, the Montana Board of Realty Regulation and, in many cases, by both state and federal Fair Housing Law. There is no logical reason to allow the city of Great Falls to enter into these contract negotiations. The city has a number of noise and public disturbance laws that can be applied without the need to use the lease agreement.
Further, the MCA clearly delineates the time line for evictions. These vary depending on the rental agreement. A simple month-to-month rental agreement can simply be terminated with a 30 day notice. (this would still take longer than the ordinance proposes for settlement) A long term lease requires that the tenant be allowed to correct the violation of the rental agreement on notification of the first offense (time varies depending on the offense) and then can be evicted with a 5 day notice if the same violation occurs within 6 months. There is an exception for intentional destruction of property that allows for a 3 day non-rectifiable notice to evict. A month-to-month rental agreement can also use these same options but it is usually easier to just give a 30 day notice. Now the bad news. That is the easy part. If they choose not to move then you must go to Justice Court and file for an eviction. They must be served papers. They then have 20 days to answer. After that 20 days has passed then you are scheduled for a court date. (I have found this is usually within 2 weeks in Cascade County) If the court finds in favor of the landlord then they usually give the tenant another 3 or 4 days to move. If they again do not move, you must go back and get a writ and have the sheriff move them (this takes a very long time as the sheriff does not like to do it). None of this fits into the time lines outlined in the proposed ordinance and all of it would happen faster if the police were to notify the property owner after the first visit rather than the third. And, during this entire time, the property manager has absolutely no control over the actions of the tenant. There is no reasonable way to hold the property manager legally and financially responsible for the tenant's actions.
Upon visiting with those that have proposed this ordinance, they indicated that the "solution" could be to evict the tenant and that they were aware that this would take time. I still believe that we need clear language that the landlord would not be liable if the police are called to the property while the eviction is in process.
Finally, if this would really clean up the neighborhood and stop all of the crime problems, we would be very willing to see what we could do to assist the city in getting around the state and federal laws that apply. But we don't believe this is going to solve the problem. It would be interesting to know how many locations have the police visit them 3 times in one month. I know that I owned over 30 units of rental property and I don't think the police visited them a total of 3 times per year! (and, most of those came because of 2 abusive couples) I also know that they do not visit the problem house next door to me on a monthly basis. Do they actually write tickets and make arrests? It would seem that this would be more of a deterrent than "you are probably going to get you and your landlord into trouble some time in the future".
Although I hate how long "the process" takes when someone else's actions are irritating my life, we all need to remember that due process is written into our laws for a reason. We are all innocent until a court finds us guilty and then the government can take action. This ordinance appears to allow the city government to order us into negotiations that change our business contracts and probably cause someone to lose their home without any court ever finding anyone guilty of breaking any law.
One last thought (you knew that was coming) Have you given any thought to the unintended consequences of this? If there is an abuse situation and the police are called on 3 occasions, then the tenant and the landlord enter into an agreement with the city that the police will not be there for 6 months and that they will get counseling or whatever (who is going to monitor this anyway?) the abused now knows that if she calls the police again, she will be homeless, and, maybe in jail for violating the city ordinance. Pretty scary. And, as I look over this, it would not have made it any easier for me to get rid of the "drug store" next door to my house.
Sincerely,
Ronda Wiggers
GFAR - GAD
899-5659
1 comment:
Just in case readers want to learn about the MCA it is located online at courts.mt.gov
I can't remember if Terry Youngworth was involved with this....
Post a Comment