Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So where was the city when my home lost 45% of its value in the housing market downturn?
Oh, right, they (and the county) raised my property tax rates anyway. So they're still getting their revenue.
They didn't come save you either QuietBlue? My taxes, (er feudal serf fees), have quadrupled since 2006, quadrupled while my houses value is less than half! I'm not even complaining. I understand that's how it goes sometimes, life ain't all sunshine and rainbows. You will never remove all risk from a free society despite government's best intentions and efforts to do so. But is that little quadrupling of taxes while my home value fell almost 80% an example of the government protecting my home value? I'm just stating this fact in response to the statement that government is there to "protect my house value". It may be, up to the point that they start removing and denying homeowner's rights. In terms of "protecting home values" well they clearly failed at this, again despite their best intentions because it was "out of the government's control." Such is life! I just want the same freedom that my neighbor has. That's all. Is it too much to ask to have the freedom to do with my house what I may need to do back, the same rights my neighbor has and everyone else has had for thousands of years? Nope! If the housing bust was out of the government's control or hands, well so is it when I get a job transfer, lose my job, get cancer, need to move to take care of a dying parent or whatever else happens in someone's life! I may need that option to rent, under rental codes, fully enforceable by any city.
Minnesota loves to hate their renters. Might as well give them a big scarlet "R," as they are the downfall of a community. But sign those mortgage papers? You magically and instantly convert from scum of the earth into upstanding model citizen.
I used to live in a VERY nice community in which only about 43% of residents were homeowners. Yet this was a highly desirable location, one which attracted lots of families because of its excellent public schools, safe neighborhoods, and wonderful park, and strong sense of community (and certainly not a "public expense," given that the median household income was $30,000 higher than the county average). There's no reason that a high percentage of rentals automatically translate into slumlords and problem tenants.
That said, I recognize that there are problems. I just don't like the focus on renting as the problem. I think rental housing has a very important place in a community, and think that renters can and should feel as much a part of a community as someone who has purchased a place. Let's identify the real problems (bad landlords or bad tenants) and address THOSE issues. In Minneapolis it does cost a lot to convert a house into a rental; I think that's appropriate, as it provides some disincentive to would-be absentee landlords in it for a quick buck.
I rented for decades. No one size fits all. But among renters AND landlords are plenty that property owners don't want around. The legitimate property owners, the ones that spend money and manage properly aren't the main opposition in these things. It is mostly slumlords and people who think they can earn extra money EASILY through renting. I've been an owner-resident for about 20 years. I don't want rentals popping up all over my neighborhood. I've made some money the hard way by waiting and keeping my property up. I had to report two nearby properties for being ignored for months. We had this whole block of properties that were cared for, broken by these two that looked like a slum. So I'm not just imposing stereotypes, I'm relating what I've seen too close to my home.
I rented for decades. No one size fits all. But among renters AND landlords are plenty that property owners don't want around. The legitimate property owners, the ones that spend money and manage properly aren't the main opposition in these things. It is mostly slumlords and people who think they can earn extra money EASILY through renting. I've been an owner-resident for about 20 years. I don't want rentals popping up all over my neighborhood. I've made some money the hard way by waiting and keeping my property up. I had to report two nearby properties for being ignored for months. We had this whole block of properties that were cared for, broken by these two that looked like a slum. So I'm not just imposing stereotypes, I'm relating what I've seen too close to my home.
I appreciate your comments. I also rented for many years and through the whole housing fiasco (despite actually being mocked for renting) because I saw it as the mania and bubble it was. I worked very hard, saved and went without for years as well so as to buy a house within my means. In my neighborhood in West St. Paul, you'd never know who rents and who doesn't, and it's been that way for years which is a testament to the city enforcing the existing housing codes, not to the very recently imposed rental ban. I applaud the city for enforcing existing housing/rental codes, but once again, in terms of this rental ban, we shouldn't remove everyone's rights or just some people's rights arbitrarily because of a few bad apples. That's not what free societies do. We should eliminate the bad apples and let the people keep their freedom. And once government's start actually removing some people's rights while allowing others to keep theirs in the name of protecting home values, well they have crossed the line. Enforce the existing housing and rental codes. Make them more stringent if need be, but don't start trying to arbitrarily remove people's constitutionally protected rights while allowing others to keep theirs.
FWIW, while I don't support banning rentals, I do think it's a good idea to regulate them and that doing so will prevent pretty much all of the issues that are associated with rentals. In my HOA, rentals are regulated more heavily than my city itself requires (i.e. we require proof of renter's insurance, background checks, etc) and it's worked out very well. This is a situation where a finer-tuned approach works much better for everyone involved than just a blanket ban.
Bear in mind that there's a lot of people out there who don't even want to become landlords; they've been forced to by the overall economy and housing market. If these people walk away from their homes, that won't be good for property values either.
FWIW, while I don't support banning rentals, I do think it's a good idea to regulate them and that doing so will prevent pretty much all of the issues that are associated with rentals. In my HOA, rentals are regulated more heavily than my city itself requires (i.e. we require proof of renter's insurance, background checks, etc) and it's worked out very well. This is a situation where a finer-tuned approach works much better for everyone involved than just a blanket ban.
Bear in mind that there's a lot of people out there who don't even want to become landlords; they've been forced to by the overall economy and housing market. If these people walk away from their homes, that won't be good for property values either.
I agree totally and that's what I've been saying throughout this thread. Enforce the existing rental/housing codes and regulate them as has been done for a long long time. What cities shouldn't do is try to remove people's constitutionally protected property rights or ban them from renting their properties outright or just arbitrarily allow some to rent their property while others can't. That's way over the line and unconstitutional. Use a scalpel, weed out those not following the rules and leave the good guys alone. Nothing will ever be 100% perfect but such is life in a free society.
I'm hearing a lot of PC when I read between the lines here. You're right -- rentals do not automatically, overnight, become slums. But it doesn't need to happen overnight.
Problem is, a lot of times the landlords aren't breaking any laws, yet their actions still result in a decrease of adjacent property value. There's a rental house on the other end of my block. The exterior of the house is not maintained. It probably hasn't been painted in 30 years. It's ugly. The yard is shabby. But I doubt the landlord is doing anything illegal. Yet it probably is still adversely affecting the value of the houses around it.
So tell me, how do we fix that?
There are usually city codes in place for things like that that apply to both landlords and to owners. If a house is falling apart or needs painting, the owner needs to fix it. And you certainly don't need to be an absentee landlord to not maintain your house or yard.
I think the issue is that in Minnesota people have historically preferred to buy, and prices were low enough that most people could do so. And of course there have clearly been a LOT of people who can't afford to buy, yet did anyway (and just look on this very forum where a week or so ago someone was recommending that someone purchase a 100k house on a $10/hr income!). It seems like a dangerous thing to push homeownership (and create limitations on renting, which presumably will further provide incentives for people to buy) for those who really cannot afford to do so; they might be property owners, but if they've got themselves in over their head what happens when they can no longer afford to maintain the property? What if they are forced into foreclosure and the house is then sitting empty? Bad for the individuals, of course, but not ideal if the neighborhood, either. In any case, in the eyes of many Minnesotans, renting=poor people (and poor people = bad, I guess). Yet there's no reason it has to be that way. It wasn't that way in the city I referenced before, for example. And for poor or lower-income people, I don't see that society as a whole benefits much from encouraging them to buy beyond their means or by forcing them into either rental ghettos or artificially limiting the rental supply, either. Better to go after the landlords who aren't following existing rules, or if the tenants are the problem, address that directly.
It will be interesting to see if in the future there will be a larger percentage of middle and upper-class people who prefer to rent. They exist already; you might not even know their ownership status. And people who are paying good money (and who have the resources and means to either complain or to move) for a rental aren't too patient with a landlord who doesn't maintain the property.
I appreciate your comments. I also rented for many years and through the whole housing fiasco (despite actually being mocked for renting) because I saw it as the mania and bubble it was. I worked very hard, saved and went without for years as well so as to buy a house within my means. In my neighborhood in West St. Paul, you'd never know who rents and who doesn't, and it's been that way for years which is a testament to the city enforcing the existing housing codes, not to the very recently imposed rental ban. I applaud the city for enforcing existing housing/rental codes, but once again, in terms of this rental ban, we shouldn't remove everyone's rights or just some people's rights arbitrarily because of a few bad apples. That's not what free societies do. We should eliminate the bad apples and let the people keep their freedom. And once government's start actually removing some people's rights while allowing others to keep theirs in the name of protecting home values, well they have crossed the line. Enforce the existing housing and rental codes. Make them more stringent if need be, but don't start trying to arbitrarily remove people's constitutionally protected rights while allowing others to keep theirs.
You must be a little fuzzy on history. Free societies have always and everywhere done it. You're trying to invent a new definition of "freedom". I think the municipalities are doing it simply because they know it is in the interest of the bedrock of their community. It is aimed mainly at people with no stake in the community, such as the moveaways who are living somewhere else and mostly considered with their finances. Why give them any preference over people who are staying to support the community. Again, this is a case of "what's good for me" being called "what my rights are". Americans are really good at making everything they want into a new right. Only those who ignore history are conned into believing it. Ever hear of zoning codes? Are those "not what a free society would do?" Then why do free societies everywhere do it?
You must be a little fuzzy on history. Free societies have always and everywhere done it. You're trying to invent a new definition of "freedom". I think the municipalities are doing it simply because they know it is in the interest of the bedrock of their community. It is aimed mainly at people with no stake in the community, such as the moveaways who are living somewhere else and mostly considered with their finances. Why give them any preference over people who are staying to support the community. Again, this is a case of "what's good for me" being called "what my rights are". Americans are really good at making everything they want into a new right. Only those who ignore history are conned into believing it. Ever hear of zoning codes? Are those "not what a free society would do?" Then why do free societies everywhere do it?
I think your history is a whole lot fuzzier than Glendogs! Free societies have done what? Eliminated certain people's property rights while upholding others? I don't think so. As was said previously by others, it may be that they are doing it for the best intentions, but you know the old saying. The road to hell is paved with good intentions! There are so many unintended consequences of such actions and good intentions. Insoafar as "making up rights" you really need to reread history. Property rights, for all, not just some are a bedrock of our society! Finally, reread all the posts, there has been repeated mentioning of "zoning codes" and how they are good and if these cities were to simply follow them, it would largely solve this problem.
The current housing situation is the exception, not the norm. As a property owner and a landlord, I think it's a good rule. Crime increases and property values decrease in areas that have a high rental population, that has been proven time and time again. Cities also suffer from lower property values because the taxes they collect from those properties decrease. In the case of West St. Paul, houses there are pretty inexpensive for the metro. There have been a lot of flippers coming in and fixing up houses and then not selling them or just buying them as rentals. It's causing a lot of issues and crime is increasing. As for Mankato and Winona, I wouldn't be too happy if my neighbors rented out their house to 10 college kids.....
I have lived in San Francisco, Portland and Seattle and I can tell you that you are just wrong. At least in terms of those cities. Every neighborhood I lived in there had very high rentals vs owner occupied homes and the neighborhoods were actually far nicer than most in the Twin Cities. Crime did not increase, in fact it was less than here. Also the home prices were dramatically more, on a sq ft by sq ft basis homes cost far more than anything in the Twin Cities so property values are up, crime was down, which contradicts your comment. The urban blight and crime you speak of on the West Side is, and this is backed up by St. Paul crime stats, located around the Caesar Chavez block around where it intersects with Robert St. An area with a huge amount of government subsidized housing or "projects". Sadly, the poor will always be with us and I'm not going to start blaming them for societies ills. But your comment is best directed at the welfare state if anything. The West Side neighborhoods up on the bluff itself are some of the most pleasant and charming old world neighborhoods in all of Minnesota in my opinion.
Last edited by ChiendeGlen; 03-09-2013 at 07:55 AM..
The hell it isn't. Any government that wants to keep property taxes rolling in has every right and responsibility to protect property values. This is why cities can force homeowners to fix dilapidated houses.
Government's primary role is to protect and uphold people's freedoms, not remove them! Of course this branches out to all sorts of other areas, like paving roads for example. We, law abiding citizens, have the "freedom of movement" and travel and this certainly applies to modern inventions such as automobiles so we have decided that based upon registration, seatbelts, safety standards and drivers licening etc that we will allow government to regulate these inventions as well as pave and maintain the roads for the benefit of all. This is good as are housing codes. Now if someone breaks the laws, speeds, even hurts or kills someone in their car we don't ban everyone from driving do we!? But that's exactly what they are doing with these rental ordinances. Eliminating the rights of some, good law abiding people, because a few others have abused them. That is wrong. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, it is better to simply enforce the housing and rental codes on the books already.
In terms of "keeping property taxes rolling in", we would be far better served by using more excise taxes rather than property or income taxes anyways as they tend to not lead us more towards a nanny state. Government's role is not to enrich or enlarge itself, for no other reason than to justify it's own existence. This creates a nanny state, which deprives people of freedom and also leads to all sorts of bad things like our congress legally trading on inside information and becoming multi-millionaires over their careers. Where do they get this information, well from their incestuous relationships with corporations, to whom they give kick backs in return! It also leads to bail outs for these huge corporations which need this nanny state to even survive. It's no different than the owner of the corner bar in some small town giving kick backs to the city council so they vote a certain way. Eliminate the nanny state and you have done a great deal towards enriching any society and the individuals that comprise it. Your only other choice would be to try and eliminate free individuals from being curious, inventive, industrious, productive and try to stop from being, well free and trying to better themsleves and their lives. Good luck with that! Besides, that's exactly what we want in our society anyways! Individuals free to do whatever they wish to do right up until that right supercedes someone elses right to do whatever they wish to do. That is where meaningful regualtions come in. Thus enforce the current housing and rental codes.
Last edited by ChiendeGlen; 03-09-2013 at 08:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
