Reading Northfield’s Rental Ordinance
I gave Northfield’s controversial rental ordinance a quick read before I signed my first lease a year ago. Now that it’s being challenged in court — and I prepare to find housing for June 1 — I thought I’d give it a more thorough read. So, the highlights:
Sec. 14-78. Purpose and scope.
To the extent that any standards of this article apply only to rental properties in R-1 and R-2 districts of the city, such standards are based on a finding by the city council that low density residential neighborhoods in the city are comprised primarily of owner-occupied single family dwellings and are designed and intended to be quiet, orderly, and safe neighborhoods for children and others, and that the quiet enjoyment and value of properties in such neighborhoods may be adversely impacted by the existence of rental properties occupied by groups of unrelated adults, where occupants tend to have more motor vehicles, generate greater traffic and parking congestion, and generate other adverse impacts on the neighborhood such as noise and disorderly conduct.
I appreciate that they make no attempts to hide that they assume all renters and rental properties to be a drain on the community.
Built-in deficiencies.
Okay, this bit seems reasonable: despite fairly nit-picky building standards, they do acknowledge that certain things can’t easily be helped in existing properties.
Right of entry. When it is necessary to make an inspection for purposes of this article, or when the building official has reasonable cause to believe there exists on a rental property a condition which is contrary to or in violation of this article, the building official may enter the rental property or any part thereof at reasonable times to inspect and otherwise perform the duties imposed by this article, provided that if such rental property is occupied, city credentials must be presented to the occupant and entry requested. If such rental property is unoccupied, the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the property and request entry. If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.
I’m not a lawyer, but this seems like a questionable search. It is reasonable to say that rental permits cannot be renewed without inspection; however, saying that the City may enter at any “reasonable times” just to make sure everything is in compliance doesn’t seem like a legitimate search. Update: I’m not the only one with these concerns, apparently. There’s an ongoing case between the City of Red Wing and renters/landlords in the city. The Supreme Court of MN recently ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge this rule, but it hasn’t yet been decided whether the searches are, in fact, unconstitutional. I would note that Red Wing’s language actually isn’t as strong as Northfield’s. Anyway, back to Northfield. On to definitions:
Let is to give the use of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit by an owner, agent or manager to an occupant in return for rent.
This suggests that an owner renting to a roommate requires a rental license (and is presumably subject to the same quotas — more on that below). This seems like it could be especially problematic for unmarried couples, if only one is the legal owner of the property.
Sec. 14-97. Limitation on rental properties in low density neighborhoods. In R-1 and R-2 districts in the city, no more than 20 percent of the houses on a single block shall be granted rental housing licenses. For purposes of this section, the word house shall mean a single structure containing one or more rental units. A single block shall be defined as the houses on both sides of a street between successive intersecting streets or between other such boundaries including college campus boundaries, railroad rights of way, corporate limit lines, or physical features such as rivers, outcroppings, ponds or lakes.
This is the most problematic part of the whole ordinance. Besides setting an arbitrary limit on rental properties, the definition of block is potentially problematic for most of the city. Does a 3-way intersection count as a separation of blocks? Certainly long blocks (like N Linden St or N Plum St) aren’t divided. If block quotas must be set, it seems to make more sense to use address blocks than the actual intersecting streets.
And now for some fun stuff:
Sinks shall be of nonabsorbent materials.
Bathrooms shall be separated from food preparation areas by a tight fitting door.
Heating. All units shall be provided with heating appliances capable of maintaining a room temperature of 68 degrees F at a point 3 feet above the floor in all habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments.
That one would be news to my landlord. Of course, it really depends on how cold it is outside, doesn’t it?
Every habitable room shall be provided with at least one switched light and 2 duplex outlets.
That would also be news to my landlord. Guess the City hasn’t been keeping up with its random rental searches.
Security locks. All exit doors from all units shall provide security from unlawful entry and shall be provided with a dead-bolt lock which is operable from the inside without the use of a key, special knowledge, or extraordinary effort.
Ha.
Energy conservation. Doors and windows shall be maintained in tight and draft free condition. Holes and cracks in foundations and exterior walls shall be filled.
This is a lovely requirement, but it is so far from reality, I literally laughed out loud. My back door currently has two layers of duct tape, a sheet of window insulation, and another thing of duct tape to keep that on (because it gets too cold for the regular clear adhesive strips to hold). My landlord isn’t alone in this kind of oversight: a Spring St home I looked at was far worse in this regard.
Number of [parking] spaces. Each rental dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces, and as many additional off-street spaces as may be desired so long as they meet the dimensional, surface, location, and other requirements of this section.
This is unnecessary, particularly since a large section of our rental market is college students, who may be able to store their cars on campus, or — like me — may not own one at all. I’d far prefer to see our abundance of wide streets used for parking, year-round, than have landlords pave over back yards to comply with this. In any case, at the risk of sounding Republican, this seems like something the free market can regulate: if you need off-street parking, get a rental place with off-street parking. If you don’t, then your options are open.
Sec. 14-125. Occupancy. No rental unit shall be occupied by more than the number of persons for which the unit is approved, based on International Residential Code (IRC) or International Building Code (IBC) requirements, which number shall be designated in conjunction with the issuance of the rental license. In addition to that limitation, rental properties in an R-1 or R-2 district may not be occupied by more than 3 adult persons who are unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption, provided that a property owner may apply for a special permit to allow 4 or 5 unrelated adult persons to occupy a rental unit […].
Potentially problematic for domestic partners (samboer) and gay couples. But, the City is indeed exploring the idea of a Domestic Partner Registry this year.
Sec. 14-126. Conduct on licensed premises.
This whole section contains impacts on rental properties by violations of a list of 15 local and state laws (including “Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.185, 609.19, 609.195, 609.20, and 609.205, which prohibit murder and manslaughter,” just in case you were planning on doing that on your rental property). This is another instance of double-standards for rentals: these things are already illegal, and already have penalties associated with them. It’s problematic on its face, but there’s also an impact that may not have been considered: to safeguard against losing their rental licenses, landlords put illegal requirements in their lease to discourage disorderly behavior.
The first draft of my current lease (which my landlord told me was his “standard lease”) contained provisions requiring fees to the landlord and possible eviction for any police call to the residence. (Of course, these are unenforceable — but that won’t keep a sucker from paying a fee because s/he think s/he has to. Or, heck, keep a domestic abuse victim from calling the police because she doesn’t want to get evicted.)
The rest is fairly unexceptional. And I should note, none of the councilors who approved this ordinance is currently on the City Council. This is a deeply and dangerously flawed ordinance, and I hope for its prompt rewrite.
