Author: Tim Ballering

Categories
Fair Housing Government Behaving Badly HUD Tenant Screening

More on HUD’s restrictions against criminal screening

Over on  the ApartmentAssoc at YahooGroups list Bill Lauer wrote:
Since we use conviction records as a screening criteria, it is important to consider this in the larger societal context. The disparate impact issue starts way before someone applying for an apartment. This is a simplified version of a much longer story. The sex offender issue is different so lets make that a different discussion.
 
For example, Landlords use felony drug records to screen.  We now know that drug laws were written to unfairly punish one group over another.  For example, the sentencing differences between powder cocaine and crack cocaine.  First offenders with powder cocaine, used largely by white people, often times got off with probation.  Offenders with the same weight of crack, used largely by Black offenders, went to jail or prison. This is where the disparate impact begins.
 
Another example is the criminal  differences between alcohol use, used largely by whites,  and marijuana, used largely by young liberals and Blacks.  http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/
 
We know that cops overcharge so that “deals” can be made later in the process.  Deals usually come with reduced charges with higher fines in exchange for little or no jail time.  If you don’t have the money, you sit in jail. We know that if you had  the money for a lawyer  you could beat the charges and stay out of jail.  If you didn’t have the money, well, you went to jail, because there was nobody that could make the deal.  And of course, what groups don’t have the money for good lawyers?
 
So now enter the  Heroin epidemic. The current form has been going on for about 10 years, about 6 in Wisconsin.  It is largely affecting white middle class kids.  They go to treatment a few times, they go to prison for possession, maybe theft, prostitution, and burglary.  They come out as felons who can’t go home to their parents, they can’t get a decent job, nor decent housing. This is the push behind a lot of these changes, now, at this time. You can’t give the white kids a special deal for their medical condition of addiction without applying that equally across all protected classes.
 
 Also, the industry’s response to being made more responsible for tenants behavior, [starting 20 years ago] coupled with easy access to  records through the Internet have had a long term, unintended consequence that we as an industry, really need to look at.  As Tim says below, this is nothing that was not predictable.  But we weren’t proactive, so now we get to be reactive.
 
The wave of change in the criminal justice system that this HUD letter represents has got a lot of momentum. Its 25 years in the making.  Coupled with the pressure of governments to reduce the cost of prisons, we’ll see a lot more change in the upcoming 5 years as America empties its prisons.  And they all need a place to live.
 
Bill Lauer
 
I mean….If you follow Ron Johnson’s career, who in a million years would have guessed that he would be calling for more drug treatment, more action, spending more money on junkie, on national TV in WAUKESHA???????  Sitting  next to Tammy Baldwin!

Bill is right.  But this is wrong.

Yes, the HUD screening directive is in response to a criminal justice system that appears skewed against racial and social minorities.

The method chosen to correct the underlying problem completely ignores the cause.  Rather, the Federal Government and the Administration made screening more complex and litigious instead of addressing unequal enforcement of criminal and municipal laws. Sure in the most egregious situations like Ferguson you see the government step in.

In general, this is another issue forced upon owners who were not the cause. This is a lot like the lead paint situation where the government permitted the use of a known dangerous product for decades, even requiring its use for some federally funded housing, before leaving most of the cost and legal challenges in the lap of the property owners.

So now owners will have to walk even more of a tightrope – rejecting far less applicants for criminal records may keep HUD happy, but then you have to deal with nuisance property concerns and worries that someone you put in may harm other tenants, employees or neighbors.

Categories
crime Fair Housing Government Behaving Badly

Must I rent to sex offenders in Milwaukee?

Last week HUD issued a directive on the use of criminal records in tenant screening.  On the surface, this ruling would prohibit blanket rejections for criminal records, ostensibly including a blanket prohibition against sex offenders.

Renting to registered sex offenders cause anxiety for your neighbors. And I do not disagree with their sentiments.  I would not have wanted someone on the registry living next to me when my children were small and I certainly would not want one living next to my grandchildren today.

I expressed my concern that owners would have to begin accepting  sex offenders to AASEW General Counsel, Heiner Giese.  Heiner brought to my attention that in Milwaukee only 55 properties meet the Milwaukee Sex Offender Residency rule.  The rule penalizes the offender, not the property owners.

If your properties are outside of Milwaukee you may be required to accept sex offenders under the HUD directive.  However, this HUD rule was implemented to address disparate impact of such screening processes as they impact existing protected classes.  It does create a new protected class per se.  Most sex offenders are White males which should make this less of an issue under the April 4th, 2016 HUD Fair Housing letter.

Some people are very passionate on these issues as the recent FaceBook discussion regarding screening for criminals shows. There is, of course, many larger issues with the sex offender registry.  The two kids experimenting in the back of the Chevy probably should not be branded for life on an offender registry.  Remember that 48% of kids have had sex by the time they are 17.  The first sex offender in WI was a case similar to this in Palmyra.

Not that I am an advocate for sex offenders, Affordable had a prohibition against sex offenders renting from us for as nearly as long as the registry existed, but the abundance of residency restrictions will ultimately cause politicians or judges will make them a protected class.  Then all owners, including government housing, will have to rent to them unrestricted throughout the community.

Miami adopted a similar 2,500-foot restriction in 2006.  This resulted in the sex offenders forming a cardboard box camp under the bridges of the Julia Tuttle Causeway, I-195.  In 2010, the city of Miami bulldozed the camp.  It then cost the city $1000 per month per offender that was relocated to house them in hotels.  256 offenders stopped reporting their addresses in the process.

People smarter than me need to find the answer but trust that it will become a problem for everyone if left unaddressed.

 

Categories
crime Fair Housing Tenant Screening

HUD limits tenant screening based on criminal records

On April 4th, 2016 HUD guidelines on the use of criminal records in tenant screening were released. This is a game changer that negates much of what was achieved with the crime-free portion of Wisconsin 2015 ACT 176. It also impacts all screening.

No longer can arrests be considered in screening. Convictions may be considered, but only those convictions that directly relate to the safety of the property or its residents.

“A housing provider with a more tailored policy or practice that excludes individuals with only certain types of convictions must still prove that its policy is necessary to serve a “substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest.” To do this, a housing provider must show that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not”

Amazingly the directive does not appear to allow consideration of neighbors safety, only residents. So does this mean an axe murdering rapist drug dealing member of the local street gang must be allowed to rent any single family as long as they meet your income guides?

The real losers in this will be the law-abiding tenants and their neighbors

Categories
Evicted - Matt Desmond Evictions Housing policies

‘Evicted’ — from the landlord’s perspective

Published in the 3/25/16 Milwaukee Journal
By Heiner Giese

Matthew Desmond’s book “Evicted” with the subtitle “Poverty and Profit in the American City” has generated much discussion in the Milwaukee community and among us Milwaukee landlords. We generally agree with the Journal Sentinel’s March 13 editorial calling for more discussion on how to provide decent housing for the poor.

While Desmond does an excellent job of presenting and humanizing the struggles of the poor to pay their rent, he doesn’t adequately cover the “profit” aspect of his subtitle. Out of 30 landlords interviewed, he only presents case studies on two successful ones. The marginal operators and the failed shoestring capitalists (to say nothing of the many nonprofit housing groups who have failed) are not featured.

I have been involved in housing issues for over three decades — as a former hands-on landlord, as attorney for the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin and as an attorney representing landlords (and sometimes tenants) in eviction and foreclosure court.

My clients have properties in all areas of Milwaukee and nearby suburbs. But in the inner city, many landlords have failed. I have sued them or defended them when their rental property was foreclosed on because they couldn’t make the mortgage or land contract payment because the rent money wasn’t coming in. A good chunk of the abandoned houses you’ll see when driving through central city Milwaukee were once owned by landlords.

Desmond is right in pointing to two correlating equations: difficulty paying your rent because you’re poor = getting evicted; getting evicted = getting deeper into poverty. And there is a third equation: getting evicted once = getting evicted again.

The details are not in the book but one of Desmond’s featured tenants had seven evictions filed against her in the 12 year period from 2003 through January, 2015, three of them since she was in his survey in August 2008. So ask yourself, what responsible landlord who needs the rent to pay the mortgage, the taxes, the water and sewer bill and the repair costs for the windows broken by neighborhood vandals would rent to this struggling lady?

Housing vouchers for all, so no one pays more than, say, 40% of their income for rent is an answer. Except you wonder if it is politically doable. Will John and Mary Homeowner give up some of their mortgage interest tax deduction so their government subsidy can instead help their neighbor on the other side of the tracks pay her rent?

Converting part of cash welfare benefits to a voucher for those who have an eviction record would make them more acceptable in the private rental market.

Another remedy touted by Desmond is to provide lawyers for those facing eviction. But that will not prevent eviction for the vast majority of defendants in eviction court who are behind on the rent.A lawyer can only help them delay the eviction. So they get another free month out of their landlord and who winds up paying for that “free” month? It is their low-income neighbor in the unit upstairs whose monthly rent is $50 higher than it should be to make up for the landlord’s loss. No wonder, as Desmond shows, that rents in the inner city aren’t much less than in the suburbs.

Some solutions proposed by Desmond would work, but others won’t or can’t garner legislative support in today’s political climate.

Ron Hegwood, our association president, recently wrote: “A good tenant is worth their weight in gold. How can we create more good tenants and protect and help the ones we have?” We look forward to meeting with tenant advocates and public officials to seek answers to that question.

Heiner Giese is a Milwaukee attorney who represents the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc.

Categories
Evicted - Matt Desmond Evictions Housing policies

Rent eats first?

Desmond and others have a nifty little saying “Rent eats first” that implies landlords get paid at the expense of people eating.  The truth is food stamps (SNAP/Food Shares) are given to most people and families under the poverty level while housing assistance is given to very few.  That’s why we read about evictions and homelessness and not about starvation.  In a country as wealthy and great as America, we should not be hearing of either.

One workable voucher program could be similar to food stamps where all people and families below the poverty level, in addition to food stamps, would receive a housing allotment that can only be spent on housing.

The recipients would have a choice of renting from anyone without the government saying, for example, ‘you have two small kids so you are only eligible to rent a two bedroom in the $630 price range and we will pay $500 of that’   Instead the recipient would receive a $500 housing allotment.  They then could rent a $500 place and pay nothing out of pocket or decide they want to rent a $750 three bedroom in a different neighborhood and must figure out how to pay the other $250 themselves.

Such a plan would help stabilize the private housing industry while at the same time would allow the recipients much more freedom of choice in their housing decisions.  It would also be less costly to manage than Section 8.  To achieve this the payments would have to be available to all rental owners except of course those banned due to fraud or similar.

Some of the money could come from adjusting the current W2.  As the vouchers would earmark monies for housing the volume of evictions should subside.

Categories
Evicted - Matt Desmond Evictions Our industry

EVICTED: Matt Desmond Interview on NPR

On March 7th, 2016 Matt Desmond, author of EVICTED was interviewed on the Diane Rehm NPR show, guest hosted by Tom Gjelten.  I was privileged to be an invited guest on the show.  I do not feel I did as well as I wished but am sharing it as this show was a good overview of the issues presented in the book.

EVICTED will have a huge impact on our industry for many years.    Whether that impact is positive or negative to rental housing is up to us and how we react.

Listen to NPR’s Diane Rehm Show EVICTED Interview with Matt Desmond

Categories
Evicted - Matt Desmond Evictions

Slate Magazine on Desmond’s Book “EVICTED”

Slate magazine has a large interview with Matt Desmond, author of Evicted. You should read the article, heck you should read the book, but I’ve taken a snip from the article that I think accurately portrays Desmond’s view of owners. It is a view that I’m sure will be lost upon many as the community reacts to his writings.

It is our job, for the sake of our industry as well as for tenants, to ensure this does not happen. Much anti-landlord sentiment out there is really an anti-tenant sentiment. But we are a more politically appetizing target.

Slate:

You don’t demonize the landlords. You really emphasize how difficult the business is and how close to disaster many of these operators frequently are when they get an unexpected bill. What do you think is the most useful way for reform-minded readers, who might be tempted to villainize these people, to understand these actors?

Desmond:

I think we are letting ourselves off easy if we just say, “Oh those landlords they’re so greedy,” or “Oh these tenants are so irresponsible.” If we as a nation are going to house the vast majority of our low-income families in the private market, landlords have to be at the table. We have to understand their perspective; we have to understand their incentives. The book does not shy away from moments where landlords have massive discretion over families’ lives or where landlords drive their properties into the ground. But it also documents when landlords work with families and let them slide sometimes.

Categories
DIY Evictions Evicted - Matt Desmond Evictions Housing Stats Industry stats Investing Legislative Milwaukee Our industry

Journal Editorial: Housing is at the heart of poverty

The Milwaukee Journal Editorial based on Matt Desmond’s new book Evicted builds upon some misperceptions about the rental industry.

A NYT reader’s comment on Desmond’s Evicted more closely follows what typical owners see when trying to run lower income housing.

The Journal editorial echoes Desmond’s advocating for legal representation for tenants in most evictions.  If you frequent eviction court you seldom see a day without Legal Action representing tenants.  ATCP 134 provides enticement for attorneys to represent tenants  tenants tin cases where the owner is doing wrong.

Implying tenants need legal representation simply perpetuates a myth that wrongful evictions are common and owners somehow benefits from an eviction. In fact by the time it is over the owner has lost two to three months rent and often more.  Legal representation for tenants in evictions seldom does more than simply let the tenant get another month of nonpayment before leaving.
 
In an average month eviction judgments in Milwaukee County exceed $847,000 – every month.  But this is but a fraction of the losses suffered by property owners.  Of those evictions, only a third of the cases had money judgments other than the court applied fees.  Was this because the tenant did not owe rent?  No, more likely because the owner did not want to waste more time chasing a judgment they will never collect.  Those in our industry as well as those outside of the rental business will tell you that less than a quarter of uncollected rent ends up in eviction court.
 
This is money removed from housing and increases costs for the rest of the tenant population. While some tenants may use the money for real needs like shoes for kids, some use it for other things that further harm the community.
 
Then there is the comments about constructive (illegal) evictions.  While statements like this flame the fires of hatred against landlords, such acts seldom occur and when they do there is adequate remedies for the tenant.  I own two duplexes that a guy walked away from his 1/3 down and eight years of payments after he spent a weekend in jail because he threw the tenants’ belongings out on the front yard and changed the locks.  Seems the tenant did not pay rent and when he went to find out why, he also found they broke the front picture window.  His first stop after getting out of jail was my office to see if I would buy them for the remaining mortgage.  Small owners take these things too personally…
 
Desmond’s book has brought the issue to the forefront. And this is good.  Its is our industry’s job to make sure this does not turn from what it is, the bringing a real problem to light, into yet another excuse to bash the rental housing industry.
 
The part of the discussion that would be helpful to the overall community is increased housing vouchers.  Universal food stamps for people in need was a good first step many years ago. Housing and utilities vouchers for those who need them the most would be a good next step.
 

Categories
Code Enforcement crime Evictions Legislative

AB 568 is now law, WI ACT 176

Governor Walker signs AB 568

AB 568 was signed into law on 2/29/2016 as WI ACT 176
 
Present at the signing were Attorney Tristan Pettit, to your left, WI Governor Walker’s right. Tristan presents the AASEW Landlord Tenant Law Boot Camp.
 
To your right, Governor’s left, is Joe Murray, the AASEW lobbyist.
 
Tristan and Joe, along with AASEW Attorney Heiner Giese and folks from the WAA, led by Gary Goyke, did a lot of work on this bill.
Categories
5-Day Notice crime Evictions Legislative Our industry

A response to the new WI landlord Tenant Law

Yesterday I wrote about 2016 revision to the Wisconsin Landlord Tenant Law.  Over on FaceBook Brian Peters, whom I respect, responded.  I thought the discussion warranted bringing it over here for those who do not follow me on FaceBook.

Brian Peters Unfortunately, those changes, along with other changes in past, allow for abuses by bad landlords. Which is why I’ve been calling them the Slumlord Protection Acts.

For example, you mentioned drugs. I doubt people who do “white collar” crimes will find themselves tossed out. This will impact some people more than others.

This provision is also dangerous as it makes it easier for a landlord’s prejudices to come into play.  

Finally, do you really want landlords to be in that position? You once told me about how community prejudices would cause calls to building inspectors. Do you really want calls from neighbors claiming they saw suspicious activities and demanding you evict the person?

My response to Brian was as follows:

While you and I often agree on many issues, I think you have this one wrong.   

The notion that landlords enjoy or profit from evictions is a myth perpetrated by those with a bias against landlords or rental housing.  The typical eviction costs the owner at least two months rent, court fees and damage to the property. I have yet to meet an owner who enjoys the process or comes out ahead. Landlord’s prejudices, although rare today, most likely appear in the application selection process.   This law will not add to nor prevent this.
 
Owners already face demands by neighbors and city officials to evict for activity where there has been no arrest or even credible evidence that the tenant is engaged in wrong doing.  This provision will not add to nor prevent this as it is the result of the neighbors’ prejudices that elected officials willingly participate in hopes of getting reelected.  This is a nationwide issue. Google Minority Threat Theory to read many scholarly articles on this, or read the work of Matt Desmond that was based on his work in Milwaukee. Matt will be in Milwaukee for a book signing on Tuesday.  I will email you a copy of our HUD complaint.
 

The new law does not allow for eviction for use or simple possession, which actually makes it harder to evict by invalidating the Cobbs case, which permitted eviction for simple possession or use in Section 8 Housing 

The change in the law however allows owners to act when there is a major problem.  I would expect that you would want an owner to address rampant drug dealing or the violent person next door to your home.  This change allows that to happen easier, but contains protections for the tenant.

One change included that I wanted is the one that permits the use of 5 Day notices to address lease violation in month to month tenancies.  The law, as it was, only permitted the use of a 14 Day termination without the tenant having the right to cure when a month to month tenant violated the rental agreement.  Now we can give the tenant a 5 Day to address things like the pit bull they brought home.  If the tenant removes the dog, then they cannot be evicted and everyone wins.
Brian replies:

How does it benefit the tenant to not have the opportunity to cure the violation?

I was imprecise with my language earlier, BTW-good that you clarified it for anyone reading this.

Tim:

You have this backwards. The new law ADDS a right to cure notice for month to month breaches where none existed before.

We championed the addition of the right to cure notice because our industry wants to avoid evictions when possible, but we also want disruptive removed as soon as possible if they will not make the correction. Remember all evictions are costly to both landlord and tenant.

Brian:

I realize that. I guess you see the bad tenants while I see the bad landlords so we both have our perspectives.

Tim

Actually I see very few bad tenants. While some fail due to economic fragility, I would not call them bad. Out of approx a thousand tenants last year, it looks like we evicted 7 during the year that would be considered bad.

Tenants and landlords need each other just as Clownfish and anemones need each other. A quick view of this is at the post: The enemy of my customer is…. Of course it is more complex than that.

Both sides need to be careful not to be played by people who try to create strife between us only due to their dislike of tenants for reasons unrelated to housing.