Local Video
|
| Court thwarts city’s rental code |
By: By SUZANNE ROOK
|
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2008 12:27 am
|
 Email  Print
|
NORTHFIELD — A state Supreme Court ruling handed down Thursday will force the city to rework its newly adopted rental code.
The decision says city ordinances can’t supersede the Minnesota Building Code and cannot require modifications of rental housing so long as they remain housing. Upgrades must be made if major renovations are made to a structure.
City Administrator Al Roder said he’ll update the council Monday on the court’s decision, which overturned an appellate court ruling. The decision was too fresh, he said, to know exactly how it will affect Northfield’s rental ordinance. He said it could take a month before the city’s attorney and staff can compare the 33-page ordinance to the ruling.
In a memo sent to the city council Friday, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell wrote, “the court ruling creates real doubt whether the current rental license program recently enacted in Northfield is valid as a result of this decision.”
The city’s rental code, approved in October 2007, includes provisions that require landlords to adhere to standards including door width, window size and height of railings. Thursday’s ruling in the city of Morris vs. Sax Investments, says that no change of use occurs when an owner-occupied property becomes rental housing. And without a change in use, cities can’t require modifications to the structure, the court said.
That’s a drum attorney David Hvistendahl has beaten for more than a year on behalf of client Ken Malecha.
In 2006, the city charged Malecha with failing to obtain a rental license at a home he owns on St. Olaf Avenue. After considerable wrangling, Malecha grew weary of the fight and agreed to adhere to the new ordinance. That meant modifying the house.
An April 2007 letter to the city from the state’s assistant director of the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry mirrors the court’s findings. The letter, in response to city prosecutor Tim Morisette’s questions regarding the Malecha case, didn’t deter the city, which pushed forward with the rental ordinance and prosecution of Malecha.
Malecha said he has spent about $10,000 modifying the home as the new rental code required. He has already installed new windows, plumbing and stair railings. And, he said, he has spent another $3,000 defending himself against the city.
Other landlords have spent as much to meet rental code requirements.
“Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent that shouldn’t have been spent,” he said.
Hvistendahl, who’s running for mayor, said he warned the city that it was inaccurately interpreting state law. “This just ends the stupidity on the part of the city,” he said.
— Suzanne Rook can be reached at srook@northfieldnews.com or 645-1113.
|
|
|
|
Story Comment Guidelines:
Registered members who identify themselves by name are authorized to automatically post comments to stories. Readers who wish to remain anonymous submit comments to a pending queue, where they will be reviewed for approval within 24 hours of their submission. To determine the author of a comment, click on the user name.
Those who identify themselves will be given broader boundaries to express their opinion. Only those anonymous comments that contribute to the conversation in a thoughtful, respectful, civil manner will be approved. The decision to approve or reject a comment is a subjective one and is ours alone. Authors of rejected comments will receive an email response.
If you would like to report abuse click here to notify us.
|
|
| Show Comments | Hide Comments
|
|
| Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
|
|
Top Jobs | Top Homes | Top Cars
09 Jetta
09 white Jetta asking $16,000
less than 48,000 miles
|
|
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!
Interesting, and maybe good. Among other things, it seemed tragic and foolish to demand that beautiful original glass doors be replaced in historic homes.
Does anyone know how the rest of the code is holding up? In particular, the limits on the number of 'unrelated' persons, and the number of rental properties per block?
Now what happens to all the people who were denied rental permits? Or better yet, all the money that they lost not being able to rent their home while they were in another country doing service?
I remember trying to help a friend of Jennifer Sawyers, and was told the brand new windows she was still paying for did not meet the new rental code requirements. I knew something was just wrong about this. I was also told a few other people had to walk away from their homes simply because the money involved to fix or change were to costly for them to have as a rental unit.
If my departure was caused because I raised a few questions and tried to help the people in Northfield, then perhaps I am better off.
Again, I just feel bad for the people in Northfield and wish I had the opportunity to finish what I started.