Common Council takes a stand . . . against clear and understandable laws . . . and for creating more work for attorneys!

So, a UW law student wrote up a 7 page paper about a problem with our tenant/landlord law and what they saw when they helped clients in court. The law school student was correct, there was a problem that the intent of the law was not very clearly written. So, I sponsored the change that they suggested, since it made alot of sense to make the law more clear.

The law in question was MGO 32.07

(5) The landlord and tenant shall use a written CHECK-IN AND CHECK-OUT procedure.

(a) The landlord shall furnish copies of check-in and check-out forms to tenants of each dwelling unit. The check-in form shall be provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and the check-out form shall be provided to the tenant prior to the termination of the tenancy.

See where it says that the "check-in form shall be provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy" and then later is says that the "check-out form shall be provided to the tenant prior to the termination of the tenancy."

Well, this has been interpreted differently by different court commissioners, judges and lawyers. There is consistent interpretation about what this means. The key problem is that some landlords give the "CHECK IN AND CHECK OUT" form at the beginning of the tenancy and then a year, or two or ten years later when one or all of the original tenants move out - they don't get a check out form, because they recieved it at the beginning of the tenancy.

Clearly, knowing the history of the law and other provisions in the law, that is not the intent. Their check-in form should be given when they check-in and the check-out form should be given when they check-out. Talk about common sense!

If the history of the law and common sense aren't enough, I have yet to have anyone explain to me how you would write the amount of interest (rent credit) due to the tenant on the check-out form if you give it to them when they move in. Clearly, the intent of this provision is that the check-out form is given at the end of the tenancy, not the beginning.

The great irony is . . . that the Apartment Association of Southcentral Wisconsin opposed this simple housekeeping clarification because it might "trip up landlords". Um . . .that's the current situation, because of the lack of clarity of the law, you can pretty much flip a coin and have as much predictability as you would going to court.

Another interesting point is that on Tuesday, only one registrant opposed this provision, the lobbyist for the Apartment Association (Nancy Jensen), not one landlord showed up. Even the Landlord Legislative Council (Eileen Bruskewitz et al) didn't show up after a slight modification by Alder Golden. However, we had several attorneys who are experts in tenant/landlord law and law school students who did come and testify about why this change is needed.

The final absurdity of this situation is that, had I been at the council meeting on September 5th, this would have passed at that time (I was gone due to a family emergency), but because of a series of absences by various supporters - this confusing ordinance remains on our books and tenants and landlords are left to guess how this law might be interpreted by the courts.
Read more!

Halloween

So, we've voted on the Mayor's plans for Halloween. Austin King and I voted against the final piece last night with the rest of the Council voting in favor (Sanborn, Thomas and Cnare absent).

I thought I'd take some time to explain my vote (before others to it for me).


Given that we haven't had serious injuries or property damage in recent years and we are moving in a positive way away from the troubles we had been having, I don't think we need to take such drastic measures. And by drastic measures, I mean confining people's civil liberties. i.e. blocking off access to a public street. I don't believe someone should have to pay $5 to get on to State St. to go get a gyro. I was even more appalled when city staff suggested that if you had a ticket to go to the an event at the Overture the security people could use their discretion and ask you not to pay. Yet, if you were on your way home from the hockey game you would need to walk several blocks out of your way to cross State St. (That's a whole other topic about why people who go to the Overture Center could get privileges that people who live downtown wouldn't have.) This is still America, these are still our public streets and we shouldn't be required to pay $5 to use them. I believe our jobs on the council are to balance the competing interests and here, we have an improving situation that doesn't need to impose on the civil liberties of the citzens of Madison. In this case, I don't believe the case has been made that imposing on people's civil liberties is necessary and I don't find it appropriate.

Last night, I didn't trot out the quotes of our forefathers, but they are worthy of mentioning here:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln

I'm proud of my vote last night in defending our civil liberties, cuz when its all said in done . . .

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine

I wish everyone the best of luck on Halloween weekend. I hope this plan works. I have severe reservations because whenever you start putting up roadblocks and pushing people around, they tend to push back. A fence represents a challange to authority to rip it down. Clearing the street at bartime provides the opportunity for resistance. Letting the party die down on its own accord and not providing interest in hanging out to see when the police will start pepperspraying would be a much better plan. It takes two to tango . . . and we're creating part of the problem. I hope by providing private security as opposed to police officers some of this anti-authority sentiment will be missing from the event and that the private security will use a soft touch and not be drunk with power. And most of all, I hope I am wrong that this year will end the same way as the last few.


p.s. Sorry I was out of the blogosphere for a few weeks, I had a recent death in my family, but I should be back now after I've had a chance to catch up on a few things.
Read more!

Section 8 - Now is the Right Time

Tomorrow night, the County Board is going to be taking up the Section 8 non-discrimination ordinance. Currently, the State of Wisconsin, Dane County and the City of Madison have laws and ordinance that protect tenants from discrimination based on "source of income". However, the courts decided that while Section 8 is a subsidy for the tenant - techinically, it is not "income", since the tenant does not recieve the money and does not have discretion over how to spend it. So, an ordinance has been proposed that includes Section 8 in the definition of Section 8.

This is not a radical lefty Madison-only idea. This has been done all over the United States. And not just in

• East Palo Alto
• San Francisco
• Portland Oregon
• Seattle
• Chicago
  
• Howard County, Maryland
• King County, Washington
• Multnomah County, Oregon
  
• Montgomery County . . .
  

but also in

• Utah
  
• Connecticutt
  
• District of Columbia
  
• Maine
  
• Massachusetts
  
• Vermont

Like I said, not a radical idea. All over the United States Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and landlords have figured out a way to make this work . . . and the sky has not fallen.

Now, much has been said and it would take me quite a while to respond to everything but here's a few quick facts:

• During the week of July 23, 2006 of 116 landlords in Dane County that were reached and have apartments that are below the Fair Market Rate, 57% (66) of them said they do not take Section 8.
• It is no harder to evict someone on Section 8 than any other tenant.
• A landlord can choose not to renew a lease for a Section 8 tenant under the same terms and conditions as any other tenant.
• Just because a landlord accepts one Section 8 tenant it doesn't mean they have to take all Section 8 tenants. Landlords can, and should, still screen their tenants.

And I know landlords are threatening to do the following:

• Raise their rents above the limit that Section 8 will allow
• Screen more tenants out so they don't have to accept Section 8 tenants
• Sue

The first two would be illegal under the new law. The third is expected.

But the bottom line remains the same . . . finding housing when you already have restrictions of finding a home that is within the price range of Section 8 requirements is difficult, but finding a home close to your kids' school, or daycare, or work, or a grocery store, or a bus line . . . becomes even harder. If we can make 57% more apartments available, its the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it. And I want to applaud the supervisors who have sponsored this amendment . . .

• Scott McDonell
• Barbara Vedder
• Elaine DeSmidt
• Brett Hulsey
• Ashok Kumar
• John Hendrick
• Matt Veldran
• Carousel Bayrd
• David Worzala
• Al Matano
• Paul Rusk
• Dave de Felilce
• Tom Stoebig
• Dorothy Wheeler
• Jeff Kostelic
• Sheila Stubbs
• Mark Opitz
• Kyle Richmond
• Patrick Downing
• Patrick Miles
• Rich Pertzborn
• Bob Salov
  

If you see them, thank them!

p.s. I uploaded a map of where section 8 vouchers are being used over at Dane101.com

Read more!

The Big (little) Week Ahead

So, after the long weekend of fun-filled yet serious events such as Laborfest and the Allied Drive Rally among other things, the week is just not going to slow down . . .

Tonight - Council Meeting (Halloween, Check-in/out forms, etc)

Wednesday - IZ, Economic Development Commission (TIF, TOT, A plan, Planning and Development Department Reorganizaiton), Housing Committee (Rent Abatement)

Thursday - Allied Charrette, Streetcars forum, first Mayor's Build Your Own Budget and County Board Meeting (Section 8, Human Services Resolution, and several referenda - ATC, Troops Home and Health Care)

Friday, Saturday, Sunday - Allied Charrette

Lots to say, lots to do and more to come . . . . meanwhile . . . a few random thoughts . . .

At Allied Drive this weekend Lisa Subeck observed and blogged about the number one most obnoxious sighting regarding the pay day loan advertising . . . but coming in a close second was this . . .



While the other policians put on a yellow shirt and blended in to the crowd, putting the residents of Allied Drive first, these folks didn't have the same respect for the neighborhood.

The third most obnoxious sighting this weekend was . . .

At the Laborfest this weekend, there were flyers going around that said . . . "Thank these champions of UNION LABOR" and was paid for by the Plumbers . . . and guess who those champions are . . . the folks you brought you minimum wage or paid sick . . . oh, no . . . these champions of labor were . . . Larry Palm, Lauren Cnare, Zach Brandon, and Tim Bruer.

What?
Read more!