Chapter 29 – Sheryl Jahnel, Member
By I am asking if you agree, please contact your city council and mayor and ask that this not be passed if this proposed Chapter 29 and Crime Free Agreement is placed on the agenda 6-22-10.
>
> Please review the attached proposed Chapter 29/Crime Free Agreement. I have been told it was modeled after Davenport’s law which has had great success over the last 4 years. I have found that there are many difference that set Cedar Rapids Proposed changes over the top.
> I am very much opposed to the proposed Chapter 29 & mandatory Crime Free Agreement.
> Davenport’s success was attributed to cooperation between Housing, Police, and Fire Departments of Davenport with landlords. Because of this cooperation a better understanding by Davenport’s court system made it easier for landlords to evict bad tenants. The attached proposed Chapter 29 & mandatory Crime Free Agreement is a very different system. Davenport does NOT have a mandatory Crime Free Agreement and does NOT have licensing of landlords. Davenport licence the properties. The Davenport group created a voluntary screening system for the landlords using police equipment to check criminal records on tenant applications. The landlords received cooperation from the police department to enforce, charge, arrest, and convict criminal activity.
> The attached proposed Chapter 29 & mandatory Crime Free Agreement is very adversarial to cooperation between the landlords, tenants, and city of Cedar Rapids. When speaking to Matt/Housing and Chuck/Police of this law, they say they could be fair in administering such a law, but the WRITTEN LAW in Chapter 29 and mandatory Crime Free Agreement proposal is to the contrary. The way the Chapter 29 and Crime Free Agreement are worded it places the burden of enforcing the laws of Cedar Rapids on the landlord. It puts the Landlord in the middle of criminal tenants, a city housing enforcement group saying one violation without conviction, and a judicial system that operates on the Constitutional Rights of innocent until proven guilty. The proposed Chapter 29 was created without the understanding of the many different situations of owner/operator relationships and the relationship between landlord and tenant. This expensive system to set up licensing of landlords, penalty to the landlord for incidents that are out of their control, forcing to evict for as little as one violation, and fees and expenses that create it hard to obtain affordable housing for Cedar Rapids are not productive for Cedar Rapids. The way Chapter 29 and mandatory Crime Free Agreement is written, it can NOT be administered equally, fairly, or inexpensively.
> I would propose:
> 1) If we must: A disclosure from the landlord to the tenants that criminal behavior will not be tolerated and will be reported to the proper authority would be a bigger deterrent than a mandatory Crime Free Agreement that tries to connect the behavior of the tenant to the behavior and punishment of the landlord.
> 2) Higher fines for not registering rental property would encourage registration
> 3) Fees should be raised to fall in line with needed budget. It should be a realistic number for an efficiently run department. A budget should not be determined by this new proposed Chapter 29 and Crime Free Agreement that would push the budget over affordability for everyone.
> It is confusing on how a person would get licensed in certain situations to fall in line with the requirements. Often times when rental property is purchased it needs repair to meet city guidelines to pass inspection. These properties are occupied by tenants and leases are in place. The new owner may not be licensed at the time of purchase. Would the repairs and inspection by the city have to be started prior to the closing date? The present owner is probably selling because he can’t keep up with repairs and the new owner doesn’t want to make repairs until he owns it. The owner can’t be licensed 29.04 C #1. until he has certificate of occupancy.
> I know my letter is lengthy. There are many issues why the Cedar Rapids Proposed landlord/rental changes can not be administered equally, fairly, or inexpensively. I would be happy to sit down with anyone that is willing to discuss these issues. Cedar Rapids is over the top with the proposed Chapter 29 and Crime Free Agreement. Licensing Landlords is totally different than registering/licensing properties.
>
> Sheryl Jahnel
> Real Estate Agent in the Stae of Iowa
> Member of the Linn County Landlords
> 319-360-9333
AMEN
As many of you know the first reading of the proposed Chapter 29 & Crime Free Agreement passed last night 6-22-10. There has to be 2 more readings to become law. This passed in part because on Friday 6-18-10, the board of Linn County Landlords endorsed this through a letter sent to the Cedar Rapids City Council. It indicated that although many landlords were against this proposal, the Linn County Landlords were in favor of this except for the fees. We can not be an organization just about the fees. Thanks to members contacting our board, the board has retracted this endorsment. I’m not sure how this was done. This was too little too late. For the sake of not allowing a law that places the landlord between a rock and hard place between Housing ordinance, Fair Housing Laws, Cedar Rapids Police Department, housing department, and tenants; we need to take drastic measures and turn out for these meeting with our legitimate complaints. This will become a law if we do not take an active, responsible stand on this. If this new Chapter 29 does become law, we will be dealing with this dilema on a daily basis.
The new chapter 29 the way it has been submitted is not good for Landlords or Tenants or Cedar Rapids.
I agree with the retracted portion of the Chapter 29 as passed or submitted. As landlords we can’t be police persons and can not be responsible for the actions of all tenants. If the tenants have a family situation and become noisy that is between the family. I am not a law enforcement officer and do not wish to be part of the problem. We are only allowed by the courts to do so much and can’t be responsible in most part for the tenant. This city has gone completely off the deep end with their new proposals. I agree that we should be held to a standard and do our best but enough is enough.
Be sure you are reviewin the proposed chapter 29 and mandatory Crime Free Agreement when considering your stand on this issue. The existing Chapter 29 is posted on this site.