Posts Tagged City of Milwaukee

For Those of You Who Thought The Installation of A Smoke Detector Was Simple . . . READ THIS.

Nov 14

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Smoke Detectors | 4 Comments

AASEW Board member Tim Ballering wrote the City of Milwaukee Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) back in June to ask for clarification about the proper placement of smoke detectors in his residential rental units in the city of Milwaukee.

Ballering was prompted to write to DNS becasue he felt there was some confusion among DNS inspectors as to where smoke detectors should be installed.

Below is the entire text of Ballering’s email to DNS:

 

> Subject: Smoke Detectors

> There is some confusion among DNS inspectors as to where smoke detectors belong.

> Most code enforcement inspectors are of the opinion the detectors should be outside the bedroom, within 6′ of the door. Some are of the opinion that having the detector only on the inside of the bedroom does not meet code.

> Your code seems to be worded in a way that supports installing detectors outside the door at 214-27: “For floor levels containing a sleeping area, the required detector or alarm shall be installed within 6 feet of the sleeping area.”

> However construction inspectors believe the smoke detectors are required to be inside the bedrooms and units installed outside the bedroom door do not meet the code.

> The DNS Smoke Alarm brochure seems to say either is okay:
> “Either in each sleeping area of each unit or elsewhere in the unit within 6 feet of each sleeping area. If the unit contains 2 or more separate sleeping areas, each sleeping area shall be provided with a smoke alarm.”

> It obviously doesn’t matter to the property owner where the detectors are put as long as a second inspector doesn’t come along afterwards demanding they be relocated.

> So which does the code require, inside the bedroom or outside?

> And if the code doesn’t care, then which is most effective in saving lives?

> I will have the Association publish the response so more owners are knowledgable as to what you require.

> Thanks

> Tim Ballering

 

The City of Milwaukee emailed its 8 PAGE response to Ballering on October 21, 2011.   Here is the letter response from DNS.

While I know your time is valuable — I beg you to read the entire 8 page answer.  I want to see if you can finish reading it all the way through.  Afterwards, I would like to know if you are able to tell me where you should place the smoke detectors in your City of Milwaukee rentals.  I like to think that I am moderately intelligent person —- and I read and review statutes, case law, and ordinances several times a week as a lawyer —- but after reading this 8 page response my eyes glazed over and my brain went to mush.

The drafter’s of these codes, ordinances, statutes, regulations etc. need to realize that if they want landlords  — or anyone, for that matter — to understand them and be in compliance, they need to make it a bit more simple to understand and follow.  One should not be required to be a brain surgeon to know where to install a smoke detector and you shouldn’t have to synthesize 4 different laws in order to arrive at an answer — thank you Todd Weiler for doing that for us.  It is a relatively simple question:  where should I install a smoke detector in my rental property to best protect my tenants.  It shouldn’t take 8 pages and many hours — which I am sure Weiler had to spend compiling the answer — to answer.

But don’t fret, you probably will never have to re-read that 8 page answer again.  Instead just turn to the city’s recently revised brochure on smoke detectors.  Sometime during my reading of the brochure, my eyes regained focus, my grey matter firmed up a bit, and I felt as if I actually knew where to install smoke detectors in my rentals again.  Thank God for brochures : ).

Tags: , ,

New Report States What Landlords Already Know – That Milwaukee’s Regulations Hurt Businesses

Nov 5

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Investing In Rental Property, Miscellaneous | No Comments

This past weekend I read a very interesting report which was drafted by the Institute for Justice as part of its City Study Series entitled Unhappy Days for Milwaukee Entrepeneurs: Brew City Regulations Make It Hard For Businesses To Achieve the High Life.

The report is 40 pages long (excluding footnotes) but I encourage everyone to read it.  The report touches on the following issues:

- How the city rigidly restricts the ability of entrepeneurs to operate businesses from their homes

- How the city abuses the custom of aldermanic privilege in order to deny businesses licenses and permits thus preventing businesses from opening and operating

-  How the city imposes restrictions on food-related businesses that make it next to impossible to get a business started

- How the city overburdens successful businesses with so many rules and fees that many businesspersons are contemplating moving out of the city

- How the city arbitrarily enforces building codes and historic preservation provisions making it too costly to rehabilitate old buildings

- How the city severely limits a businesses ability to place signage on its storefront

- How the city requires an expensive license in order to go out of business.

While landlording is not specifically discussed in the report several of the topics addressed clearly affect landlords.  One that comes to mind is the arbitrary enforcement of certain building code provisions – what landlord has not dealt with that?  Additionally I believe many landlords would agree that the city overburdens them with so many rules and fees that many are contemplating leaving the city.  I know of several landlords that have sold off all of their Milwaukee rental properties and now only own and manage rental units outside of the city.  I know of even more landlords that would love to do that very same thing if only they wouldn’t lose their shirt (and their pants, belt, socks and underwear) by selling their rentals in this poor climate.

Landlording is one of the most regulated areas that I am aware of, if you don’t believe me just take a look at this memo that was published by the AASEW board of directors on the topic.

The city’s new Residential Rental Inspection ordinance is another example of the city making it difficult for landlords to survive.

The Journal Sentinel’s Patrick McIlheran wrote about how difficult the environment in Milwaukee is for landlords not too long ago, which I blogged about.

According to the Institute for Justice’s report, landlords are not the only businesses that Milwaukee is making life, success, and survival, difficult for.

Tags: , , ,

Business Journal Article Addresses Fallout of the City’s RRI Ordinance To Date

Oct 7

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, DNS, Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) Program / Mandatory Rental Inspections / Landlord Licensing | 1 Comment

I was recently interviewed by Business Journal reporter Sean Ryan regarding the fallout of the dismissal of three landlords’ lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee regarding the unconstitutionality of its Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) program.  My most recent post on the subject can be read here.

On October 1, 2010, The Business Journal published  its article entitled “Judge Upholds Milwaukee Home Inspection Program.  Reporter Sean Ryan spoke with the primary plaintiff, Joseph Peters, Alderman Nik Kovac (sponsor of the ordinance), Todd Weiler (of the Department of Neighborhood Services) and myself for the article.

I found Mr. Weiler’s comments to be very noteworthy.  He was quoted as saying that to date DNS has inspected over 800 properties in the two target areas (Lindsey Heights on the north side and the UWM-area on the east) and that during those inspections 8,550 violations were found.  Apparently 1/2 of the the properties inspected – or 400 – had no violations at all.

I wonder if all 8,550 of the violations that were found — and which the landlords were cited for – pertained to life-safety issues?  If you will recall, life safety issues were the ”alleged” original impetus behind the ordinance being introduced. 

In speaking with several landlords that I know who own proeprties in the target areas, I was informed that the violations that they were cited for involved very minor issues — such as peeling paint on the outside of a building, torn screens, and failure to paint some wood that had been properly sealed but not painted.  The lead plaintiff, Jospeh Peters, was quoted in the article as saying that the Orders To Correct that he received on his 10 buildings also involved very minor repairs – such as torn screens.

Just how many of the 8,550 violations dealt with life safety issues?  How many illegal attic bedrooms were found?  How many poorly maintained second story porches that could collapse at any minute were identified?  Don’t forget the overloading of circuits by the improper use of extension cords – how many of those were found?

If you will recall the testimony that was offerred by both Alderman Nik Kovac, who sponsored the ordinance, and Art Dahlberg, Commissioner of the Department of Neighborhood Services, at the public hearing before the ZND Committee way back when, the focus of this program was to make these affected properties safe and prevent unnecessary deaths. 

I’m not sure how many lives have been saved as a result of the RRI ordinance to date, but at least we wont have to worry about any of those deadly torn screens, inherently dangerous unpainted wood, and the lethal peeling paint on the outside of a duplex. 

Not sure about you but I feel a lot safer already.

This ordinance is now being shown for what it really is — not an attempt to save lives and improve properties — but rather an way for the city to get inside one’s private property without the need to obtain a warrant or even receive a tenant complaint, a way to make additional money (through the required filing fees and reinspection fees), and a way to further harass landlords that are having a difficult enough time making ends meet. 

Sometimes I just wish that all of the landlords in the city of Milwaukee had the ability to just walk away from their rental properties.  I wonder if the city would then realize, once all the landlords are gone and there is no one to own or operate rental housing, that we provide a much needed service and that most of us do a good job of providing that service.  Would they try to work with us then . . . . ?

Tags: , , , ,

Landlords Lose Lawsuit

Sep 24

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) Program / Mandatory Rental Inspections / Landlord Licensing | 2 Comments

On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, Judge Timothy Witkowiak denied three landlords’ motion for summary judgment against the City of Milwaukee and granted the City’s cross motion for summary judgment against the landlords, with regard to constitutionality of the city’s new RRI ordinance.  This ruling effectively ended the lawsuit.

The lawsuit dealt with the City’s new Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) program/ordinance that went into effect on January 1, 2010.  The RRI ordinance requires all landlords in two areas of Milwaukee (the UWM-area on the east side and Lindsay Heights on the north side) to register any and all rental units, pay a fee to the city, allow for the Department of Neighborhood Services to conduct an interior inspection of the rental units, pass the inspection and obtain a rental certificate, in order to continue to be able to rent the rental unit to a tenant.  Any rental unit that does not pass the inspection would be denied a rental certificate and as such the lanldord would no longer be allowed to rent out the unit until such time as a rental certificate could be obtained.

If you are unfamiliar with the RRI program and/or the lawsuit you should review my past blog posts on the subject to get up to speed.

The plaintiff landlords had four main arguments.  I will summarize the arguments and then summarize the court’s ruling on each.

1.   The Ordinance Is Too Vague

Landlords’ Argument: 

The plaintiffs’ argued that the ordinance contains terms and phrases that are so vague that they do not properly notify landlords who own rental properties in the two designated areas as to what specific conditions will result in a denial of a residential rental certificate or the revocation of a certificate.  The ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the subjective power to determine whether the conditions in a rental unit constitute a denial or revocation of the certificate.  This subjective power will result in a non-uniform application of the ordinance.

The plaintiffs cited 7 examples within the ordinance where a landlord does not have sufficient notice as to what specific conditions or number of conditions will trigger a denial or revocation of a rental certificate by the city.

Court’s Ruling:

The court ruled that the plaintiff landlords did not meet the burden that was required of them in order to prove that the ordinance was so vague that it was unconstitutional.  The burden that the plaintiffs were required to meet was quite high. 

Under Wisconsin law, a ordinance is presumed to be constituional.  In order to prove an ordinance unconstitutional the attacker must establish its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt.  Specifically, the plaintiffs had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ordianance posessed no rational basis to any legitimate objective.  In other words, the landlords had to show that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague in all aspects and incapable of any valid application.

The typical burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is “a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence” which essentially means that if you tip the scale (of justice) slightly in your favor then you have met your burden.  The burden of proof in criminal matters is “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is a much higher and more difficult burden to meet.  In order to meet this higher standard you essentially have to tilt the scale (of justice) all of the way in your favor.

In order to show that an ordinance is unconstitutional on its face the plaintiffs had to meet the higher (criminal-type) burden.  The court ruled that the ordinance as written was not unconstitutionally vague because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the ordinance was impermissibly vague in all situations.  The court added further that just because certain words and phrases in the ordinance were never defined that that alone does not make them vague because if a word or phrse is not defined then one should resort to the common meaning of the word.

The court held that some valid application of the ordinance can be found so as a result there can be no finding that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.

The court added that the burden of proof is lower in an “as applied” challenge, or post-enforcement attack, on the validity of the constitutionality of an ordinance and that the court’s ruling under such circumstances could be different.  Essentially, this means that if a landlord was injured (i.e. denied a rental certificate and was forced to evict his/her tenant and lose rental income) by the application of the RRI ordinance, that landord would have a lower burden of proof, in that context, in proving that the ordinance was unconstitutional.   

2.     The ordinance contains fatal defects

Plaintiffs’ Argument:

This argument was that the ordinance as written contained terms which were unclear, had no definitions, and failed to set forth clear standards for when a rental certificate would be granted.  As a result the application of the ordinance by the city would be fatally flawed.  Additionally it was argued that the ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the arbitrary power to grant, deny, or revoke a rental certificate without providing specific standards as to how that discretion should be used.

The plaintiffs provided nine examples within the ordinance where significant terms were not defined or were unclear.  It was argued that the standard as to what will cause the issuance of a rental certificate is a subjective standard contained only in the minds of the Commissioner and his inspectors and such standard will most likely vary from one inspector to the next. 

This argument also focused on the fact that the ordinance allows for the DNS Commissioner to draft rules or regulations which have not been made a part of the ordinance.  This means that the Commissioner could change the rules at any time and without providing owners prior notice of the changes.  The rules and regulations are not required to be made publicly available since they are not contained in the ordinance itself.

Court’s Ruling:

Disclaimer: I was unable to attend the entire ruling of the court on this issue as I needed to get across town to give a seminar at the AASEW Tradeshow.  However, I was present for the first part of the court’s ruling on this issue and I spoke with people in attendence at the hearing later in the day with regard to the remainder of the court’s ruling.

The court felt that the plaintiffs’ 1st argument (vagueness) and its 2nd argument (fatal flaws) were very similar and contained much overlap.  As such, the court applied the same analysis as it did on the vagueness claim and ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs’ argument that the ordinance does not provide landlords with sufficient notice becasue it refers to standards that are not incorporated into the ordinance itself, which allows DNS to add these standards at a later date and/or change them over time etc.   The court ruled that regulations can legally be added to an ordinance at a later date and are not required to be included in the wording of the ordinance itself.  The court pointed out that it is often the case that administrative rules are created to interpret statutes and ordinances at the federal, state and local levels, and therefore this subset of the plaintiffs’ argument is moot.

3.     Failure to provide impartial review

Plaintiffs’ Argument:

Under the ordinance as written if a landlord does not agree with the decision rendered by the city inspector, the landlord can appeal that decision to the Commissioner of DNS — the employer of the inspector that made the initial decision.  The plaintiffs argued that any ordinance that allows a boss to review the decision of his employee (to deny a landlord a rental certificate) cannot be impartial.  The plaintiffs argued that  Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 68.11(2) requires that all municipalities provide an “impartial decision-maker . . . who did not participate in making or reviewing the initial determination” to preside over any review.  While the RRI ordinance does eventaully allow an impartial review by the Standards and Appeals Board at a later point in the procees, the plaintiffs argued that the requirement that the initial decision first be reviewed by the commissioner, will delay a review by an impartial body by almost a month at a minimum.

Court’s Ruling:

The court stated that the ordinance did provide for an impartial review of the building inspector’s decision by the Standards and Appeals Board and that the requirement that the Commissioner be allowed to review the initial decision, before it could be appealed to Standards and Appeal Board, added no appreciable delay.

4.     Interference with a landlord’s constitutional right to contract with a tenant

Plaintiffs’ Argument:

The plaintiffs argued the denial of a rental certificate would interfere with the landlords rental agreement with his/her tenant.  According to the ordinance, if a landlord does not obtain a rental certificate then s/he cannot continue to rent out the unit — thus implying that the tenant must vacate or if the tenant refuses to do so, be evicted.  First, the plaintiffs argued that the city does not have the authority to remove a tenant from a rental unit which is denied a rental certificate.  The city does not own the property and therefore is not legally allowed to bring an eviction action against the tenant.  Second, the plaintiffs argued that while a landlord has the right to bring an eviction action against his/her tenant generally, said eviction must be predicated upon a breach of the rental agreement by the tenant (unless it is a month to month tenancy).  It was argued that, under a scenario where a rental unit that is inhabited by a tenant is denied a rental certificate, and the tenant has done nothing wrong,  a landlord has no legal basis to evict the tenant, and to require a landlord to evict his tenant under such circumstances is an interference with the landlord and tenant’s contractual agreement.

Court’s Ruling:

The city argued, and the court seemed to tacitly agree, that if a rental certificate is not issued for a specific unit, that the landlord has in effect breached the rental agreement because the landlord is in violation of a city ordinance.  Such a violation of a city ordinance, and brach of the lease, renders the rental agreement void and could thus be the basis for an eviction.

NOTE:  I will have to devote another post to my analysis of this aspect of the ruling because I promise you this will be a huge problem in eviction court should this ever get pushed that far.

Tags: , , ,

FREE Seminar on Evictions – Saturday, August 14th

Aug 4

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in AASEW, City of Milwaukee, Seminars | 2 Comments

I will be presenting a free seminar on the topic of evictions for the City of Milwaukee’s Landlord Training Program on Saturday, August 14th.  I am presenting this seminar on behalf of the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin (AASEW). 

The Seminar will run from 9 am – 12 noon and will be held at Alverno College’s Wehr Theater which is located at 3441 S. 39th Street.  I was informed that there is a parking lot located at 40th & Morgan for attendees to use.

I will cover three topics:

1.   Causes for Evictions – I will explain the different types of notices that can be served on a tenant and explain under what circumstances you should use the different notices)

2.   Notices Terminating Tenancy - I will explain what must be included in a proper notice and how to properly serve a notice), and

3.   The Judicial Eviction Process  – I will cover the “nuts and bolts” of what you must do to file an eviction lawsuit and what to expect once you arrive in court).

The attendees will receive copies of my detailed outlines on the above topics plus examples of various forms.

If you are interested in attending the seminar you must register in advance by calling (414) 286-2954 or email jhagne@milwaukee.gov.

Hope to see you there!

Tags: , ,

CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS LANDLORDS’ LAWSUIT DENIED BY THE COURT – LAWSUIT CONTINUES

Jun 4

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) Program / Mandatory Rental Inspections / Landlord Licensing | 4 Comments

On May 21, 2010, Judge Timothy Wotkowiak, denied the City of Milwaukee’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by three Milwaukee landlords who sued the city as a result of its newly enacted ordinance requiring mandatory rental inspections of rental housing in two areas of the city.

For background information on the ordinance that went into effect on January 1, 2010, please read my November 24, 2009 post.  For background information on the lawsuit that was filed against the city you can refer to my December 31, 2009 post.  And for information about the city’s motion to dismiss and arguments both for and against the motion I would direct you to my May 4, 2010 post.

As stated in my earlier post, the plaintiff landlords made three key arguments as to why it was not necessary for them to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim prior to initiating the lawsuit.  Judge Witkowiak agreed with the arguments offerred by the landlords on all three issues.

Issue #1: 

The court indicated that it was not practical to require the landlords to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim — which would have allowed the city 120 to respond — in part because of the basis of the lawsuit.  The landlords’ lawsuit included the filing of a temporary restraining order to stop an immediate harm (the carrying out of the ordinance) and to make the plaintiffs wait for 120 days before they could even file suit would not be practical or just as the city would have been able to implement what is argued to be an unconstitutional program for at least 120 days before a court could review the issues and concerns with the ordinance.

Issue #2:

The court found that the city did have actual notice of the claim even though a formal notice was not served upon it.  Judge Witkowiak spent considerable time pointing out all of various contacts made by landlords, the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin (AASEW) , and others which provided the city with actual notice of the concerns with the ordinance.  The court made reference to the letter that the AASEW’s lawyers (who also happen to represent the three plaintiff landlords)sent to City Attorney Grant Langley outlining the many problems with the proposed ordinance.  The court also referred to the letter that I wrote as President of the AASEW to Common Council President Willie Hines and the city’s other alderman, expressing the association’s many concerns with the ordinance.  The aformentioned letters, along with a DVD of the public hearing held before the ZND committee of the Commom Council, were all attached to the plaintiff landlords’ brief in opposition to the city’s motion to dismiss, and appeared to carry great weight with the Court.

Issue #3:

Judge Witkowiak also stated that the city sufferred no prejudice by not having been served with a formal Notice of Claim by the plaintiffs.  The city appeared to argue that it was prejudiced because it had to prepare its legal defense to the lawsuit and that somehow that was to be considered sufficient prejudice to grant the city’s motion.  I have heard a lot of “out there” arguments during my 15 years of law practice, but that was a new one, for me.  The court properly determined that that was not the type of “prejudice” that the city needed to demonstrate in order to prevail on its motion.

As such a result of this decision, the plaintiff landlords’ lawsuit will now move forward and address the actual problems with the ordinance.

A Scheduling Conference has been set for June 15, 2010.  On this date, the court will provide deadlines for the parties to complete various matters that will assist in moving the case forward, such as deadlines to complete discovery (the fact gathering process), deadlines to file dispositive motions (motions that could end the case without the need for a fact-finding trial), and other matters.

Based on the comments of the attorney’s for both the city and the plaintiff landlords it appears that both sides may very well be contemplating the filing of a dispositive motion — such as a summary judgment motion — which would allow the court to decide the lawsuit as a matter of law, without the need for a fact finding trial, because there are no material facts that are in dispute.

I will keep you up to date on the status of the lawsuit as I learn more.

Tags: , ,

Milwaukee’s New Vacant Building Registration Ordinance Is Here

Jan 28

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, DNS, Legislation | 5 Comments

I need to apologize.  I have spent much of my time these last several months following and providing information about the city of Milwaukee’s new Residential Rental Inspection ordinance and as such I have inadvertantly failed to let everyone know about another of Milwaukee’s new ordinances that will affect rental property owners. 

I was talking with a client of mine last week prior to the 1:30 pm eviction return calandar in small claims court and he mentioned that the city recently served him with notice that he is in violation of the city’s new Vacant Building Registration ordinance.  He was told that his rental property was vacant and that he didn’t register the property with the city as required and that he must now open his property up for an interior inspection by the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS).  Interesting twist is that my client’s rental property is not vacant nor has it ever been vacant.  The unit is occupied by a tenant under a valid written rental agreement.

On January 1, 2010, Milwaukee’s new Vacant Building Registration ordinance went into effect.  Essentially the ordinance states that the owner of any building that is vacant for more than 30 days must register the property with DNS and submit to a mandatory – warrantless – interior inspection of the rental property.  The ordinance also requires the owner to secure the building, maintanin the lot, exterior of the property, and interior of the property during the time that it is vacant.

Upon first glance this seems like a reasonable ordinance.  A valiant attempt by the city to insure that vacant buildings do not become dilapidated and attract criminal activity, injure individuals, or further depress Milwaukee’s neighborhoods.  I have no problem with that.  Upon closer review of the ordinance however you will note the many requirements – similar to the city’s Residential Rental Certificate ordinance — that are open to multiple interpretations and therfore open to abuse, which in the end, can and most likely will, be used to the detriment of rental property owners.

I will not attempt to explain or detail the entire Vacant Building Registration ordinance as it is over 6 pages long.  I would like to touch on some key parts of the ordinance and note some concerns. 

This new ordinance applies to all residential and commercial properties that have been vacant for more than 30 days.  There are some exceptions.  It does not apply to single family homes or owner-occupied duplexes (as long as the owner has resided in the duplex at least 3 of the last 9 months and the owner intends to continue living in the duplex).  Also excluded from the ordinance are condominiums and  rental units as long as their vacancy rate does not exceed 95%.  Also excluded is property that is currently in the foreclosure process and property that is actively being renovated.

This ordinance will apply to your rental whether or not you are actively showing the property to prospective renters and regardless of the condition of the property.  So within 30 days of the property becoming vacant you must fill out a city application and file it with DNS.  Additionally you must allow DNS to conduct an interior inspection.  If the city finds any violations you will be cited.

Your intial application will be good for a period of 6 months and will cost you nothing (assuming the city does not cite you for any violations).  If your property remains vacant for more than 6 months then you must reapply and pay a $250 fee.  If DNS determines, at the time of renewal, that your property is not compliant then the fee will increase to $500.  If your property continues to be in violation at the time of any subsequent renewals then you may be charged a fee (in increasing increments of $250) up to a maximum of $1,000.  If you don’t pay the fees they will be assessed against the real estate as a “special charge.”

During the inspection, DNS will see if your property meets their minimum requirements.  You can read a summary of those requirements at DNS’ webpage dedicated to this new program.

Just as with the Residential Rental Certificate ordianance, DNS has the unfettered ability to draft and apply rules and regulations which are not required to be incorporated into the ordinance.  These rules and regulations can change at any time and do not have to be published.

Let me just provide you with two situations that clearly fall under the purview of this new ordinance but which I feel should not require any city involvement whatsoever. By no means are these the only two problematice examples that I foresee — there are many.

First, assume that you own a duplex and you currently have a tenant in the lower unit but because the upper tenant just broke the lease you upper unit is empty.  The upper unit is in pretty good shape but requires repainting and some minor repairs to get the unit into move-in condition for the next tenant.  Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time – you are working late and on weekends.  While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time.  You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days.  Under the new ordinance you now have a “vacant building” and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example has actually happened to me on several occassions.  I was in the process of trying to locate a new tenant for the lower portion of my duplex.  Just as the city suggests, I have written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become my tenant.  My screening criteria is quite stringent.  I follow the adage that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any “warm body” as a tenant.  Because I also work a full-time job, I am not free to show the property to interested renters every day.  As a result of both my stringent criteria and my schedule, my lower duplex remains vacant for over 30 days.  Under Milwaukee’s new ordinance I would need to register my duplex with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect my property.

NOTE:  I have spoken with DNS Commissioner Art Dahlberg and confirmed that my above examples (which I have crossed out) are inaccurate.  If you have a duplex and only 1 unit is vacant then you do not fall under the purview of the new ordinance.  You would only fall under the purview of the new ordinance if both units of the duplex were vacant for 30 days — as you would now have more than a 95% vacant property.  So I have had to revise my examples.

First, assume that you own a single family home that you operate as a rental property and your tenant just broke his/her lease and as such the property is now vacant.   The property will need a little bit of work (minor repairs and some painting) before you can turn it over.  Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time – you are working late and on weekends.  While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time.  You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days.  Under the new ordinance you now have a “vacant building” and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example happens to many of my clients that have stringent screening criteria that applicants must meet before they can become tenants.  They are in the process of renting out a single family rental unit or both units of a duplex.  Just as the city reccomends they use a written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become a tenant.  Following the adage that I often teach at my seminars, that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any “warm body” as a tenant, my clients often have periods in which their rental units are vacant.  Sometimes becasue my clients work a full-time job outside of being a landlord, they not free to show the property to interested renters every day.  As a result of both their stringent screening criteria and their busy schedules, their single famuly rental or both units of their duplex remain vacant for over 30 days.  Under Milwaukee’s new ordinance they would need to register their rentals with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect their property.

I suppose things could be worse.  You could be standing in my client’s shoes – the guy I mentioned earlier — and have just been served with a notice from the city that you are in violation of its Vacant Building Recording ordinance.  My client is now placed in the difficult position of having to decide whether to ignore the city’s notice and risk the possibility of a fine and the future wrath of DNS or capitulating to the city and allowing it to inspect his unit despite the fact that it is occupied by a tenant and the city has no legal right to set foot in his rental property.  What would you do?

Tags: , ,