Murder inclusion in Minneapolis

Murder inclusion in Minneapolis

Investor · Saint Paul, MN · Member since 2015 · 663 posts · 512 votes

So this is directly from the City of Minneapolis website where the Renter Protection Ordinance was passed unanimously by the City Council and will go into effect June 2020.  Please read, because apparently as a Landlord now I must accept a murderer, who was evicted, assaulted someone in the first degree, committed arson and robbery all in one.  Good times here in Minneapolis.  

1.  Limits on screening for criminal history cannot consider misdemeanors with dates of sentencing older than 3 years

2.  Cannot consider felonies with dates of sentencing older than 7 years cannot consider convictions for certain felonies with dates of sentencing older than 10 years, including: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, third-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, kidnapping, first-degree criminal sexual conduct, first degree assault, first degree arson and first degree aggravated robbery. •Limits on screening for rental history

3.  Cannot consider evictions where judgment was entered three or more years from date of application

4.  Cannot consider settlements entered 1 or more years before applicant submits application

5.  Cannot consider dismissed evictions or evictions resulting in judgement for the applicantoCannot screen out for insufficient rental history oIf a landlord requires an income equal to three times the rent or higher, the landlord must allow an exception where the applicant can demonstrate a history of successful rent payment with an income less than three times the rent.

6.  Limits on screening for credit history

7.  Cannot screen based on credit score, but can consider information in credit report if it’s relevant to ability to pay rent

8.  Cannot screen out for insufficient credit history

3Reply
137 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2014 · 743 posts · 927 votes
6y

As someone who has both a former felon who spent 22 years in prison for drugs and other guys who have spent some time in jail for lesser things on my construction crew and who are all very hard workers, have families, and turned their lives around-they know they can't and won't go back to those things.  Are people saying they don't/shouldn't get "any" opportunity to a second chance 7-10 years after a crime?  They obviously need housing and a job so they don't re offend.  I get the argument that landlords shouldn't be "forced" into accepting substandard applicants but where is the line?  I know this is a passionate subject

See this reply in the discussion

31 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Real Estate Broker · Hugo, MN · Member since 2016 · 688 posts · 596 votes
    6y

    @Marcus Johnson I believe that there are ways to set criteria in order to filter out most while still being in compliance with fair housing. I wish there was more freedom to determine if someone is a reasonable risk.

    We have cautioned investors about Minneapolis for the past couple years. There is great opportunity in Minneapolis, but investors need to know the potential risks in the city when purchasing.

  • Investor · Saint Paul, MN · Member since 2015 · 663 posts · 512 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Bruce Runn:

    As someone who has both a former felon who spent 22 years in prison for drugs and other guys who have spent some time in jail for lesser things on my construction crew and who are all very hard workers, have families, and turned their lives around-they know they can't and won't go back to those things.  Are people saying they don't/shouldn't get "any" opportunity to a second chance 7-10 years after a crime?  They obviously need housing and a job so they don't re offend.  I get the argument that landlords shouldn't be "forced" into accepting substandard applicants but where is the line?  I know this is a passionate subject

    Just so you know I’m 100% for the felons that have turned their lives around. They should be given another chance. What I don’t like is governmental force by gunpoint saying that I have to abide by these screening rules. When the government forces me to do something I will never agree with it.   just look at Canada, they have forced speech now. You will be punished for the speech that you use now   

  • Rental Property Investor · TN · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y

    The problem is that if they were convicted of a felony 7 years ago or 10 for the murder, et al, they likely have not been out of prison very long and will be committing the next crime shortly.  

    Unfortunately the timing is not based on anything well thought out.  They typically behave when constantly supervised and in a very structured environment.  So they can be great prisoners.  Just not good people/tenants on the outside.

    It would be better if it used 7 years since released from prison/parole, instead of since convicted. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Navarre, FL · Member since 2019 · 913 posts · 640 votes
    6y

    Soon your city will be in charge of placing tenants at their discretion in your property. Got to keep it fair. For a nominal fee, of course.

  • Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Josh Brook:  And if a person was convicted of a felony 7+ years ago and has been a perfect citizen since then, isn't that someone you'd want to have as a tenant? They clearly have turned their life around.
    -----------------------------------------
    Uh, if they haven't committed a felony for 7 years, maybe it was because they were doing time in the big house and were unable to re-offend? But now they're out. . . 

    I can only assume you're being satiric, Josh. These ordinances HAVE to allow you to measure from date of release in order to make any sense.

  • Investor · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2014 · 743 posts · 927 votes
    6y

    @Marcus Johnson

    As I said, I understand what the issues can be as I own a fair number of rentals and want to mitigate my risk as well.  The reality is, we don't get to set whatever criteria we want.  I know landlords that would exclude people that are a different race or religion, I know people that don't want to rent to anyone who is gay, and some that don't want to rent to families with children.  You have to accept a person who has a trained service animal even if you have  a no pet policy and now even an emotional support animal.  It's a matter of where the line is drawn, I'm not sure where it is but believe these discussions need to happen.  No where in the ordinance does it say you can't screen individuals, you will just have to been more judicious

    @Wesley W.

    To those that don't know the details of the ordinance, you can still individually evaluate any applicant to your criteria (as long as it's a legal one).   You essentially just can't advertise - No felonies, credit scores over 650 required, no section 8, ect ect.  All comments are welcome here but Marcus seems to take a worst case scenario.  Personally, I won't have any issues as I can still use specific individual criteria to judge my applicants.  Most landlords I know, just shrugged at the ordinance since it still takes a good job, income, credit worthiness ect to qualify for their apt's.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.