fair comment and criticism, information in the image caption is not current
A source inside city government pointed this blogger to a recent Regulatory Services committee meeting (April Fools Day, 2014) which revoked the rental license of Steve Meldahl at a 3111 Upton Ave. N.
Here are City of Minneapolis links to two documents concerning the revocation, click here and also here.
Meldahl's empire is already on the ropes (see yesterday's article) but the burning question is how will a Chapter 11 bankruptcy "reorganize" Meldahl's empire if Meldahl loses another rental license? JNS blog thinks...
...(off the top of my head) two rental licenses lost within a year will mean the complete loss of all rental licenses, but I have fired off the question in search of a more definitive answer. Don't take that number I just threw out there as gospel.
This is a developing situation (which is why I'm hitting the PUBLISH button before I have that piece of information, above) but one thing is for sure: the fate of at least 85 Northside properties is up in the air. Already the question is being asked: What will happen to those properties? What will happen to the RENTERS? How will the City of Minneapolis assure a good fate for those properties instead of just falling into the hands of an even worse slumlord?
10 comments:
If landlords don't keep their properties up, they deserve condemnation, no pun intended. As far as not renting to bad characters, it should remembered that landlords cannot discriminate on the basis of a would-be tenant's source of income, only the amount of income falling short of that landlord's pre-set income criterion. I've known landlords who establish a minimum income figure for an apartment that is $10/ month higher than what someone could get on welfare. People should remember that while it's not YET illegal to screen people on the basis of their credit score or criminal records, many liberal politicians (such as those elected by NoMi residents) would like to make it illegal. Keith Ellison is generally against discriminating against people based upon even felony convictions, and Debo Adegbile, recently named by Mr. Obama to the Justice Department was supportive - while at the EEOC - of barring employers from considering job applicants' criminal backgrounds - including felonies - on the theory that it would have a disparate impact on minority applicants. People need to understand that if the Obamas and Ellisons have their way, landlords will have no legal means to screen out bad apples.
The administration just passed that they cannot ask about criminal records until they get an interview. That is a big difference.
MCullen NE
Here's another new player in the North MPLS housing market to keep an eye on: RHA3 LLC or RHA3-Haven Brook Homes. Just purchased 45 homes and MPLS Inspections already having troubles.
Anon, unless your business plan is ONLY to rent to Section 8 (and bilk the system), you can rent to whomever you want.
Can you provide more info? Email me if you have to: hoffjohnw@gmail.com
http://homesteadroad.com/page/opportunities-for-wholesalers/
Here's an answer to your question?
MCullen NE,
So a mortgage company has to go ahead and interview a convicted forger before declining to hire him/her? A child care center has to go ahead and interview a convicted child molester before declining to hire him? What a waste of time. You're missing the bigger point - that liberals increasingly want to deny decision-makers (employers, landlords, etc.) the ability to take into account the FACT of a person's criminal conviction. If people want to force employers and landlords to give criminals a second, third and fourth chance, then don't be surprised when they're living next to you. And don't blame landlords for renting to criminals once you've taken away their legal ability to discriminate against criminals (because of "disparate impact"). We're not there yet, but that's where they're taking us.
Steven Meldahl was caught in 2006 committing multiple violations (on virtually every property he owned at the time) of Section 1018 of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act…same violations he committed at 3111 Upton Avenue North. If the allegation is true, then it’s also a public health issue.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Act Notice is hereby given that on August 3, 2006, a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Steven J. Meldahl dba SJM Properties, Civil Action 06–3202 JNE/JJG, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Consent Decree settles claims against the owner and management company of approximately 31 residential properties containing approximately 34 units located in Minnesota, (‘‘Subject Properties’’). The claims were brought on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, (‘‘HUD’’), and the Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) under the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act 42 U.S.C. 4851 et seq. (‘‘Lead Hazard Reduction Act’’). The United States alleged in the complaint that the Defendant failed to make one or more of the disclosures or to complete one or more of the disclosure activities required by the Lead Hazard Reduction Act. Under the Consent Decree, Defendant will certify that he is complying with residential lead paint notification requirements. In addition, Defendant shall pay a civil penalty to the United States of $5,000 within 30 days of entry of the Consent Decree and an additional $5,000 civil penalty within seven months after entry of the Consent Decree. Defendant has agreed to develop a Hazard Reduction Plan for the Subject Properties and will replace all painted windows and abate all lead-based paint hazards within 2 years after approval of the Hazard Reduction Plan. Hazard abatement for at least one-half of the total inventory of Subject Properties is to be completed within each year. If the Defendant learns that a child with elevated blood lead levels lives or frequently visits a subject unit, the hazard abatement work on that unit is to be accomplished within 5 months. Submit annual reports on the progress of the hazard abatement work. In addition, on-going operations and maintenance shall be implemented at the completion of any window replacement or hazard reduction work. The Consent Decree provides for stipulated penalties for failure to meet obligations under the Consent Decree. Under the Consent Decree the United States provides the Defendant with a covenant not to sue or to take administrative action arising out of violations of Section 1018 at the Subject Properties. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611, and should refer to United States v. Steven J. Meldahl dba SJM Properties, D.J. #90–5–2–1–08891.
Steve Meldahl has a Motion to Compel on April 24 at 11am Courtroom 2A in front of the Honorable Judge Gregory Kishel (Bankrupycy Judge) being brought by the attorney for the unsecured creditors (Thomas Lallier)…..somebody is in trouble with the courts…..Heads up to The Camden Canary.
Some well thought out letters to the right people would raise some eyebrows and bring unwanted attention to Steve Meldahl and his Empire of Dirt….
My bad. That court date is May 6th.
Awesome and valuable info you are sharing and I want to thank you for that.
Post a Comment