Friday, February 17, 2012

LANDLORDS AND TENANTS RAISE RED FLAGS ABOUT ANTI-TENANTS’ RIGHTS BILL SB466/AB561

MADISON, WI: A new anti-tenants’ rights bill, SB 466, was discussed at two hearings on Wednesday. The bill is moving very quickly through the legislative process. It was published on February 13 and went to committee two days later. Landlords and tenants alike raised questions about the bill’s unintended consequences. Some of the biggest sources of confusion in the bill were:
  • The bill may unintentionally remove tenants’ entitlement to double damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees for money illegally withheld from security deposits or for failure to return security deposits within 21 days. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Stroebel, asserted during the Assembly committee hearing in the morning that this was never the intention of the bill’s authors. Attorney David Sparer disagreed, asserting that a “plain reading” of the bill showed that this would be a consequence. By the afternoon hearing, Representative Stroebel had acknowledged an amendment may be necessary.

  • The bill prohibits tenants from contacting a building inspector or elected official to register a repair problem before they have first given their landlord written notification of the problem. A number of tenants and landlords raised concerns about this provision, particularly the provision that they could not contact an elected official, and that will be removed.

  • The bill would overturn a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in Baierl v. McTagger, which determined that one illegal non-standard rental provision in a lease will render the entire lease invalid. The bill would thus remove the only extant disincentive for landlords against including illegal non-standard rental provisions in a lease. Landlords could include a non-standard rental provision saying that they will evict tenants or increase their rent for calling the police or emergency services. Such provisions are designed to intimidate tenants. Bob Anderson from Legal Action of Wisconsin argued before both committees that this deterrent is preferable to other deterrents: “You could make this a Class H felony or you could create an agency to deal with it, but that would be extraordinarily expensive.”

  • The bill allows property left behind to be taken at the landlord’s discretion. Several attorney explained that if the landlord was wrong, there would be many lawsuits over their ability to take this property. Ross Kinsler from the manufactured housing association, Wisconsin Housing Alliance, warned that this could make lenders unwilling to make loans on mobile homes and also asked for changes.

  • Legislative Counsel staff have to review the process for mandatory double the daily rent and how that might impact due process for those who want to contest their eviction.


“I had a list of over 20 items that were unclear or had unintended or maybe intended consequences. As I read them, I was interrupted by the author and chair of the Senate Insurance and Housing Committee, Frank Lasee multiple times during my testimony indicating that they would work on those items,” said Brenda Konkel.

The abundance of unintended consequences of the bill that surfaced during the hearings suggest that the bill was composed hastily and without consulting housing advocates and lawyers who are knowledgeable about housing law. David Sparrer, an attorney who argued Baierl v. McTaggert, said, “I am probably the most experienced person about housing law in this room, and I wasn’t consulted. I found out about it the day before yesterday. I should have been consulted.”

It is unclear whether and how the problems with this bill will be addressed by its sponsors and the Senate and Assembly committee members. Senator Carpenter raised the possibility of sending the bill to the legislative council for further review. “We won’t stop fighting this bill until all of its intended or unintended consequences for tenants’ rights are taken out of the bill,” declared Colin Gillis, an organizer for the Wisconsin Alliance for Tenants’ Rights.

The bill is likely to be schedule for Executive Session next Wednesday, with hopes that amendments will be available a few days earlier. It is unclear whether they will consider further input.

There is an additional bill draft, LRB2098 that is circulating for sponsors at the capital that would allow tenants to be evicted with 5 days notice without a right to cure the problem if people are associated with them commit “crimes” on any of the landlord’s property - “criminal activity” includes anything you can get a fine for, which would include parking tickets, an unlicensed cat and many other offenses. It also allows for the landlords to evict victims of crimes.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Devastating Anti-Tenant Bill Being Fast-tracked


2 Hearings and 1 Vote in Committee on Wednesday 2/15
Last week, the Wisconsin Alliance for Tenants' Rights learned of legislation that would radically alter tenants’ rights law in Wisconsin. The bill was still without co-sponsors and no public hearings had been scheduled. This evening, only a few days later, news broke that this legislation, now renamed AB561 and SB466, had been scheduled for two hearings with less than 48 hours notice. The Assembly Committee on Housing will have a hearing on Wednesday, February 15, at 11:00 AM, and the Senate Committee on Insurance and Housing will have a hearing and hold an executive session the same day at 2:05 PM.

Local housing advocates are shocked and outraged that this bill, which will substantially alter the state law governing tenant-landlord relations, is being pushed through the legislative process so quickly. “We have had almost no time to analyze this bill ourselves,” said Colin Gillis, one of the lead organizers for the Wisconsin Alliance for Tenants’ Rights, “let alone discuss it with the communities we work with. This bill will have a major impact on renters in Wisconsin. For example, it would eliminate essential remedies for tenants, including double damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. This will make it harder for tenants to enforce their rights and hold landlords accountable. It will also facilitate abusive landlord practices. How many renters can afford to lose all or part of their security deposits when they move? The bill's sponsors may be fast-tracking this bill because they don’t want their constituents to look at it very closely.”

The scope of the changes that would be enacted by the bill is staggering, making it difficult to enumerate all of its potential effects. Some of the most troubling attacks on tenant protections include:
• Eliminating double damages, court costs and reasonable attorney fees for failure to return security deposit or disclose repair issues—a tenant can only get single damages.
• Preventing tenants from reporting concerns to a building inspector or elected official until they notify the landlord in writing and give the landlord time to make repairs.
• Allowing landlords to use illegal contract provisions without consequences.
• Allowing the landlord take property left behind.
• Eliminating the right of local cities and counties to prohibit landlords from evicting under certain circumstances (i.e. over Christmas)
• Mandating double daily rent if a tenant stays past the end date of a 5 or 14 day notice or the end of the lease and allowing landlords to collect a tenant’s rent after they have fallen behind and still seek an eviction, even if the tenant is paid in full.

"This bill does not modernize the landlord-tenant code in Wisconsin. This is a full on assault on tenants' rights in Wisconsin", said Brenda Konkel. "To push these changes through with less than 48 hours notice before the hearings is unconscionable. Tenants (32% of Wisconsin residents) deserve a chance to a fair and public hearing on the issues."

AB561 / SB466 is the second major anti-tenants’ rights bill to be considered by the state legislature in the past few months. In December, Governor Walker signed SB 107, a bill prohibiting municipal governments from passing and enforcing laws protecting tenants’ from discrimination, preserving tenants’ right to privacy, and regulating security deposits.

The Wisconsin Alliance for Tenants’ Rights urges those who wish to learn more about these bills to find us on Facebook, sign our online petitions, and contact their legislators immediately. For more information, visit wisconsinalliancefortenantsrights.blogspot.com.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

More on LRB 3645 & 2098

LRB 3645 “Modernizing Miscellaneous Landlord-Tenant Provisions”
Lead Sponsor—Landlord and Rep. Duey Stroebel (R– Saukville) Rep.Stroebel@legis.wisconsin.gov (608) 267-2369 Capitol 8 West

This piece of legislation is currently circulating in the capital for sponsorships which were due Friday February 10th.

What the bill would do:
• Remove the right of local cities and counties to prohibit landlords from evicting under certain circumstances (i.e. winter)
• If a landlord gets caught with an illegal provision in their lease, only that provision is voided, not the entire lease
• Allows leases to be “signed” upon by fax or email
• If you leave any property behind when you move out, the landlord may sell it or throw it out without notification to you, unless
you agreed to something different in writing. And then, they can charge you for any costs involved.
• Changes the remedies for when a landlord fails to disclose repair problems with the apartment—removing double damages court
costs and attorney fees.
• The landlord has to provide a standardized check-in sheet with an itemized description of condition of the property at check-in
• The right to a lien is removed from the law.
• Mandatory double the daily rent if you stay past the date of a 5 or 14 day notice or end of your lease.
• Removes double damages, court costs and reasonable attorney fees for failure to return security deposit—a tenant can only get
single damages.
• Allows a landlord to take any money out of your security deposit that you “agree to” in a non-standard rental provision. Including
flat fees and charges that would currently be illegal.
• Allows landlord to collect your rent after you have fallen behind and still seek an eviction even if you are paid in full.

LRB 2098—Termination of Tenancy for Criminal Activity
Lead Sponsor—Mark Honadel (R– South Milwaukee) Rep.Honadel@legis.wisconsin.gov (608) 266-0610 Capitol 113 West
This piece of legislation is currently circulating in the capital for sponsorships which are due February 17th.

What the bill would do:
Landlords would be able to evict tenants for any “criminal activity” that includes any act or behavior that is punishable in the state by
a fine or period of imprisonment OR is a violation of an ordinance of the county, city, village or town where the rental property is.
The tenants would be given a 5-day notice, with no right to “cure” or fix the problem
• if the criminal activity has taken place in the rental unit
• is caused by the tenant, a member of the tenant’s household, an invited guest, or an associate of the tenant on any property
owned by the landlord
All the landlord has to prove in court is that there is an allegation of such activity
After the tenant has been evicted, they may still have to pay rent until someone new moves into the unit.
It requires law enforcement agencies to notify landlords when they are investigating an alleged nuisance on the landlord’s property,
so there may not be an actual nuisance, just an investigation of one and someone could be evicted for that allegation.
Examples of who could be evicted based on an accusation, with no right to cure:
• Victims of domestic violence, rape, stalking, assault, battery, theft, burglary, etc
• Tenants who have friends or family members who commit a crime on the landlord’s property, even if the property is in another
town or city or on the other side of town and you have no knowledge of the activity.
• People who get tickets for littering, noise, speeding, parking violations, not wearing a seat belt, not getting a license for your cat
or bike or protesting at the capital


What can you do?
Contact the Wisconsin Alliance for Tenant’s Rights at tenantsrightswi@gmail.com to get involved.

Join our event on Facebook “Oppose LRB 2098” /www.facebook.com/events/166911310090309/

Sign our on-line petition http://www.citizenspeak.org/campaign/brenda-konkel/oppose-lrb-2098

Friday, February 10, 2012

TWO new anti-tenants' rights bills being circulated at the state capitol

Thought SB 107 was bad? Meet LRB 2098 and LRB 3645. These bills target tenants' rights in state law. Brenda Konkel explains their potential effects:

If LRB 2098
passes...
- Landlords would be able to evict tenants for any "criminal activity" that includes any act or behavior that is punishable in the state by a fine or period of imprisonment OR is a violation of an ordinance of the county, city, village or town where the rental property is.


- The tenants would be given a 5-day notice, with no right to "cure" or fix the problem
- - if the criminal activity has taken place in the rental unit
- - is caused by the tenant, a member of the tenant's household, an invited guest, or an associate of the tenant on any property owned by the landlord
- All the landlord has to prove in court is that there is an allegation of such activity
- After the tenant has been evicted, they may still have to pay rent until someone new moves into the unit.
- It requires law enforcement agencies to notify landlords when they are investigating an alleged nuisance on the landlord's property, so there may not be an actual nuisance, just an investigation of one and someone could be evicted for that allegation.


Examples of who could be evicted based on an accusation, with no right to cure:
- Victims of domestic violence, rape, stalking, assault, battery, theft, burglary, etc
- Tenants who have friends or family members who commit a crime on the landlord's property, even if the property is in another town or city or on the other side of town and you have no knowledge of the activity.
- People who get tickets for littering, noise, speeding, parking violations, not wearing a seat belt, not getting a license for your cat or bike or protesting at the capital


If LRB 3645 passes...
- Remove the right of local cities and counties from prohibiting landlords from evicting under certain circumstances (i.e. winter)


- If a landlord gets caught with an illegal provision in their lease, only that provision is voided, not the entire lease overturning Baierl vs. Mc.Taggart


- If you leave any property behind when you move out, the landlord may sell it or throw it out without notification to you, unless you agreed to something different in writing. And then, they can charge you for any costs involved.


- Removes repair disclosure protections - no longer able to get double damages court costs and attorney fees.


- Mandatory double the daily rent if you stay past the date of a 5 or 14 day notice or end of your lease.


- Removes double damages, court costs and reasonable attorney fees for failure to return security deposit - a tenant can only get single damages.


- Allows a landlord to take any money out of your security deposit that you 'agree to' in a non-standard rental provision. Including flat fees and charges that would currently be illegal.


- Allows landlord to collect your rent after you have fallen behind and still seek an eviction even if you are paid in full.