Just another Citizen Wausau weblog
by John H. Fischer on July 2nd, 2009 • No Comments »
I know, you haven’t heard much from me and I apologize.
As everyone should know by now… the beginning of the month is the busy time for most rental property owners.
However, July, for me, gets even a little more interesting because one of my “side jobs” is that I am a pyrotechnician. This year will mark my 17th year of shooting off fireworks, and my 5th year as a crew-leader. You would not believe the time and prep it takes to get ready for a 35 minute fireworks show.
Because of that, I really haven’t spent much time online. Also, I just am not going to have the time to be on the air tonight with the Dr Rent Show.
Early next week, once the smell of black powder has worn off, I will be sure to post my summary of last week’s show.
If you are interested in seeing the explosive side of Dr Rent, my fireworks show is in Pell Lake, WI. It is a small community about 10 miles south of Lake Geneva, just before the border of Illinois.
Hoping you all have a safe 4th of July Weekend – HAPPY RENTING!
Fireworks, WNRB
by John H. Fischer on June 25th, 2009 • 4 Comments »
It’s Thursday, and since the A/C in our office hasn’t been able to keep up in the afternoon the last few days, I am actually looking forward to the constant 80 degree temperatures in the WNRB-LP studio.
Before getting into today’s topic on the Dr Rent Radio Show (from 5 to 6 PM at 93.3 FM), I will take a few moments to summarize what was discussed last week.
We started with a question about what recourse a tenant would have against the landlord for not returning the security deposit when nothing was in writing, including no receipts for the cash payments made. Wisconsin law dictates that tenants are required to get receipts from landlords for cash payments.
If the month-to-month agreement was in writing, you would have a much better case even without the receipt. If the agreement indicated that there was a deposit but the landlord said the deposit was never paid, but they never issued any notices about the unpaid deposit, they might not be as believable as the tenant. However, with everything verbal, it comes down to your word against the landlord’s word.
The sad truth is that this would be a very difficult case for a tenant to win. Your best hope would be to CCAP the landlord to see how often they go to court as the defendant and how often they lose their case. If they have a “reputation” of not really following the laws with the court commissioner, it will definitely help your case. Short of that, consider it a lesson learned.
The next question again had to do with a verbal month-to-month agreement. The tenant gave a month’s notice in writing but the landlord said that 45 days notice was required. The problem with verbal agreements is that you have to depend on both parties recollection of the terms. If the landlord said 45 days notice and the tenant agreed to it, then that is the notice. However, if the landlord said 45 days notice and the tenant “doesn’t remember” that particular term, then the normal notice provisions under state law take effect (28 days written notice).
Keep in mind the way 28 days notice works is that the rental agreement can only end at the end of a rent-paying period. So, if your rent is normally due on the first of the month, the notice is only effective on the last day of the month. You cannot give notice on June 15th that you will end the agreement on July 15th. That would be considered proper notice with an improper date, your actual end date would be July 31st.
We also fielded a question from a home owner who lives next door to a single-family home that is rental property. And there are constant issues with noise and other disturbances and they call the police (and the police come) almost nightly. They know that Wausau has a Chronic Nuisance ordinance and wonder how this rule might help them with these “problem tenants.”
First, I did explain that they may want to find out who the landlord is and tell the landlord about the problems they are having. Don’t assume the landlord knows, especially in the City of Wausau where if there is a police problem at a rental property, they rarely inform the landlord. So, the landlord really can’t take action on the property unless they know there is a problem.
Also, the way the Chronic Nuisance ordinance for Wausau works is that if there are 3 actions taken at a single address within a 6 month time frame, that the police department can, at THEIR option, call that property a Chronic Nuisance. A few details of this ordinance are that if it is an apartment building, it is not 3 actions at that building, but 3 actions within a specific apartment unit. 3 actions doesn’t mean the police show up, they have to either make an arrest or issue a citation or something along those lines. Certain arrests (including drug arrests) don’t require 3 actions, they can be declared a Chronic Nuisance after only 1 action. Also, if is the property owner who makes the call, it won’t count as one of those three actions (as the police don’t want to discourage the owner from doing something). Also, this ordinance is not a rental property law. It applies to every single property in the City of Wausau, rental and owner-occupied, residential and commercial.. even vacant parcels.
ONLY IF the police dept. determines that a Chronic Nuisance exists (remember, this is not automatic after three actions, it is only if they choose), then they are obligated to contact the property owner and the property owner needs to take “reasonable efforts” to stop the problem. If they do not, the police department can now charge the property owner every time they respond to the property. (However, the new domestic violence law that allows victims to break their lease and allows landlords to evict the abusers also has a provision that prohibits police departments for charging for domestic violence related police calls.)
So, by having the police come on a regular basis, it is not a chronic nuisance. Only if they issue citations or make arrests, at least 3 within 6 months. And only then, if the police dept wants to, do they tell the property owner there is a problem there and charge the property owner if they don’t do something about it.
This week, the show topic is going to discuss Rep. Marlin Schneider’s (D-WI Rapids) most recent attack on CCAP. If you remember, early this session he had made a proposal for it to be a felony for anyone to use CCAP information in making a rental or employment decision. He received enough flak from that proposal to rescind it in March.
His new proposal presently being circulated for co-sponsors would remove pending actions and dismissed actions. It would only have records online after a conviction was done (criminal cases) or a finding of liability made (civil cases). In addition, if someone was turned down for renting or employment because of their CCAP record, they would need to be notified of this fact in writing. Finally, there would be a $10 per year charge for the right to access the CCAP system.
Before covering this important topic, we will touch on a few questions this week.
- A student is going to Germany for a few months and has been looking for a place to stay. They found someone to rent them a place, but they want $1,000 sent to them before they will send a contract. How can you figure out if this is on the “up and up”?
- The landlord has returned the security deposit to a tenant, but they withheld for repairs needed to the toilet, repairs that the tenant has been complaining to the landlord about for some time and the landlord never fixed. Can they do this? (It truly is amazing how many landlord-tenant questions come back to security deposits.)
- Finally, we explained the procedure a few weeks ago on a landlord taking a tenant to court, what does it look like the other way. What are the steps for a tenant to take a landlord to court.
Because of the importance of the CCAP legislation to all of us, this is definitely a “can’t miss” show. So until 5 PM tonight, HAPPY RENTING!
CCAP, Chronic Nusiance, Questions, Rep. Schneider, Security Deposit, WNRB
by John H. Fischer on June 24th, 2009 • No Comments »
Anyone who has been a long-time reader of my blog already knows the irony behind the “Dr” in the Dr Rent screen name. Afterall, I am not a big fan of doctors, and make every effort to avoid them. Although dentists top the list of people whom I am not a fan of, all doctors are in that grouping. I say this again because an experience that Mrs. Rent had with a so-called doctor earlier this week just drives my point home.
Mrs. Rent has a skin condition called Rosacia (if I killed the spelling, I apologize). It means that there are many things that will really turn her face red, including Wisconsin’s high-humidity summer heat. She has tried virtually all there is to try through her dermatologist in Oklahoma, but decided it would not be a bad idea to find a good dermatologist here in Wisconsin.
Earlier this week, she had an appointment with one. They reviewed her medical history and then played around with some type of frozen nitrogen thing. All seemed relatively normal until the dermatologist recommended acupuncture.
Actually, Mrs. Rent’s first reaction to this possible new course of treatment was very positive. My parents introduced her to acupuncture, and she is a regular visitor to the acupuncture clinic just a little north of Fleet Farm.
I remember quite a few years ago, when my parents first went. My dad has chronic back pain issues and had tried everything. Chiropractors (which in my book are just one notch below dentists) seemed to be just making the problem worse. I found it funny that before my Mom told me they were looking at acupuncture, that they were wondering if they should even tell me because I would react badly by telling them what a waste of money it would be to explore such “voo-doo-esque” type medicine.
I reminded Mom of a few things. First of all, my utter distrust of medical “professionals” so choosing a different path from traditional doctors is just fine in my eyes. Next, I reminded them that I am probably the most open-minded person she knows, I make a conscious effort not to pre-judge people or things. (You may think that is contradictory because I am pre-judging doctors – however I am not. I have personal experience that has led me to my deep-seated issues with doctors.)
I pointed out that “traditional” western medicine treatments for back pain really haven’t been around for that long. However, eastern treatments such as acupuncture have been around almost since the dawn of time. For that method of medicine to have survived for this long, there had to be something to it. I told them go for it. And they have ever since.
Mrs. Rent had not ever had acupuncture and had SERIOUS reservations, as she is a HUGE fan of modern medicine. After much convincing, she was talked into going by my parents and she has been on pins and needles ever since. Mrs. Rent’s mom visited from Oklahoma, she was also talked into going and the results have been so good that the acupuncturist had worked with her mom to find her a properly trained acupuncturist not far from them in OK.
Anywho… that explains Mrs. Rent’s initial positive reaction to using acupuncture to try to help with the rosacia. They had her sit and relax…. About 10 minutes later they told her it was done. Mrs. Rent was confused because she didn’t feel a single needle. The dermatologist explained that they don’t use needles… they have you relax and sit still and then she “visualizes” the proper acupuncture pressure points and concentrates on them. She thinks about the pressure points, which is the same as using needles to activate those pressure points.
WOW!!!
When Mrs. Rent told me of this experience, my first reaction was that this person left the caps off of a few to many controlled substances.
My second reaction was to inform Mrs. Rent that once the bill came for this appointment, that she should get the bill relaxed, folded out on the desk… and sit and “visualize” that bill as being paid. After all, visualizing the bill being paid should be just as good as using a real pen and check to pay the bill.. Right?
Acupuncture, Doctors, Mrs Rent
by John H. Fischer on June 18th, 2009 • One Comment »
Well it’s Thursday and I am awake!
Tuesday and part of Wednesday were spent mowing – AGAIN, and then this Wednesday was the WCC meeting in Waukesha, I got back from that about 1 AM. Then we had a few rumbles of thunder last night, a sound the dog has not heard in some time and he made sure to let us know that he was not happy about this “new” noise in his world.
Tonight, from 5-6 PM is another installment of the Dr Rent radio show on 93.3 FM, WNRB-LP. And it looks like I will be giving up some “free money” to do the show. Tonight is Free Money night at the Woodchucks game and the first 500 people will get an envelope. There could be $1 in there, there could be $100 in there. (Last year I got $5.) By not getting to the stadium until after 6, I am fairly sure they will run out of free money before I get there. But what can I say, I will do anything for my listener(s).
I do post this blog in a number of places, including the Citizen Wausau website. I was honored to get a comment on my last blog entry from an attorney in Milwaukee who drafted many of the forms published by Wisconsin Legal Blank (the guaranty section of their lease was a question on last week’s show). He also does a landlord-tenant law blog that can be found at http://www.petriestocking.com/component/myblog/.
I realized from his post that lately, I will give a preview of the questions I will answer on the air, but never follow up on the blog giving a short version of my on air answer.
That being said, here is what I talked about last week.
What is the Guaranty section for on the Wisconsin Legal Blank lease? That is not a second place for the tenant to sign. That is if you are obtaining a co-signer. For example, you have a prospect who has very bad credit, or no income, or a landlord reference saying rent payment was an issue; however the rest of the application looked good (no criminal record, and although rent payment issues did take good care of the property). One way to defer your financial risk is to have someone who is very likely to pay “guaranty” the lease. That way if your tenants don’t pay, you have someone else who is very collectable that you can go after. On the radio show, I explained how I interpret the difference between a co-signer and a guarantor, and I also explained how I prefer to have co-signers sign (basically as an additional tenant) and why I feel that is better (from a landlord point of view) than just a guaranty. If the tenants meet your qualifications, there is no reason to have them sign as a tenant AND as a guarantor. As always, to comply with fair housing laws, what ever standards you set as to when you will require a co-signer/guarantor and when you won’t even do that, make sure that you apply those guidelines consistently.
Can a landlord refuse cash and why would they want to? It turns out, after checking out the US Dept of Treasury website, that people are not required to accept cash as payment unless there is a state law that requires it (and Wisconsin has no such law). There are a couple of reasons why a landlord would not want cash, the primary one being security/safety. People know that most rents are due around the beginning of the month, so a landlord is a big target. Also, maybe this was a new move in and they are paying first month’s rent and deposit which could be over $1,000. It is not unheard of (unfortunately) for the new tenant to give the landlord the cash only to have a friend of that new tenant then mug the landlord after leaving the building, reclaiming that money. I am not aware of this happening in the Wausau area, but it does happen. Also, per state law, if you take cash, you have to provide the tenant with a receipt. Maybe the landlord didn’t want to go through the hassle of cutting a receipt. If you never take cash, there is really no reason for a landlord to purchase a receipt book. There are other reasons too which were mentioned on the show, but security is probably the biggest reason.
Can you charge for carpet cleaning outside of the deposit? This depends on who you ask, actually, as the law really doesn’t address this very well. I know of people who have won in court, and I know people who have lost. Routine carpet cleaning can never come out of a deposit, but if cleaning is needed because of damage or “excessive” wear, now carpet cleaning is allowed. But, what if the lease provides that cleaning, if not done, will be billed to the tenant. They get their deposit refunded, and with that they get a bill. Can you go to court to collect that bill if it goes unpaid? The way I read the laws, there is nothing prohibiting this, but I do know that there are others who will disagree. And, again, I have seen courts go either way.
Must you give 60-Days notice to the landlord if you are not renewing your lease? Not unless the landlord has contacted you in writing about that requirement because that would be an automatic renewal which is not allowed in residential leases in Wisconsin without landlord notice to the tenant. If the lease is for a set term and the lease end date is July 31st. And, if your lease said you had to give 60-days notice if not renewing the lease, and if you told the landlord on July 29th that you were leaving as of July 31st, could they hold you responsible for the next 60 days because of improper notice? No. Not unless they contacted you between May 1st and May 15th in writing reminding you that the lease could not end July 31st without that notice. If they never did a written reminder, the Landlord cannot enforce the lease against the tenant. (However, the tenant MAY, at their option, enforce the lease, as written, against the landlord.)
On tonight’s show, we will again try to get to our topics about the CDA stimulus funds for foreclosure buy-outs, a bill to limit the amount a city can charge to shovel a sidewalk, and the bill making victims of domestic violence a protected class.
A few questions have come up that we will address first, they include:
If there is no written lease and all payments were made in cash with no receipts issued, and the landlord isn’t refunding the deposit because the tenant can’t prove the deposit was paid, what recourse does the tenant have?
Can the landlord require 45 day notice to vacate in a verbal rental agreement?
And, if you are having problems with people in a rental property in Wausau and the police have been there a number of times, when does it become a “chronic nuisance” under the relatively new Wausau ordinance.
Hope that you enjoy the radio show and until this evening… HAPPY RENTING!
Automatic Renewals, Carpet Cleaning, Cash, Lease, Questions, WCC, WNRB, Woodchucks
by John H. Fischer on June 11th, 2009 • 6 Comments »
It’s Thursday, that means that later this evening, Dr. Rent will leave these online forum boards and hit the airwaves. The Dr Rent Show can be found at 93.3 FM, WNRB-LP at 5 PM.
I do apologize that last week that there was no Dr Rent Show. The whole reason for moving the show in April from Wednesdays to Thursdays is too often, I had to miss a show because of some other meeting. In checking my calendar over the last year, I almost never had Thursday evening meetings, so it seemed like a good choice.
The meeting last Thursday was a Board of Review meeting in Mosinee. I never had a need to attend one of those before. Although I own and manage a large number of properties myself, I also manage the properties for three other owners. One of those owners had some assessments they didn’t agree with. Very often, if we have assessment issues, we can present our evidence and arguments at the open book and get some level of satisfaction there. (One of the “tricks” is that we really don’t contest every single assessment. We have a pretty good feel for the market and only contest assessments that we feel are out of line, which with hundreds of properties, is maybe only 1 or 2 a year.)
After presenting our evidence, we were successful in getting the assessments lowered a bit. The key piece of evidence is the owner actually went through the effort to hire an appraiser and not only present the new appraisal as evidence, but have the appraiser testify as well. The owner did not get the assessments lowered to where he wanted, but they did get lowered enough to coincide with the appraisal. (After all, since the appraisal is, by definition, the market value of the property, it would only make sense for the appraisal to match the assessment.)
However, that is done and I can again return to WNRB’s 6th Street studio for the Dr Rent show. The three main topics I wanted to touch on for my last show I didn’t get to because I spent the show covering the questions that came up. (Questions from you – the listeners and the blog readers – will always take priority over the random show topics that I come up with to talk about.)
For those that may have forgotten, those three topics included: my thoughts on the Wausau Community Development Authority getting a healthy chuck of “stimulus funds” to purchased foreclosed residential properties and convert them to low-income housing; a proposal in Madison to make it illegal to discriminate against victims of domestic violence; and finally a proposal in Madison to put a cap on the amount that cities can charge when they mow your lawn or shovel your snow for you.
Because there was no show last week, a few questions have come up and there is again a good chance I won’t get to my show topics because I would rather talk about things that are important to YOU, so I will cover those questions that have come up since the last show… these questions include:
- A landlord who used to primarily do verbal month-to-month rental agreements after attending a number of classes has decided that getting a standard Wisconsin lease and putting the agreements in writing is a good way to go. However, the form they purchased (the Wisconsin Legal Blank version) is a little confusing because it looks like there are two places for the tenant to sign, one for the lease and then there is a guaranty box that has a place to sign, what is that guaranty box all about?
- A landlord refused a cash payment. The tenant had to go and get a money order and then come back. First, can a landlord refuse cash? And next, why would a landlord want to?
- No matter how often we discuss carpet cleaning, the question keeps coming back. This time, a landlord sent a bill for carpet cleaning and the lease says the landlord can do this. It was NOT deducted from the security deposit. The tenant says a landlord can’t charge for carpet cleaning period in Wisconsin. What are the facts?
- Finally. A tenant who is looking to move when their lease is done at the end of this month noticed that their lease also said that they had to give 60-Days notice if they were going to move at the end of the contract. They have not given this notice, so does that now mean that the lease does NOT end at the end of this month?
So, as always, lots of great information.
Again, I apologize for missing a show last week, but we will try to make up for it this week by having lots of great information. So until this evening… HAPPY RENTING!
Automatic Renewals, Carpet Cleaning, Cash, Lease, Questions, WNRB
by John H. Fischer on June 9th, 2009 • No Comments »
On a different website forum board where I have been known to hang out from time to time, there was a question about navigational skills (or lack thereof) and how lost you ever were.
It reminded me back of my Desert Storm days. Back when GPS technology was something fairly new, and our entire company only had 6 GPS receivers that we had to share (and apparently I was not worthy of one of them). My team did get issued a commercial LORAN navigation system, but we mounted that in my tracked vehicle, when we were using its HumVee chase vehicle, we were pretty much on our own.
Navigation was primarily done the same way we are taught to navigate through woods. Establish a heading on a compass and then go a certain distance. Then establish a new heading on the compass and go a different distance. Basically, only two things could go wrong using this method of navigation: 1) not getting an accurate compass heading, and 2) not going the proper distance.
Actually, using this type of navigation in the desert was much easier than doing it on foot through the woods. First of all, no obstacles to navigate around… there was no need to turn 90 degrees and go a certain distance and then 90 degrees the other way in order to go around something. There was really nothing to go around – just miles and miles of nothingness. The next thing that made vehicle desert navigation easier was measuring distance. In the woods, we were using pace count. Pace count was fine on a nice level surface, but when negotiating a wooded area, it was not hard to get a good ways off after traveling less than a mile. Vehicle navigation in the desert – the vehicle had an odometer which told us distance – how cool is that?
Only one thing could go wrong, not being on the proper compass bearing. The only time this really happened to me was early on during Operation Desert Shield when our platoon sergeant had set up a navigation course and each team had to negotiate it after dark. The darkness was to make it more difficult, it turned out that it was actually easier. I would get the compass reading and start walking in the proper direction. My driver (Private P, who I have discussed before – remember the fire incident?) would then be wearing the “Cav-Navs” (our term for night vision goggles, Cav-Nav is short for Cavalry Navigation Device) and would be following behind me. We would continue this way until he had picked out a star that was on the exact heading that I was walking. As soon as he found one, he would let me know.. I would get in .. and would drive the required distance.
The only time this method led us wrong is when I was riding and had found my own star to use as a guide and we started veering off from that star. I told P to stop and asked him what star he was following… he pointed it out.. I asked him if he noticed it was blinking. He informed me it was twinkling as stars do and actually started singing the song. I told him look at other stars… the one he was following was BLINKING… like navigation light on a helicopter blinking. Oops. So… we turned around and followed our tire tracks back to where we made the last course change.
After a while, when you go to the same place over and over again, you start to use landmarks to cheat the navigation method. You still need the right compass angle, but you no longer pay attention to distance. Go at 45 degrees until the pile of 55 gallon drums.. from there go 75 degrees to the burnt out car… etc.
Before the war, our biggest logistical base was KKMC which was actually located on a highway. To get back to our camp from the highway, we would go a certain number of miles on the highway, and then turn off into the desert on our first compass heading. After a while, we didn’t even watch the odometer any more because there was this dead sheep on the side of the road just before we would make our turn into the desert.
Well… one day, we turned at the dead sheep, went a dozen or miles or so into the desert, but ended up getting a little lost because again, we didn’t watch distance. We just continued on until the burnt out car.. a burnt out car that was no longer there. Who moved our car?? After driving around for over an hour, we followed our tracks back to the highway and then the highway back to KKMC. We did it then old fashioned way and watched the mileage. It turns out it wasn’t the missing car that lead us astray, but the dead sheep was gone, and our bad luck would have it there was a different dead ship a few miles farther down the road.
Before heading back to camp, as a public service, we did go and get that second dead sheep and put it where ours used to be as I was sure our entire unit used it. Private P was concerned that maybe a different unit was using that second dead sheep as their road marker, but I informed him that wasn’t my problem… they can find their own dead sheep.. this one was mine.
Army, Desert Storm, Navigation
by John H. Fischer on June 8th, 2009 • No Comments »
As you probably noticed, my comments on the various forum boards that I contribute to were pretty much few and far between last week. The first week of the month is always a hectic time for me… but last week was one for the record books. Where do I start?
Monday, June 1st
My plans for the day were simple. We had four units come vacant as of May 31st, so I wanted to go through those four units to determine what work needed to be done to get them tenant-ready and if there were any damages that need to get charged back to the tenant’s security deposit. Well.. that didn’t happen.
Late last week I was informed by the owner of some of the properties I manage that the assessments were too high on a bunch of his properties and he really got nowhere at the Open Book. The Board of Review was going to be Thursday, the 4th and he wanted me to testify as well as assist him in preparing for the hearing. This would have to be somehow fit into to my schedule, but I am pretty good at fitting things in here and there so that was not a big deal.
However, he had also been working on a commercial lease of some industrial space over the last few weeks which I was not aware of… I learned of it Monday morning. It is not unusual for negotiations of commercial leases to take months if not years of working out the details. However, once everything is finally worked out, things kick into high gear. You may work on a lease for 2 years, but once the details are finalized, you may now have to draft the lease and the build outs in a matter of days. I compare it to Ferris Bueller’s day off when they have the car up on jacks with the gas pedal to the floor. The car sits in the air with the tires spinning… and then all of a sudden the jack comes off, the tires hit the floor and look out.
The car hit the floor Monday morning and I was informed that the lease and associated exhibits needed to be drafted and finalized within a couple of hours. OUCH! So much for my other Monday plans.
Tuesday, June 2nd
I finally got the chance to get my check outs done. That took most of the day. The rest of the day was spent volunteering for Social Services. This is something I do about every three months or so. Social Services has this program where they teach kids coming out of the fostering program about the real world. Part of there lessons are about renting, and that is where I come in. We will spend a couple of hours going through 5-8 different rental units. We explain prices and what you can expect to get for what kind of money. We also talk about what type of questions should be asked, what kind of things you should look for… we talk about the plusses and minuses of getting a roommate so you can together afford a bigger unit. We talk about the process of renting an apartment and what to and what not to do. We talk about what landlords look for on their applications, and why.
Tuesday evening was a Chucks game, and what I will sometimes do is bring work with me. So I grabbed my folder that had all of my scribbled notes from the check outs I did earlier that day and figured during breaks in the action at the game, I could fill out the move-in/move-out sheets based on my rough notes. I get to my seat…break out my folder.. only to realize I took all the paperwork out of that folder and laid them on my desk because I didn’t want to schlep them around while I toured a number of properties with the kids. I went straight from showing the properties to the ballpark… so all the work I wanted to do was still back in my office in Schofield. Oops.
Wednesday, June 3rd
Showings are really starting to pick up… with vacancies at some of the highest levels I have ever seen them, that is a good thing. So, about half the day was spent showing properties, while the other half of the day was spent trying to get some of my normal office work done. I normally do payables and bills on Mondays and Thursdays. However, because of everything else going on, I had still not completed Monday’s bills yet, and most of the bills come in the beginning part of the month. (We have it planned that way because that is also when most of the revenue comes in.)
Thursday, June 4th
Again, a good chunk of the day was spent showing properties. Also, with the Board of Review hearing that evening, what ever time I was in the office between showings was spent preparing for the Board of Review. Also, we received the keys back for an apartment that we had hoped we would get the keys back on Monday, because we had someone interested in moving into the unit on Friday already. However, there was no way I was going to be able to check out the unit today, maybe after the hearing if there was still daylight.
Well… that didn’t happen because it was pushing 7:30 PM before we got out of the Board of Review. We did get the assessments lowered, though not to the level the property owner wanted. The key piece of evidence was the property owner had hired an appraiser and it is hard for an assessment board to argue with that… so the new values that were assigned to the properties were the values that the appraiser had determined.
Friday, June 5th
Things started at the but-crack of dawn as that apartment that came open Thursday needed to be checked out because we had someone who wanted to move in that day. By 7 AM, I had the check out done and called maintenance to have the touch up work done as soon as they came it at 8 AM, luckily the tenant left the unit in really good shape.
We also had two people at the last second decide they want to move into 2 of our managed properties… and they wanted to move in before the weekend. So that meant dropping everything and getting the leases prepared. I don’t mind dropping everything for that. It really has been slow lately so two leases in one day, even if for managed properties, is a pretty big deal.
Friday evening was a Chucks game and after watching 10 runs scored against us in the top of the 7th, I left before the end of the game for the first time this season. At that time, they were down 14-0 and it was a pretty safe bet they wouldn’t come back from that.
The hectic week continued into the weekend. I am hoping that this week will be a little less stressful, but while writing this, I have been informed of a major maintenance issue that is going to take a couple of weeks and a couple of thousand dollars to fix… fun times.
Board of Review, Lease, Showings, Woodchucks
by John H. Fischer on June 4th, 2009 • No Comments »
Just a reminder, no Dr Rent show this week!
Back in April, I had moved the show from Wednesday to Thursday because way to many things happen on Wednesday nights. As a matter of fact, I had missed three shows in a row. Things that conflicted included certain city meetings, the meetings of the CWAA (Stevens Point’s apartment association, of which I am a member), and there was also a conflict with a group I am a member of and had never been able to attend a meeting, the WCC (Wisconsin Corvette Club) down in Milwaukee.
For the first time since moving the show, I have a Thursday conflict. The owner of some of the properties that I manage has an issue with the assessed value of those properties. The Mosinee Board of Review meets tonight and as the manager of the properties, I am expected to testify.
The show will be back at its normal time next Thursday, 5 to 6 PM on 93.3 FM, WNRB-LP. The current probable show topic is to pick up where we left off last week on talking about some recent news items that affect multi-family housing, including state legislative proposals that would limit the amount a city can charge to shovel your sidewalk if you don’t and another proposal about making victims of domestic violence a protected class.
As always, questions I get will be covered first, and we already have two of them lined up:
On the lease form you get from Janke’s Book Store (this is the Wisconsin Legal Blank lease), what is this block of information labeled Guaranty all about?
Can a landlord refuse to accept payments made in cash? And, why would they want to?
Wish us luck at the board of review tonight, and we will see you on the radio again next week. Until then, HAPPY RENTING!
Board of Review, Cash, Lease, Questions, WNRB
by John H. Fischer on May 28th, 2009 • No Comments »
It’s Thursday and that means time for another installment of the Dr Rent Radio show on WNRB-LP, 93.3 FM. There is no real main topic for tonight’s show. We are going to cover a few questions that have come up over the last week, and also touch on a few news articles. The articles I think would make decent show topics individually, however I am not sure how I can stretch each one to fill the entire time slot of the show… so instead you get treated on a three for the price of one deal.
First we will cover some questions. The first is a follow up from last week’s discussion of an eviction from the tenant’s point of view. The tenant does want to fight this eviction, their argument being that they always paid their half of the rent on time and have the receipts to prove it, it was their roommate who didn’t pay – so why not just evict the roommate?
Another question comes from one of the websites that hosts the Dr Rent Blog. (Even with all of the issues I have been having with the “cyber-attack” on my blog and my profile on the Wausau Daily Herald site, that site continues to be the “official” home of the Dr Rent blog. However, the blog has been “syndicated” onto two other local websites.) In this case, the tenant has permission to have a pet. However, they now want a second pet. What is the best way to proceed to get permission?
Last night, I attended a Village of Weston meeting that I am sure sounds really interesting to most people. The topic was whether to bring public utilities (such a sewer and water) to some of the areas within the Village that are served by private systems (such as on-site septic systems and wells). A question that didn’t come up at this meeting but easily could have is… if you are a tenant in a property that has well and septic that the landlord pays for and now there is public water service with metered usage – who know is going to be responsible for that bill – landlord or tenant?
One of my news topics is some stimulus funds the Wausau Community Development Authority has gotten their hands on. Based on comments in the article, a hope of the City and the CDA is by using these funds on specific properties, having better looking properties could “catch on” to other properties in the neighborhood. Is this true? I will talk about my thoughts on how valid a comment that is.
Speaking of news articles I would like to discuss (I will try to get to them all, but if I run long on the questions, we will just pick up where we left off on the next show in two weeks), the million dollar grant the CDA received in federal stimulus funds is just one of the three noteworthy news articles.
Another one is a legislative proposal in Madison to put some limits on what local government can charge to shovel your sidewalk. Most of us know if you don’t shovel your walk in the winter, the City could send you a notice and shovel it for you. What you may not know is that the minimum charge could be well over $100.00. That is a lot of money for a job that you could probably find a middle-schooler to do for a couple of bucks. There is a bill in Madison (that cities aren’t too happy about by the way) to cap the amount that can be charged to a more reasonable level.
Another news topic is that there is a proposal in Madison to expand the protected classes in housing discrimination. Currently there are 12 protected classes, 7 established by federal law and another 5 established by Wisconsin state law. The proposed 6th class that would be illegal to discriminate against would be victims of domestic abuse. Actually, I had thought that the law passed last year that allowed victims to break their lease without penalty gave them certain protection rights, so making it an “official” is really not a big deal in my opinion.
Finally, you may have noticed that I said after tonight, the next Dr Rent Radio Show will be in two weeks. That is because next Thursday I have a conflict (my first conflict since moving the show to Thursday evenings). We are not happy with some of the assessments put on some of our Mosinee properties, and we would like to discuss those assessments at the Board of Review. Their meeting is next Thursday evening.
I think it will be a great show so hope you tune in.. and until this evening – HAPPY RENTING!
CDA, Evictions, POWTS, Pets, Protected Class, Questions, Roommates, Stimulus Package, WNRB, Wausau
by John H. Fischer on May 27th, 2009 • No Comments »
It was Tuesday evening, about 5:30. Mrs. Rent is on vacation in Oklahoma and I was trying to decide what I should do with my evening. I could continue to get caught up at work as I have really let myself fall behind again. I could try to get the lawn mowed at home, but it was really wet. I could watch TV but NCIS is now in summer reruns. After reading a post on a different web site, I decided to head over to Wausau City Hall as the proposed “Peace” sculpture was on the agenda.
I have been fighting my conscience ever since with the humor and entertainment I found in that meeting. I am almost ashamed of those feelings as this really touches real people and real topics. And shortly after the vote was taken to approve the sculpture (sort of), it looked to me that at least a few council members were confused not with the outcome of the vote, but the meaning of it.
Here is how it played out, based on my memory of last night. I will try to keep the report unbiased and from the perspective of someone who prides himself as a decent parliamentarian and word-smith.
In order to start discussion on the topic, first it must be moved and seconded – which it was. The actual resolution “on the floor” was to “grant permission to place peace sculpture in city right-of-way (Washington St/1st St/River Dr intersection)”. For what followed, it is important to remember the original motion.
Discussion ensued. Much of the discussion was centered around whether accepting the gift of this sculpture would that now set a precedent? If the City said yes to this specific case, would that act make it more difficult for the City to say no if a similar request was made in the future? And, would it be more prudent for the City to have some kind of policy or procedure in place prior to any approval?
I am not a fan of putting words in other peoples’ mouths, but during this discussion another motion was offered. I believe the intent of the motion was to establish a procedure/policy and then readdress this sculpture once that was in place. Again, that is what I believe the intent of the motion was. I believe that was the intent based on the discussion that followed and based off the reaction of some of the council members shortly after the final vote. If I am misunderstanding the intent of the motion, I do fully apologize. However, during the discussion of the motion on the floor, a new motion was offered that “prior to approval of the sculpture, the City establish a procedure/policy on such requests.”
This motion did violate parliamentary procedure. When a motion is on the floor, a new motion cannot be made until action is taken on the current motion. There are some motions allowed: you can have a motion to amend the motion that is on the floor; you can also have a motion to take some type of action on the motion on the floor (for example calling for an end of discussion and having a vote, or asking to put the entire topic on hold – known as tabling).
When the point of order was clarified that the new motion was not allowed, the council member then chose to make a motion amending the current motion. The exact wording is what will come into play and I am sure will be reviewed in depth, however I remember it to be a motion to amend the motion “to only approve the sculpture after a policy has been established by the City.” Again, based on discussion, I believe the intent was to have a policy in place, and then look at the approval of this sculpture through that newly established policy.
Discussion followed and finally a motion was made to “call the question.” This would basically stop all discussion and bring the topic to an immediate vote. Three votes followed. The first vote was whether the council wanted to stop discussion and this was a 12-0 vote in favor. The next vote was whether to add the amendment to the original motion. That vote passed by a narrow 7-5 margin.
The final vote was on the amended motion: “To grant permission to place peace sculpture in City right-of-way, however prior to approval the City needs to establish a policy on such requests.” That vote passed 11-1.
Which completely confused the people who were the ones asking to make this gift to the City. Was it approved or was it not approved? It was clarified by the mayor that the request was in fact approved. That the way the motion was made, the request was approved but would just need to wait until a policy was in place. Once the policy was established, they could proceed with placement of the sculpture.
Instantly a bunch of blue lights came on from some of the council members who were originally leaning toward a no vote, which tells me that is not how they had interpreted the decision made. However, because this topic had been discussed and voted on, further discussion was not allowed. So, what I am sure some are doing this morning is trying to determine just exactly what was decided.
If the intent was to require the sculpture to go through the to-be-created approval process, the stand alone second motion would have accomplished this. However, because it was only an amendment to a motion to grant approval, the word-smithing would have been better done as “approval shall be done only after a policy has been established AND this request gone through that policy.” Nothing in the motion, as amended, indicated that the establishment of the policy could bring the approval back into play.
Now that a decision (whatever that might be) has been made, for those who opposed the statute, there are two courses of action. First, is to stall creating a policy. As soon as the policy is created, the sculpture can be erected where it was proposed. Period. If the policy never gets out of committee, then final permission for placement is never granted. The second option is for someone who was on the winning side of the vote (which is all but one person as 11 voted in favor) could move to re-open the issue at the next council meeting. A majority would have to vote to re-open, and this would probably have to be an agenda item.
It was indeed a (sadly) entertaining way to spend a Tuesday evening.
Parlimentary Procedure, Peace Sculpture, Wausau
