Commentary
A court will consider whether homeowners have the right to rent out their property
by Katelynn McBrideKatelynn McBride is an attorney with the Institute for Justice Minnesota, which is representing Winona homeowners. The institute describes itself as the nation's only libertarian public interest law firm.
In the small college town of Winona, Minn., a court today will hear arguments on a case that could have dramatic implications for the property rights of every homeowner in Minnesota.
In 2005, Winona imposed a controversial ban on the number of homeowners who can rent out their properties. Under this rental ban, the government grants only 30 percent of homeowners on any given block a rental license. Similar rental bans are spreading throughout Minnesota: Mankato, West St. Paul and Northfield are also forbidding large percentages of property owners from renting out their homes. In 2011, West St. Paul enacted the most restrictive rental ban of all — only 10 percent of homes can receive rental licenses.
Winona's rental ban has been devastating for homeowners who move away and are unable to sell their homes because of a terrible housing market. Instead of letting the homes sit unoccupied, many homeowners want to rent out the property to help pay the mortgage. But the rental ban has plunged several Winona homeowners, like Ethan Dean, into financial trouble.
Dean purchased a simple but nice home near downtown Winona, but had to leave when he was called to go serve his country as a U.S. adviser in Afghanistan. Now, Dean's home sits empty and is about to be foreclosed on because he cannot sell or rent it out.
The right to rent is especially relevant in this tough economy, when people are re-evaluating their financial positions, being pulled to new job opportunities in different towns or deciding to move close to family for financial and emotional support. People who cannot rent out their homes face tremendous financial difficulties if they move to take advantage of new opportunities.
Homeowners have trouble selling homes that lack rental licenses because potential buyers want the ability to rent. With no ability to rent, then, the only options are to decline a great opportunity or keep paying a mortgage on an empty house. It is not just in Winona that changing situations are motivating people to rent their properties, but all around the country. Courts need to protect the right to rent so that people have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances in their lives.
Winona says it passed the rental ban to prevent ill-behaved college kids from bothering their neighbors, but Winona can do that by using long-accepted tools such as noise ordinances and housing codes and by cracking down on nuisance crimes. Winona should also embrace what makes it so great, the university and the students, by working with them to educate them about how to be good neighbors.
Instead, Winona chose to pass an unconstitutional law. The 30-percent rule is a blunt instrument that applies to all, even to those whose renters would be well-behaved and not cause the alleged problems.
In short, instead of providing a sensible solution to a small problem, the rental ban has actually created a big problem that is harming homeowners throughout the city. Thus, common sense dictates that it should be scrapped. Indeed, because the ban unduly and unnecessarily infringes upon the basic right of homeowners to rent their property, the Minnesota Constitution demands nothing less.
If the court in Dean's case agrees and vindicates his right to rent his property, it will send a strong signal to cities and towns across the state that rental bans like Winona's are unconstitutional and must be repealed. A case from the small town of Winona could produce a big win for Minnesota homeowners.
Comments (15)
The commentary certainly has a legitimate point. However, speaking as a homeowner, I would not want to live next door to a rental home that was once a single family home or live in a community with a large percentage of rentals. I need to protect the value of my home. Upkeep on a rental home often declines and it's harder to maintain a neighborly feel with renters changing frequently. I feel it's the city's responsibility to maintain a healthy housing stock and a sense of community via ordinances and policies.
>, I would not want to live next door to a rental home that was once a single family home or live in a community with a large percentage of rentals.
Wonderfull. Then buy your neighbor's house so you won't have to. But the idea that you (or anyone) has the right to force their neighbors to dot hire bidding is offensive and obnoxious.
Sell it on a short term contract for deed, using rental terms etc., probably could go a year at a time....no brainer, least you could pay the fixed costs...
These rental bans are just terrible and have in many ways destroyed my life. I bought a house in West St Paul before their awful ban was put in place. I got a job in Duluth 6 months later and was told by the city I could not rent my own property. So do I go about my life and rent it or do I abandon the house? Some say sell it, I tried even though I didn't want to and it didn't sell anyways. However is it the government's right to tell me whether I should sell my house or not? Maybe I want to keep it? I don't care if I live by renters, as long as they abide by the laws and keep up the property. How is it fair or constitutional that my neighbors 3 doors down can rent their house but I can't? I hope and pray every day these rental bans will be abolished. If they aren't I'm moving away from Minnesota for good.
Dave, Many people are aware of that option but believe it or not, the state is now trying to restrict or even eliminate contract for deeds as well. Yes, private contracts between private parties dealing with private property is now coming under scrutiny by the Grand Politburo of Minnesota, er I mean the State Legislature. So how are we "citizens" any different than neo colonial feudal serfs obligated to pay taxes on and maintain "our" property but retaining no actual rights to it?
N. Dahl, If a community has a "responsibility to maintain a healthy housing stock and a sense of community" then the cost of fulfilling that responsibility should be at the community's expense of the community purse, not a burden placed upon individual property owners.
The community could buy up rental properties that are found offensive to the community, put restrictions on its deed, and re-sell the property as a single-family room, or as whatever it wanted it to be as expressed through the restrictions.
For
College kids being too loud? Try gang violence. After a police raid turned up guns and drugs in the house next to mine, the property was boarded up for a year and then demolished. The owner hired a management company to handle things but they didn't.
In our area of Saint Paul we have a 50/50 rental to owner occupied ratio. Yet so does Lyndon Hills in Minneapolis. A very neighborly place.
I am a single male 20 something who bought a duplex so that I could start building my future. Without my renters I would be just that, a renter.
The bottom line is that there are bad tenants, and there are bad landlords. But there are also bad homeowners.
The issue is not which class of housing we all might fall into. The issue is the social atmosphere of the common community space. In my situation the Gangs and the Landlord were both outside the norms that the owner occupiers would like the community space to be composed of.
This ban business ignores social responsibility that everyone has to promote healthy thriving community that includes all of us.
So the next time you get new neighbors, do what your grandmother would have done and bring them a pie.
N. Dahl, fair enough as long as you are willing to help pay the mortgage on your neighbors' properties. Perhaps you would support the city raising taxes in order to pay mortgages when families lose income or need to vacate to get employment elsewhere? How much is that "neighborly feel" worth to you?
Or perhaps you're lucky enough to live in a wealthy neighborhood where such things don't happen, in which case you're paying for it already in a sense -- hat's off to ya.
I live next door to a home that was a
single family and is now a rental. The
previous owner moved to be closer to
his family. There has been two families
so far. Both have done a good job of
keeping up the property. I think that
there are enough laws to keep trouble
to a minimum. We all want to keep our property values up but there are many
things that are beyond our control. The first renter did a much better job of
maintaining the property than the owner did. The second family is doing
the best they can. It is my fervent hope
that the court finds for the homeowners.
Could the "journalist" be a bit more aggressive in their details... Which "court"... what case?
Now I've got to play journalist to find out more.
More Information:
http://www.ij.org/mn-rental-caps
Owner of a house in Duluth, I was for a while a victim of such whimsical rental codes, having lost a significant chunk of wealth. To make things worse, according to my lawyer, I cannot sue the city (like I would sue a corporation), and the city has more rights over my house than I have.
Its terrible and it will get worse. I was one forced to leave due to a job and no one wanted my house, the market stinks. The situation all over the state is being made worse by these terrible housing laws being put in place by terrible people there rich, they have money and not struggling to make ends meet so it does not bother them. My opinion is the laws that are on the books are fine Just Enforce Them! I am now looking to move out of WI and go to a state that actually cares about property rights and understands the needs of the struggling family. I feel my town will eventually be a ghost town as people move where they find a job, keep a job just to support the families and the homes they are forced to leave will SIT EMPTY. You want to see the future of WI just look at MI were homes are selling for 5K on the low end because they sate empty and eventually destroyed by vagrants. Shes an attorney that's says it all she has money and can take a huge loss if necessary of course we are not much better for allowing it. I know I personally would not own a house I could not rent out in these desperate times. Protect our rights as homeowners or WI will not survive the NEW MI buy a home in WI for 5K as its homes are gutted and vandalized by vagrants because they are vacant.
I am throwing myself at the feet of the court in Minnesota and begging them, with tears in my eyes, to please please, get rid of these monstrous, awful rental bans!
It seems to rent your house, you need a permit. I'll bet that permit cost an arm and a leg.
Only in Minnnesota. WOW
Remind me again? who OWNS the property that we pay taxes on??
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
