23. November 2005 • David Boyle
Email this article
In “Lease-signing proposal attacked: Landlords oppose mayor’s ordinance to push back lease signing to December”, today’s Daily unloads on MSA members and associates (read linked article for snarkily-delivered details), but at least the article does show the near-hysteria of landlords, a mess of them talking about their putative violation of personal liberty under the proposed ordinance (re setting later deadlines for signing leases), as if they were so many Thomas Jeffersons of the real-estate world, in battle with the tyrannical couch-lounging students and their neo-Bolshevik minions infesting our City Council. Well.
I also heard chatter that the landlords at the meeting were denigratory to students. (Surprise!) —I don’t know how this’ll all end up, but is Daily snarkery towards the student side necessarily going to help students’ welfare? The D could have chosen to be a little acerbic to the landlords, too.
(Though the Daily is right to say that there should be maximum student participation and attendance at these meetings, of course, as opposed to student apathy.)
« Previous Article New Mott Children's Hospital controversy
Next Article Larcom, Kestenbaum discuss alternative means of electing City Council »
|
I reiterate that this kind of effort would overall be a positive thing for both tenants and landlords but there’s virtually no way to enforce it, as some of the landlord reps emphasized by talking about how their application routines would evade the intent of the law. And if most of the landlords are going to stand on the ‘personal freedoms’ crap, there’s no way the city will pass it for fear of being sued and having to spend money on a lawsuit that would likely put them across the aisle from organizations like the ACLU.
—Marc. R. Nov. 23 '05 - 05:10AM #
—maximalist Nov. 23 '05 - 04:23PM #
As for the “near-hysteria of landlords,” I would hardly categorize the discussion in this manner. The early applications issue was brought up because in speaking with people in Madison, that was something that had happened there.
This was a regular meeting of the Campus Neighborhood Improvement Task Force group. The group meets monthly and has for some time. They talk about a lot of issues, many of them where the landlords are actually strong advocates for the renters. There are about 100 people on the mailing list, although only a dozen or so ever show up. If you are truly interested in participating, they are looking for people.
This lease-signing is a big issue for both students and landlords and both sides brought up good points and egregious points. I wouldn’t base your knowledge of the issue or the discussion Monday just on a Daily article.
—Juliew Nov. 23 '05 - 05:01PM #
—Forster Nov. 23 '05 - 05:30PM #
Thanx maximalist! Astounding alliteration is archly appropriate for an Ann Arbor Update blog.
Thanx Juliew! Interesting details. ...The Daily REPORTER (& photog) misbehaved? Wow!
Thanx Forster! No doubt there will be more people at meeting next time! “Go get Goliath!”
—David Boyle Nov. 23 '05 - 06:33PM #
—Dale Nov. 23 '05 - 06:40PM #
And here I was ready to snark on this as being a made-up word:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=denigratory
I’ll keep that in mind for Scrabble.
—John Q Nov. 23 '05 - 06:50PM #
—ann arbor is overrated Nov. 23 '05 - 06:58PM #
It is important to note that of the 20 or so people at this meeting, three were students, one was from Ann Arbor Waste Management, three were from neighborhood associations, one housing inspector, one police liaison, one from UM Off-Campus Housing, a fraternity representative, one Councilperson, one Mayor, and the University Director of Community Relations. So the majority were not landlords. The purpose was to have a discussion and to hear different points of view from multiple stakeholders. I think that was accomplished, even with the somewhat overblown rhetoric from the landlords (particularly the representative from the Washtenaw County Apartment Association) and the students.
—Juliew Nov. 23 '05 - 07:19PM #
—Forster Nov. 23 '05 - 08:28PM #
By the same token, as I have tried to convey to the landlords I know (and work for), falling back on pettiness like ‘personal freedoms’ does no more than reassure those students who already feel like landlords are taking advantage of them that they’re right and that nothing can be gained.
It’s simply a matter of giving people the perception that you are doing WITH, rather than doing TO. If the meetings go as well as you say and the Daily is simply living up to its usual low standards, so much the better. But I think a little diplomacy and acknowledgement of the other side’s viewpoint and using the mayor’s initiative as a launching point, not an end in itself, is the best approach here.
—Marc R. Nov. 23 '05 - 09:23PM #
—FAA Nov. 23 '05 - 10:10PM #
—Mike Forster Nov. 23 '05 - 10:50PM #
—ann arbor is overrated Nov. 24 '05 - 03:25AM #
Ok, so in order to rent properties, they’ll break the law? They already do, with the whole paying full month’s rent for the last month of a lease for less than a full month’s occupancy, etc.
What good will legislation be if landlords just continue to break laws they don’t like?
—Jared Goldberg Nov. 24 '05 - 09:21PM #
“They already do, with the whole paying full month’s rent for the last month of a lease for less than a full month’s occupancy, etc”
Read your lease or any lease you’re about to sign in which the prospective landlord states their intent to do so. What you’ll likely find is that the lease is not chronologically based, but is instead an ‘installment’ lease, wherein the full value of the rental for the stated period of time is presented (e.g. $9600 for 9/1/06 to 8/18/07) and the total is then declared to be broken up into 12 separate installments of $800 due on the first of every month (or thereabouts.) In other words, it’s just like leasing a car. Most landlords do it not for the sake of screwing people out of two weeks of residency, but because it makes bookkeeping easier and it allows them time to clean, repair, and paint the units for the next occupants. This is the same reason you end up moving in to your new place on 9/1, before the term starts, rather than on 9/14, two weeks into it.
And most landlords that I know of would gladly support this law if they knew that all the other landlords would not attempt to evade it in order to gain advantage on one another. Here the problem is not landlord vs. tenant; it’s landlord vs. landlord. If we can find a way to not only enforce this ordinance but also get landlords to cooperate with it (and each other) in said enforcement, we’re golden. Until then, it’s a nice idea.
—Marc R. Nov. 25 '05 - 12:02AM #