Readers Write: HOAs, rent control and housing

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Apparently, our state House and Senate do not believe that their constituents living in homeowners associations or cooperatives are able to govern themselves or follow the current Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act (MCIOA) or their governing documents (“HOA board members, property managers rally to kill reform bill,” April 3). Instead they have crafted two bills (SF1750 and HF1268) that will hinder the board of directors (that their members elected) from determining fines and will impose greater costs on members. They chose to listen to a few disgruntled HOA members without speaking to board of director members or property management firms.

SF1750 limits the dollar amount of a fine that can be levied for not following rules and regulations, damaging property, etc. If the limit is $2,500 lifetime, and a member causes $10,000 in damages, the rest of the members will have to fund the delta of $7,500. Members can open their homes to become Airbnbs even if the governing documents do not allow it. There is a waiting period of six months before an HOA or cooperative can take action to recoup the nonpayment of dues or assessments, thus making the other members pay the operating costs that the member didn’t pay.

There are far more restrictions that make absolutely no sense and will discourage members from applying for a board position.

Carol Seiler, Minnetonka

•••

Thank you for the April 3 article about proposed legislation to regulate HOAs. Having been a member of a couple of HOAs, I can tell you that, while they are a necessary evil, they often have too much power, play favorites and are capricious (Google “HOA horror stories”). For example: One HOA had approval rights for tenants. I submitted an application and it was rejected; no reason was given. They just didn’t want me to rent to that applicant. Strangely, that applicant was already renting a different unit in the building (they just wanted a larger apartment).

We tolerate necessary evils only as long as they are more necessary than they are evil. And I couldn’t help thinking: Congress is America’s HOA.

Rolf Bolstad, Minneapolis

I cannot let letters attacking homeownership and disparaging homeowners (“exclusionary,” “redlining”?) go unanswered (“Yes to secure, abundant homes,” Readers Write, April 5). It is wrong to blame homeowners for our society’s tremendous social and economic inequality. The problem of affordability is caused by a lack of sufficient income. Does affordable housing mean that you should be able to reside anywhere you choose regardless of income? Of course not. Affordable housing means low- or no-income housing. And by housing, social activists usually are not referring to single-family houses. They are referring to big block apartments, or what I would call warehouses for people.

If “Yes to Homes”-type bills, like Minneapolis’ 2040 Plan, result in the eventual random bulldozing of whole, formerly stable neighborhoods of single family homes, that would be a disaster. Deserving people in need should get a hand up to own their own homes, to establish some family wealth — not a handout.

To accomplish this, all interested parties should be involved, and no one should be demonized. Antagonizing people by trying to force a housing policy that has not been thoroughly thought out and discussed is extremely poor public policy. Zoning is all about the quality of life for residents. It is exceedingly unfair to penalize one group of people in order to allegedly help another group of people.

John O. Wild, Minneapolis

RENTING OUT YOUR HOUSE

A recent article about homeowners choosing to rent out spaces in their homes highlighted an age-old solution many homeowners fall back on in times of need, as well as a helpful contribution to affordable rental options in greater Minnesota. However, as more people make investment decisions like this, it is important they understand they are entering a pre-existing industry with its own rules and regulations — a point that was only casually mentioned in the article. Once a homeowner accepts money or services in exchange for another person staying in their home, they have stepped into the role of landlord.

There are many reasons why homeowners may decide to take on the role of landlord, and many are win-win situations for both the landlords and tenants — the landlord gets what they need (whether it’s money, help around the house or even companionship) and the tenant has a place to call home. However, the types of disputes that arise within rental housing can have far-reaching consequences, and they have direct impacts on the housing stability and civil rights of individuals. Thus, it is essential that homeowners do their homework before diving into the landlord business.

A good place to start is the Minnesota attorney general’s free landlord/tenant handbook. Prospective landlords should understand they will be part of a regulated industry with critical federal, state and local laws that need to be followed. Contributing affordable housing is a welcome service, as long as people’s rights are protected.

Rachael Sterling, Bloomington

RENT CONTROL

The April 4 commentary “Exempting new buildings from rent control is the right thing to do” urges adoption of a “common-sense proposal to exempt new residential buildings” from the St. Paul rent-control ordinance because of “severe unintended consequences” interfering with the production of new rental housing in St. Paul. I have been deeply involved in the production of affordable housing and protection of low-income tenants in the Twin Cities for 55 years and believe that the proposed amendments to the St. Paul rent control ordinance, as currently drafted, seriously and unnecessarily undermine the intent of the majority of voters who adopted the ordinance. The concern expressed in the commentary that rent control inhibits new housing production (whatever the merits of that concern), is not a reason to support, or for the St. Paul Council to adopt, the amendment to the rent-control ordinance as it is currently drafted. This is because the proposed amendment exempts far more than new construction. The amendment in its current form exempts rental housing built as long ago as 2004.

Housing that is already up and operating for as long as 20 years is not “new housing” and exempting it can have absolutely no effect on the construction of new rental housing. The latest Housing and Urban Development data suggest that more than half of the already-built rental properties covered by the purported “new housing” exclusion houses renters currently paying more than half their income for rent and who are therefore desperately in need of effective rent control. The amendment, if adopted at all, needs to limit any “new construction” exclusion only to properties built from 2024 on.

Jack Cann, St. Paul

•••

The big housing developers aren’t interested in solving the affordable housing shortage. They only care about their bottom line. They pretend that more market-rate housing will help increasingly burdened renters, but it doesn’t help much. Then they predict doom unless rent stabilization is eliminated or never implemented, when it’s the only thing that can keep rents somewhat reasonable.

It’s big business once again trying to scare us, saying that if things change for them, the economy will fall apart. Not true. When we find innovative ways to do things the economy will only be more fair and power will be more equitable. The status quo is not working for affordable housing.

Since the only way big developers will build affordable units is with huge public subsidies, why not find alternative financing and nonprofit developers whose goal is to build permanently affordable housing and give them the subsidies. I’m not alone in being ready to invest in a local housing fund and/or city bonds for housing that could be owned by a nonprofit or local government.

Right now my city, St. Paul, needs a bold City Council to help the majority of renters who are drowning in increasing rent costs. We need an effective rent-stabilization law, and we need more affordable housing built. This will help us protect our diversity and opportunities so that St. Paul can continue to be a place where lots of people want to live and can afford to do so.

Gaye Sorenson, St. Paul