A landlord is not what it used to be, and a recent Naperville city council decision has made it even less than what it was a month ago in Naperville. By a vote of 5 to 4, the council expanded the scope of local government when it approved a requirement that landlords accept federal housing vouchers as income when evaluating possible tenants.
Council members against the proposal included Mayor Steve Chirico, and council members Kevin Coyne, Patty Gustin and Paul Hinterlong. Those in favor of government over-reach included Judy Brodhead, John Krummen, Becky Anderson, Rebecca Obarski, and Kevin Gallaher.
A landlord by definition doesn’t exist anymore. No longer is a person who owns and rents property, the lord of his or her land, no longer does he or she have the power or authority, to be the master or ruler of the property. The government has bullied its way to becoming a partner in the ownership of the property. This is just the most recent bullying tactic by five members of the Naperville city council to over-reach by mandating rather than educating and encouraging voluntary participation of the voucher program, commonly known as Section 8 housing.
Nearly 3,000 vouchers have been issued in DuPage County, and about 2,700 are currently being used. Approximately 500 vouchers (about 18%) are being used in Naperville, while Naperville accounts for about 15% of the population of DuPage county. In other words, Naperville usage of vouchers in the county exceeds its percentage of the population. The City is doing more than its fair share of supporting the voucher program voluntarily, but that’s not good enough for the five council members who voted to in essence to expand the program in Naperville.
Five in favor and four against expanding government’s over-reach means that one council member’s ‘yes’ vote was the difference. Three of those five will be running in the next city council election. They include Brodhead, Krummen and Gallaher.
For voters looking for differentiation between candidates in the next election, this is a good benchmark to consider when it’s your turn to vote. Just as it took one ‘yes’ vote for government over-reach to occur, it may take only a few votes to defeat a candidate running for re-election. Voter over-reach can pluck a council member off the dais and replace him or her with a new council member; one who values limited government.
As has been pointed out in the many discussions at both city council meetings and other public meetings on this subject, there are many factors a landlord uses in deciding who to rent to and ability to pay rent (determine by income and other factors) is just one of those variables. What city council pasted does not require landlords to use income as the salient factor in choosing a tenant (i.e. rent to a person based sole on income) but only to consider vouchers as income for the purposed of determining a person ability to paying rent.
Counting vouchers as income is important because some property managers eliminate tenant applicants based solely on income and requiring these managers to consider vouchers as income will “level the playing field” for all applicants. Prejudicial treatment of people based on income (i.e. poor people) is becoming the most prevalent form a discrimination in our country today. And while present indicators are telling us this is not a problem in Naperville it is important to send a clear message to everyone that this type of behavior is not acceptable in our community, that we respect and acknowledge the human right to adequate housing.
I live next to a rental in the voucher program and there are several in my neighborhood. These residences are problematic. First, the tenants do the bare minimum to keep the property looking nice. For example, they mow, but do not do any weed control and garden brick borders are not maintained and often tumble over and are just left that way. I have found stolen property at the voucher residence near me–which I found because the party missing the property had posted information on a neighborhood website. Also, on more than one occasion, additional people–not the original renters–move in. This is just a way of adding income, which the housing authority has little resources to police.
In a perfect world, housing vouchers would be given temporarily to people who need them and not to those who scam the system. Further, those properties should have to be maintained such that they do not make the neighborhood look bad. It does not cost money to pick up trash out of your yard, pull weeds and take down your Christmas lights.
I think each council member who voted for this measure should have to live next to a rental in the program. Its easy to vote for such a measure if your neighborhood does not have these issues. In addition, more should be done to police the landlords in this city.
Making sure a property is properly maintained by a renter is the landlords responsibility. Same with additional people not originally rented too, it is the landlords responsibility to make sure they are added to the lease (which if done properly would prevent the “game of the system” you mentioned). The reality is a sloppy/lazy landlord will always be sloppy and lazy, which includes not doing the due diligent required to prevent renting to these type of tenants.
Because of these lazy landlords Naperville is becoming a popular place for criminal elements to live. Since our city does not require the use of good leasing practices, that our neighboring cities do, criminal elements find it easier to rent in Naperville then other cities near us that mandate these practice and make it impossible for criminals to rent in their communities.
Nothing in this new ordnance requires a landlord to rent to a voucher holder. But these type of renters are appealing to lazy landlords because they eliminate any hassles with collecting rent. If you and your neighbors are letting a landlord get away with being sloppy and lazy and not holding them responsible for their tenants action then some of the blame for the situation falls on you.
I know of landlords that do conduct random inspections (as permitted by lease and law) to insure the tenant is keeping to the terms of their lease and properly maintaining the property. In doing so these landlords are acknowledging they have a duty and responsibly to the neighborhoods they own property in and not simply exploiting these neighborhoods for their own financial benefit.
Let’s see if I understand this the liberals who pass laws requiring property owners to accept the dredges of the earth with respect to criminals, financial dead beats, irresponsible people etc and then these same nitwits blame the landlords for the rise in crime, deterioration of the neighborhood and all the other evils created by this nonsense. If you are tired of this crap and that’s what it is then vote for Trump to clean out the garbage and drain the swamp.
Again, if you had read the ordinance and followed the discussions on this issue you would be aware of the fact that, this ordinance does not require any landlord to rent to anyone they do not wish to. So no one is being forced to “accept the dredges of the earth” a tenants.
Mr. Hasslehorst, the city does not want to hold people accountable for following ordinances either. There is always an excuse such as Christmas lights are “not Christmas lights because they are solar” even though they hung them at Christmas and left all year. Or the infected ash tree that was required to be removed from the property is now an unsightly ash bush in the front of the house and the city indicates it is “ok” until it grows to 4 inches around. I have also called in about the weeds multiple times, which is an ongoing problem each year. In addition, code enforcement has indicated they cannot enter a residence to determine the number of people living there. Neighbors do complain about rental property, but the ordinances are subjectively applied. In fact, this very morning I contacted the housing authority about possible voucher eligibility issues and provided evidence of parties living in the home. So, the blame is not with me or other neighbors who do complain– as we complain often. Unfortunately the city is not that responsive.
I did not say complain to the city I said hold the landlord responsible. This can range for something as simple as calling the landlord to as advanced as getting all the residents together, hiring a lawyer and filing a civil suit against the landlord.
The city is limited by laws to protect citizen’s rights. The city can only enter a house with the property owners consent or if a life is threatened but the standard lease agreement gives the landlord authority to inspect their property (inside and out), which is why calling the city is a waste of time.
Private citizens have way more authority to act in protection of their property, family and friends through civil discourse with the landlord of civil court if that fails. Again if you do not hold the landlord accountable, even if you do get ridge of the present bad tenant, the landlord with simply replace them with another bad tenant.
Have to have some place to put Hillary’s 100,000 new Muslims and open border illegals which our tax dollars are then given illegally to them for housing and sustenance.
Government gone way toooooooooo FAR!
Programs like this one require proof of citizenship or legal immigration status. Any illegal immigrate trying to use this program would only create the paper tail needed to get the attention of ICE and be deported. And they are Syrian refugees, which are both Christians and Muslims, who’s homes have been destroyed and are considered enemies by ISIS so had to choose between fleeing the country or being publicly executed by members of this terrorist group.