Just a Landlord

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders describes hoarding as a mental disability and therefore most likely covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act.  As such property owners are required to make reasonable accommodations. I would concur with this.

However there is also the health and safety exception to the reasonable accommodation requirement. This is where it gets difficult for the property owner, those doing social intervention and of course the person with the hoarding behavior. Hoarding can contribute to issues like insect and rodent infestations. Hoarding also can create fire hazards. Often hoarding is a violation of the local housing codes.

In response to a reasonable accommodation request an owner would have to balance the actual risk to health and safety to determine if the request was reasonable or not. Note actual risk and not potential risk that are not directly related to this tenant or applicant.

The ability for an owner to address the situation in a manner that does not involve eviction is often hampered by DNS’ response of placarding or threatening to placard buildings due to clutter and housekeeping. A few years ago I had a long term (~15 years) tenant who always kept her house immaculate until her son was murdered. After that she would not get rid of anything. We had to evict her due to the threat of placarding.

In my view, especially after that case, is hoarding is a disability. Having some sort of intervention available other than homelessness is the right thing.

There is the newly formed Milwaukee County Hoarding Task Force. I think this is a great potential resource not only for those with the disability but to help people in our industry make proper decisions in response to finding hoarding and or clutter at the properties.

I invited the Task Force to submit an article for the Apartment Association newsletter as well as speak at a future meeting if they wish and/or distribute informational materials at our meetings.

Attorney John Shoemaker sends us:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/symposium-the-case-for-disparate-impact-under-the-fair-housing-act/

Update on Disparate Impact fight set for oral argument 1/21/2015 before the US Supreme Court in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project.

——–

1/6/2015

Symposium: The case for disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act

Joe Rich and Thomas Silverstein are attorneys at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, which filed an amicus brief in support of the respondent, Inclusive Communities Project.

“A decision from the Supreme Court upholding the use of the disparate impact standard to enforce the Act will preserve long-settled expectations and avoid upending decades of settled case law, an untenable outcome that would absolve actors who have known for decades that they are liable under the Act for actions with significant, unjustified disparate impact.

…

“The text of the FHA is likely to be the primary focus of the Court. On its face, the statutory language strongly supports the conclusion, uniformly accepted in the lower courts for nearly four decades, that the Act authorizes disparate impact claims.

…

[Will Justice Scalia give deference to HUD’s interpretation of the Fair Housing Act?]

“Even if the Court concludes that the text of the Act does not conclusively support recognition of disparate impact claims, the language is, at a minimum, ambiguous. Indeed, in the wake of decades of consistent judicial interpretation supporting the disparate impact standard, it is hard to imagine how the Court could conclude that the language of the Act is unambiguously limited to disparate treatment claims.  The Court made clear in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., that when a statute “is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” The agency has the power to “fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly by Congress.” Under Chevron, the Court ordinarily defers to an administering agency’s reasonable statutory interpretation, and Justice Antonin Scalia gave such deference to the EEOC’s interpretation of the ADEA in his concurring opinion in Smith.

“Texas agrees — it argued in the Fifth Circuit in this case that HUD’s interpretation of the FHA should be afforded Chevron deference, and it prevailed when that court adopted HUD’s three-part burden-shifting approach for disparate impact claims under the Act. It is more than a bit ironic that Texas, which was victorious in the Fifth Circuit and yet sought Supreme Court review, now abandons this position.

John Shoemaker is one of the nation’s leading attorneys in the defense of the rights of rental property owners , and subsequently the rights of low income residents who live in rented housing.  He specifically addresses Milwaukee and its HUD Grant application in this letter.  I share this with letter with his permission.  It’s long, but if you intend to be part of low to moderate income housing you need to read this. — Tim Ballering

October 22, 2014

Tim:

I am following up to my recent emails to you about the legal challenges private low-income housing providers have made in Federal District Court in the Twin Cities since 2004.

We are in our 10th year of federal litigation against Twin Cities’ municipalities, with six federal (Minnesota District) lawsuits still active (four lawsuits vs. the City of St. Paul – 14 total housing providers as plaintiffs: the three Gallagher vs. Magner consolidated cases that were before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011-12, now awaiting trial; and the McRath vs. St. Paul case in discovery; and two lawsuits recently filed vs. Minneapolis – two providers as plaintiffs: Folger vs Minneapolis, Court File 13-cv-3489; and Ellis vs. HUD and Minneapolis, Court File 14-cv-3045).  Recently, the federal court allowed housing provider Folger’s Fair Housing disparate impact lawsuit against Minneapolis to move past a motion to dismiss and that case is now in discovery. There are approximately 200 properties directly involved in these matters but the outcome of the litigation will impact hundreds if not thousands of other low-income properties.

Outside of these federal lawsuits, we have rarely seen much organized opposition from private real estate investors in response to oppressive public sector housing policies and actions.  This is so even though the local government policies negatively impact the return on investment and incentives to continue providing affordable housing offered by the private market, and negatively impact the availability of such housing at rental rates that are affordable at under 30% of area median income.

Municipalities benefit from this lack of organization among private low-income housing market participants by focusing police power and public resources against each investor one at a time, picking off good, honest, hard-working Americans through ever-increasingly high regulatory standards, confiscatory fees, assessments and fines, targeted enforcement actions, other regulatory burdens and outright illegal policies and conduct.  Low-income citizens who seek safe, decent and sanitary housing in the inner-city communities from private providers, suffer as the public sector actions cause displacement and keep housing units offline for longer periods of time than would be the case if the private market was allowed to operate within traditional legal boundaries, without oppressive local government regulation and illegal policies and conduct.

Challenging these illegal public policies and actions through litigation is not the best option in many situations as the heavy burden of court costs, attorney’s fees and expert fees is barrier to most owners of low-income housing pursuing redress of injuries against local governments.  Owners usually experience an extended period of forced reduction in rental income and related dramatic increase in expenses directly from oppressive, targeted government actions against them. In a marketplace where profit margins are thin, local governments tend to drain private investor’s resources through heavy every day regulatory costs, so by the time litigation may be an option to preserve the portfolio and lifetime of investment, financial resources to carry the battle to court may be few. Many owners have drained available financial resources by the time they decide they need assistance in their fight.  Many owners simply choose to walk away from their investment as they have no remaining resources to fight for extended periods and are unable to retain legal counsel to preserve their rights and fight for change.  Nevertheless, in certain instances, litigation would be the best option where fighting back to save a rental portfolio is deemed necessary, especially if damages are significant or the threat of losing everything is very real and present.

 What if private housing providers organized on a national, regional and/or state level and pooled their resources and joined the cause?  That might move the process of change forward, albeit slowly over an extended period of time.  One strategy might be to pool resources of time, talent and money for not just litigation but also lobbying at the local and state levels to publicly voice opposition to harmful public housing and related policies and advocate for reasoned approaches that preserve property rights, liberties, affordable housing and investments.  We might consider creating a national or regional group of interested and experienced leaders and counsel to roundtable on these issues, including litigation strategies and to examine possible formation of citizen-investor groups to focus on selected municipalities where the fight is particularly advantageous to our cause.

There are other options for real estate investors in the low-income housing market outside the Court process and normal city council hearing process to address these legitimate concerns.

Private housing providers are eligible to file Complaints with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).  We have filed three Housing Discrimination Complaints for a total of 16 housing providers and other interested parties with HUD since November 2012. HUD has not been cooperative and has taken every opportunity to delay having to accept complaints and to investigate complaints by private housing providers against local municipalities.   This obstructive behavior by HUD arises I believe from the political animal HUD truly is, especially where the local government leaders are of the same political party as those in the Administration in Washington.

We have started the process this year of bringing HUD into the federal litigation as an interested party under the theory that federal law requires HUD to monitor and take actions to curtail violations of federal law by local governments and their officials.  HUD has a federal statutory duty to honestly monitor and hold accountable local governments that receive federal grant funds where complaints are presented to HUD of wrongdoing by those jurisdictions. Courts have held HUD liable for damages and injunctive relief where HUD has continued to fund local entities with knowledge of discriminatory policies at the local level.  Minneapolis and HUD have notified us that they will be seeking dismissal of the most recent lawsuit in January 2015.

While it might not be a cure-all, I believe the private housing providers must speak up at the local government level during the federal grant funding process.

Milwaukee is a yearly recipient of federal grants, including a number of grants administered by HUD.  Milwaukee is recognized as an “Entitlement Jurisdiction” for federal HUD funding purposes which means the City applies to and obtains the grants from HUD directly, versus through the State of Wisconsin.  One major grant program is called the Community Development Block Grant program, “CDBG”. As a federal grant funded Entitlement Jurisdiction, Milwaukee must conduct an “analysis of impediments to fair housing choice” (“AI”), every 3-5 years, although HUD strongly recommends each City receiving CDBG funds review the “AI” every year. The official definition of an “AI” is found in HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide (“FHPG”), see attached and see http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/images/fhpg.pdf

The “AI” is a review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sector. The AI involves:

• A comprehensive review of a State or Entitlement jurisdiction’s laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures, and practices
• An assessment of how those laws, etc. affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing
• An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing choice for all protected classes
• An assessment of the availability of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes.
• The FHPG (Sections 2-16 to 2-17), provides: “Impediments to fair housing choice are defined as:
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choice
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions that have this effect.  (Note: This means, “Disparate impact”).
• Policies, practices, or procedures that appear neutral on their face, but which operate to deny or adversely affect the availability of housing to persons because of race, ethnicity, disability, and families with children may constitute such impediments. (“Disparate impact”).
• Have the effect of restricting housing opportunities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.  (“Disparate impact”).
• HUD’s FHPG provides that Milwaukee must analyze the following subjects of City laws, policies and actions on how those laws, policies or actions affect housing choice for low income and protected class members:

4.3       AI SUBJECT AREAS

Public Sector

1. Local building, occupancy, and health and safety codes that may affect the availability of housing for minorities, families with children, and persons with disabilities, such information should be available through a review of local laws and ordinances relating to these subjects.
2. Public Sector – other actions –

• Building codes
• Local zoning laws and policies (e.g., minimum lot size requirements, dispersal requirements for housing facilities for persons with disabilities in single-family zones, and restrictions on the number of unrelated persons in dwellings based on size of unit or number of bedrooms)
• Demolition and displacement decisions pertaining to assisted housing and the removal of slums and blight (e.g., relocation policies and practices affecting persons displaced by urban renewal, revitalization, and/or private commercialization or gentrification in low-income neighborhoods)

Federal grant funding to Milwaukee, that includes CDBG, is processed under a Consolidated Planning process whereby: (1) every 5 years, a Consolidated Plan is prepared by Milwaukee with citizen participation and submitted to HUD showing the five year plan; and (2) every year during the five year period the City must provide HUD with an Action Plan and a CAPER (Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report). By providing detailed financial and beneficiary information in the CAPER, the City explains to HUD and the community how the City is carrying out its housing and community development strategies, projects, and activities.

Milwaukee is now near the end in the process of preparing its five year Consolidated Plan submission for 2015-2019 to HUD.  Part of the required Con Plan process is Citizen Participation [footnote 1], where the City must hold hearings and provide access to Plan information and documentation for community members to review and submit oral and written comments about the City’s plans for using federal grant funds during the next 5 year period. See http://city.milwaukee.gov/NeighborhoodStabilizationProgramNSP/NSP-Meetings—Con-Plan.htm#.VEhAXBYzISg

It seems that most of the meetings/hearings on NSP occurred in March 2014.  But, some meetings and or hearings on the 2015-19 Con Plan may still be on-going.  https://www.facebook.com/events/468204259974633/

Meeting occurred in March 2014.  See http://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/public-invited-to-offer-feedback-on-spending-plan-for-federal-funds/

states period to comment would end July 2014.

However, HUD says that Complaints about how the City’s housing policies and actions have negatively impacted low-income housing providers and their customers (tenants), impacting the availability of affordable housing and the incentives to continue to provide such housing, can be submitted to the City and/or to HUD at any time.   http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/complaint-process

I have attached a copy of the draft HUD Consolidate Plan submission for Milwaukee for 2015-2019.

While there are many interesting bits of information in the Plan, see page 8 – City’s proposed code enforcement efforts in next 5 years.

Barriers to affordable housing, see page 103.

See also pages 139 (City goals summary including code enforcement, lead based paint abatement, demo), page 142-43, 146 (homeowner vs rental production- but most blacks need rental).

Also note that Milwaukee is planning on acquiring more vacant homes including foreclosure properties.

 We have discovered here in the Twin Cities, that Cities acquire claimed distressed properties (including those that the City acquired after targeting them) and then hold those properties off market for 3-5 or more years – until they have the money to develop them from federal or other sources and so as they claim, stabilize the real estate market in the inner city.  Through use of a land bank concept, the properties are off-limits to the private market much like the “First Look” program whereby bank REO properties in the inner-city are offered first off-the-books to local governments and NGOs, thereby prohibiting private market acquisition. We learned of this policies through the Cities’ applications for federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program grants (NSP) funding from 2009 and thereafter.

You will be able to learn more about Milwaukee’s use of NSP grants and the issues I have raised herein by looking at the City’s website on NSP funding – see the following link: http://city.milwaukee.gov/NeighborhoodStabilizationProgramNSP.htm#.VEg2DRYzISg

Here in the Twin Cities, we have local government policies that interfere with the normal “ups and downs” of the real estate market and exacerbate the affordable housing crisis.  These local government policies prohibit transfer of ownership of vacant homes without local government approval and require massive investment into claimed distressed homes before re-occupancy. These policies have directly led to an extended period of blight in the inner-city as the normal 300-400 annual vacant homes in St. Paul has continued for eight years at 4-8 times those levels, including above 2,000-2,400 for a number of years.   These local government policies extend the high number of vacant homes for longer periods thereby allowing local governments to control the disposition, ownership and use of these homes.

The continuation of these policies year after year has negatively impacted property (sales) values of homes including older rental properties; however, the tax assessments are continuing at high valuation levels.

Combined City efforts of heavy, targeted code enforcement and high rates of demolitions with associated demo assessments, along with the high number of foreclosures and vacant homes, has led to a golden opportunity for local governments to acquire these claimed distressed properties.  City acquisition of large numbers of claimed distressed properties and the policy of holding those properties offline from sale and redevelopment, along with the lack of production of significant numbers of new affordable rental units for those at under 30% AMI, has exacerbated the unavailability of affordable older housing to meet the high demand for rental housing.

Here, local government documents demonstrate that City officials are seeking to keep private investors from acquiring distressed properties; are placing deed restrictions on renovated homes prohibiting rentals; city policies are de-converting multi-unit rental buildings and homes to smaller number of allowed units – duplexes de-converted to single family homes, and 4-plexes to duplexes.  There are thousands of vacant homes that could be quickly and economically repaired to reasonable housing standards and let out to those in need of rental housing. Instead local governments are requiring massive renovation investment to City-approved standards (including Green Energy) in order to re-occupy these homes.

Federal, state and foundational funding is insufficient to renovate the inner-city older housing stock yet the City will allocate federal funds to each project at levels many times above the amount the private market would or could justify.  Government funding for the expensive renovation and subsidies for new owners, is actually wasted while claiming to develop and preserve affordable housing.  A small portion of the overall Millions in grant and other government funds currently being committed yearly to the government and NGO renovation projects producing a small number of housing units, could be provided to the private market for repairs and commonsense renovations.

With the high demand for affordable rental housing units by poor, minority families, a reasoned argument can be made that available government funds should be spent first on policies that ensure there are enough affordable housing units for most of those in need with ability to pay.  The private market has the time-tested solutions for issues related to timely production of safe, decent and sanitary rental units including renovated units to reasonable standards.  Instead, local government policies are focused on prohibiting the private market solutions and producing expensive renovations to a limited number of homes in the large pool of vacant homes. Government policies like this in the short term only produce minimal numbers of available units and most of them for home-owners only.  It also keeps thousands of low-income and minority families on the waiting lists for affordable housing.

Again, thank you for your interest in our fight for justice here in the Twin Cities.

I look forward to discussing these issues with you.

John

John R. Shoemaker

Attorney at Law

SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, PLLC

Highland Bank Building

5270 West 84th Street

Suite 410

Bloomington, MN 55437

(952) 224-4610

P.S:  In July 2013, HUD proposed a federal regulatory rule called, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” that has long been a federal funding requirement of all Entitlement Jurisdictions, including Milwaukee. Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5)) requires that HUD programs and activities be administered [including by grant recipients) in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of the Fair Housing Act.

The new AFFH rule replaces the “AI” process with a Fair Housing Assessment.

To review the new AFFH rule, see https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/19/2013-16751/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing

Final action by HUD on the new AFFH rule is expected in December 2014.

HUD says the AFFH rule is designed to lower the number of lawsuits against local government units.

 HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide

Milwaukee_ConPlandraft-June182014 copy

The AASEW’s ever popular Landlord Boot Camp is just around the corner.  It will be held on Saturday, October 4, 2014 from 8:30 am – 5:30 pm at the Clarion Hotel located near the airport.

At this Fall’s Boot Camp I will be updating everyone on how the courts have been handling and interpreting all of the law changes since Act 76 was passed back in March of this year.

I will also address numerous other of topics that will help you navigate Wisconsin’s complex landlord – tenant laws.  Learn how to run your properties with greater profit while staying out of trouble.  Landlording can be pretty complex, with a seemingly never ending myriad of paperwork, rules, landlord-tenant laws and simple mistakes that can cost you thousands.

Some of the other topics that will be covered include:

1) How to properly screen prospective tenants

2) How to draft written screening criteria to assist you in the tenant selection process

3) How to comply with both federal and state Fair Housing laws including how to comply with “reasonable modifications” and “reasonable accommodations” requests

4) How to legally reject an applicant

5) What rental documents you should be using and why

6) When you should be using a 5-day notice versus a 14-day notice, 28-day notice, or 30-day notice and how to properly serve the notice on your tenant

7) Everything you wanted to know (and probably even more than you wanted to know) about the Residential Rental Practices (ATCP 134) and how to avoid having to pay double damages to your tenant for breaching ATCP 134

8) When you are legally allowed to enter your tenant’s apartment

9) How to properly draft an eviction summons and complaint

10) What to do to keep the commissioner or judge from dismissing your eviction lawsuit

11) What you can legally deduct from a security deposit

 12) How to properly draft a security deposit transmittal  (“21 day”) letter

13) How to handle pet damage

14) What to do with a tenant’s abandoned property and how this may affect whether or not you file an eviction suit

15) How to pursue your ex-tenant for damages to your rental property and past due rent (and whether it is even worth it to do so)

There will also be time for “Q&A” and Lunch is included!

If that is not enough you will also receive a manual that is over 100 pages that includes all of Tristan’s outlines on the various topics and various forms.

 Who:         Taught by Attorney Tristan Pettit, who drafts the landlord tenant forms for Wisconsin Legal Blank.

When:       Saturday, October 4, 2014  from 8:30 AM – 5:30 PM —- Registration opens at 7:00 AM

Where:     Clarion Hotel 5311 S. Howell Avenue, Milwaukee

Price:        AASEW Members only $159 .  Non AASEW Members  – $249

Register:    Go to www.LandlordBootCamp2014.com and you can register online and read prior attendees testimonials.

Last year’s AASEW Landlord Boot Camp was filled to capacity.  So much so we even had to turn people away.  So register early to reserve your spot.

I hope to see many of you there.

Thanks

Over on the ApartmentAssoc Yahoo Group an owner asks who is responsible for the costs associated with “Reasonable Modifications”, in this case a ramp.

An owner must allow the ramp as a reasonable modification.  The tenant must pay the costs associated with the modification.

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT

Who is responsible for the expense of making a reasonable modification?

The Fair Housing Act provides that while the housing provider must permit the modification, the tenant is responsible for paying the cost of the modification.

www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf

With this said, there are groups that provide assistance of grants in some cases to facilitate such modifications.  One place to start is:

http://county.milwaukee.gov/DSD/Disability-Resource-Center.htm

You may find that the modification creates a long term tenancy as well as a marketable benefit for future tenants.

Note that for “Reasonable Accommodations” the owner must bear the costs if those costs are reasonable.

What is the difference between a Reasonable Modification and a Reasonable Accommodation?

A reasonable modification is a physical change to the interior or exterior of a unit or property, such as installing a ramp.    A reasonable accommodation is a change to your policies; such as allowing a service animal in a property with a no pet policy.

A reader on the ApartmentAssoc at YahooGroups list asks

What thoughts are there on a Request for a comfort animal with a month to month lease.

Can the lease be terminated under the month to month provision.

Terminating the tenancy due to a legitimate, i.e. they met the requirements of a comfort animal, not that you feel it is legitimate, comfort animal probably is worse than simply rejecting a request as you are now breaking additional rules and statutes.  For example in Wisconsin’s Chapter 704 (Landlord Tenant Statutes)

704.45  Retaliatory conduct in residential tenancies prohibited.

(1) Except as provided in sub. (2), a landlord in a residential tenancy may not increase rent, decrease services, bring an action for possession of the premises, refuse to renew a lease or threaten any of the foregoing, if there is a preponderance of evidence that the action or inaction would not occur but for the landlord’s retaliation against the tenant for doing any of the following:

(a) Making a good faith complaint about a defect in the premises to an elected public official or a local housing code enforcement agency.

(b) Complaining to the landlord about a violation of s. 704.07 or a local housing code applicable to the premises.

(c) Exercising a legal right relating to residential tenancies.

(2) Notwithstanding sub. (1), a landlord may bring an action for possession of the premises if the tenant has not paid rent other than a rent increase prohibited by sub. (1).

(3) This section does not apply to complaints made about defects in the premises caused by the negligence or improper use of the tenant who is affected by the action or inaction.

The real answer is to ask the feds to step in and repair this rule before housing goes to the dogs, including Federally Subsidized Housing.

A person should need something more than a Skype conversation with a doctor in Cali before it is declared that the tenant should have the right to a dog, cat or 20′ python.  Breed should matter, an 80# pit bull “comfort animal” in a complex doesn’t sound like it would be very comforting to the rest of the tenants.  In a single family home I doubt it would be comforting to the neighbors.

Also, what about the rights of others.  My wife has severe allergies to dogs and cats.  A companion animal on a flight we were on that gave her such a bad reaction that they almost landed the plane in Cincinnati.  A flight a month later ended with her leaving the plane on a stretcher after being given an Epipen and oxygen.  While there was no dogs on that flight, the airline confirmed  there was a dog on the flight just prior to ours.  We have not flown since.  I was at the Wall-Mart a couple of months ago a a scraggly animal wearing a “service animal” vest was basically running loose on a 10′ leash.  It walked up and sniffed my leg, which was annoying.  A short time later it licked a baby across the face.  The mom was so angry that I thought the animal owner was going to leave the store in a condition that would require a real service animal. There are valid reasons that owners exclude pets.

Let me be clear that I am talking about people who are using this as a loophole to get around no pet policies and not legitimate trained service animals.  A true service animal is better behaved than most tenants.  The true service animals need to be accepted.

Talk about a timely meeting topic. This past Monday’s Apartment Association General Membership meeting addressed the issue of whether an owner must accept sex offenders i.e. are they a protected class.

If you missed the meeting, sex offenders and criminals in general are not a protected class in WI* today as long as you apply those criteria without regard to the applicant being a member of another protected class. For example if your criteria is to reject applicants who are registered offenders, but then give in to the white kid who was arrested for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. If you do not do the same for the Martian with a similar conviction you are probably going to run into fair housing issues. To be legal rejection criteria must be yes or no, with exceptions only made under a written exception policy that is applied evenly.

*Note that Madison and Dane treated some criminal offenders as protected classes, I am uncertain if Act 143 and Act 76 have changed this.

Yesterday the Milwaukee Common Council passed an ordinance restricting where sex offenders may live (Copy). The pendency of this legislation explains Council President Michael Murphy being unavailable to attend and speak at Monday’s meeting.

In passing this legislation Milwaukee did the only thing they reasonably could do at this point, which is to put ordinances in place that are comparable to those in surrounding communities, lest we remain the sex offender dumping grounds for the state.

The upside of such legislation is it should eliminate any fears of running afoul of Fair Housing property owners may have about rejecting sex offenders. The downside is at some point sex offenders ultimately get released from prison and ultimately need to live somewhere. Perhaps turn Washington Island into a leaper colony for sex offenders? (joking of course)

At some point I’m certain the proliferation of these ordinances will result in state or even federal legislative efforts to make sex offenders and possibly criminal in general a protected class. This will be worse than the current situation so we must be on the watch for such legislation. It is unlikely that the legislation will be forthright in its title or purpose, rather it will be attempts to restrict access to information as we’ve seen with the attacks on CCAP over the past few years.

If you want to know more about the issue from a criminal rights advocates prospective see:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0907webwcover.pdf

Tim Ballering
Tim@ApartmentsMilwaukee.com

A reader on the ApartmentAssoc at YahooGroups list asks in regards to denying applications:

 What if there isn’t an alternative applicant and it’s not credit related? (ie criminal record or just don’t like them…Lool). I never really cared and don’t give a reason other than “your application has been denied”. Today was the first time an applicant repeatedly called wanting a reason.

In WI, excluding Dane County/Madison as they are a separate state, ;-), you are not required to give a reason.  In most cases a simple “Sorry your app was not accepted” is the best answer.

However, with that being said, you should consider having a mechanism in place where the applicant can request the reason if they are insistent. We ask that they request the reason in writing and we respond in writing.  This gets away from any allegations that someone said something they did not.

Think back to your own experiences – when someone is elusive or outright refuses to answer a question your first thought is they have something to hide. The more the other party pushed back the more you knew you were on to some kind of wrong doing.

 Rejection for criminal record is easy if you have a written criteria.  If they fail the criteria you can point it out.  So if one of your criteria is ‘We will reject applicants who have had drug related felonies in the past x years’ and they were convicted of having a ton of cocaine  in their possession  x years – 1 then the answer is a ‘sorry – your 12/14/20xx conviction prevents us from renting to you at this time.  You can apply again in a year.’

“Just don’t like them” is dangerous grounds, especially if they are a member of a protected class under federal state or local fair housing rules.

You don’t have to like your tenants, you just need to be sure they will pay rent, not damage the place, not conduct illegal activities out of your property and not anger the neighbors.  If they meet all those requirements I can “like” just about any prospective tenant.

Vox Explains that Donald Sterling was accused of housing discrimination as well as all that NBA stuff, with the reported parts of fines and settlements in the millions.  One described as “one of  the largest ever discriminatory housing case.”  If you had doubts on the authenticity of the claims, this story seems to put an end to them.

Housing discrimination

In 2004, Sterling was sued by the Los Angeles Housing Rights Center for discriminatory rental practices. After buying the Ardmore Apartments complex, he attempted to force out minority tenants by refusing to do repairs and refusing rent checks, then accusing them of nonpayment. When told that a 66-year-old, legally blind, partially paralyzed tenant named Kandynce Jones wanted to be reimbursed for the damage to her flooded apartment, he reportedly said, “Just evict the bitch.”

The case brought by the Housing Rights Center was eventually settled for an undisclosed sum. The plaintiffs were reimbursed $4.9 million for their legal fees, and the judge described the total judgement as one of the largest ever in a discriminatory housing case.

In 2006, Sterling was sued by the Department of Justice after he allegedly refused to rent to Mexican-Americans and African-Americans in his apartment complexes, reportedly saying that “Black tenants smell and attract vermin.” Sterling paid $2.73 million to settle the suit.

If you read part one, you know owners must accept emotional support animals, or comfort animals as many owners call them if the pet owner has a prescription.  Airlines must also accommodate these animals and let them ride in the cabin uncaged.

But what about the rights of other tenants and plane passengers who are allergic to fury critters?  Once you allow cats and dogs into units you probably need to disclose to prospective tenants that fact as many may be allergic to pet fur and dander.

My wife developed sudden and severe allergies a year and a half ago.  Put her next to a cat or dog and she gets allergic asthma sometimes called occupational asthma.  This is so severe that she carries an Epipen and rescue inhaler everywhere she goes.

This past week when we were flying back from spending the holidays with our children and grandkids,  lo and behold a dog wearing a cute little vest that suggested it was a working animal gets seated behind us. Clearly this was not a Service Animal.

Sitting near the dog caused my wife to have a severe asthma attack.

For a while it looked like our flight was going to land someplace like Cleveland with all 162 passengers and one dog aboard so that Carmen could get emergency medical attention due to this dog induced asthma attack.  The airline, which I’m not naming as it was not their fault,  was great and moved us to the back of the plane, away from the pooch. But it was still a terrible flight as I spent the entire time worried that Carmen would need immediate and unavailable medical attention. She used the rescue inhaler twice, took Benadryl and was still wheezing the entire flight.

So whose rights are paramount in such cases, the person with the need for emotional support animals or the persons who are severely allergic to fur and dander?

I would argue the latter, not only because of my wife’s condition, but also because the fur and dander remain long after the pet has left the area.  I also believe there are more people that have allergies to pets than those who medically need their pets.

We did learn one thing.  If you are allergic to animals or peanuts for that matter,  you should list that in the box marked special needs or special accommodations.  The airline then will not allow animals in the cabin, but give the animal owner the option of flying on a different flight or putting the animal in the cargo hold.