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.

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.

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

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.

A call to action! Open meeting on January 4

The anti-tenants' rights bill SB 107 was signed by Governor Walker last week. That means it will become law in a few days. It does not mean that our response to SB 107--and the austerity agenda it's part of--is over. On the contrary, it's just beginning. SB 107 is a call to action, not simply a defeat. It is time to make Madison's progressive tenant protections, the ones that were targeted by SB 107, the standard for the whole state!

The first step toward repealing SB 107 and expanding tenants' rights at the city, county, and state levels is to coordinate the efforts of organizers and activists who are already working hard on housing issues in Madison with people who are outraged by this bill and want to join the fight against it.

To this end, the Wisconsin Alliance for Tenants' Rights has called an open meeting to plan the response to SB 107. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 4th, at 6:00 pm at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative (426 W. Gilman). At this meeting, we'll hear updates about responses that are already taking place and share ideas about how to go forward. We'll also try to set up a day and time for monthly WATR meetings.

Forward this message to others who may be interested. The Apartment Association and the Wisconsin Realtors Association have lobbyists at the capitol working as hard as they can to destroy what we've gained through years of struggle. An attack on tenants' rights of this magnitude merits a *sustained* response on multiple fronts. To win this fight, we have to work together!

WHAT: An open meeting to plan our response to SB 107.
WHEN: 6 pm, Wednesday, January 4, 2012
WHERE: Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative (426 W. Gilman)

Save the date and spread the word!

Activists circulate "Responsible Landlords Pledge" after Walker signs anti-tenants' rights bill

Madison, WI: Now that SB 107, an anti-tenants' rights bill, has been signed, local activists are looking for new ways to protect tenants’ rights in Madison. The Wisconsin Alliance for Tenants’ Rights is circulating a pledge that asks landlords to continue to adhere to the Madison ordinances nullified by SB 107. Last week, the Madison Common Council passed a resolution recognizing housing as a human right. There is also talk of organizing a new tenant union in the Madison area.

Although they are disheartened by the passage of SB 107, local activists and housing advocates plan to continue the fight for tenants’ rights at the state and local level. “The Apartment Association went to the state government to reverse laws passed at the municipal level,” says Colin Gillis, an organizer for the Wisconsin Alliance for Tenants’ Rights, “and that means that we need to go to the state level, too. We’re going to work hard to make the Madison ordinances the standard for the whole state, not just Dane County.”

Governor Walker signed SB 107 on December 7, 2011. The bill abrogates decades of progressive tenant protections in the City of Madison and Dane County by preventing municipalities from making regulations designed to protect tenants. The Apartment Association of South-Central Wisconsin, a group representing the interests of landlords in the Madison area, lobbied for the bill, shepherding it through the state senate in June, before the recall elections. The bill was passed by the the Wisconsin State Assembly on November 1, 2011. The vote split along party lines. Only one Democrat, Peggy Krusick, voted for the bill.

The bill is a reprehensible assault on tenants’ rights and an affront to local democracy. It nullifies Madison ordinances that limit how much information landlords can request from prospective tenants, stipulate when landlords can ask tenants to renew their leases, and restrict how much money landlords can request as a security deposit. The bill would also allow landlords to require that prospective tenants earn three times the amount of their rent in income.

The law will adversely affect Madison area students. Many students rent apartments off campus, and SB 107 will prevent local student organizations from working with the city and county governments to protect students’ rights as tenants. Leland Pan of ASM (the Associated Students of Madison) explains: “By tying the hands of the local government, this bill restricts students' ability to push for protections and policies that represent their own interests. Students can no longer work with landlords and city officials to pass positive ordinances with broad support.”

The bill will also make it more difficult for people with low income and arrest or conviction records to find housing in the private rental market. “Striking down local ordinances that help people with arrest and conviction records interferes with our right, as a community, to welcome and support people returning home from prison,” observes Heidi Wegleitner, a local housing advocate. She also points out that the bill will disproportionately affect communities of color. Wegleitner continues: “In 2009, the Dane County Task Force on Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System reported that nearly 50% of Dane County's young African-American males are in prison, incarcerated or on probation. Dane County has one of the highest rates of racial disparity in incarceration in the nation. It is clear that this bill will further segregate our communities.”

The Madison Responsible Landlord Pledge

Pending further clarification of the legal ramifications of the effects of SB107, we, the undersigned landlords, property owners, and managers pledge to continue to honor the City of Madison, City of Fitchburg, and Dane County ordinances that have been declared unenforceable with the passage of SB107. We recognize that these ordinances address problems unique to Madison and that continuing to adhere to them will prevent future disputes between tenants and landlords. For this reason, we have signed the following pledge.

1. We will not refuse a prospective tenant solely because he or she does not meet a predetermined minimum income, such as three times the amount of their income in rent. We will allow a tenant to demonstrate their ability to pay rent by showing that they have made a similar amount of income in the past and have paid a similar amount of rent with their current income [MGO 32.12(7)]. We will disclose any such requirements at the time of application or when earnest money is paid and make sure tenants are informed of the information that can prove their amount of income.

2. We will not deny people housing based on arrest or conviction records older than two years, unless the prospective tenant is a sex offender or his or her offense is substantially related to housing [MGO 39.03(4)(d)].

3. We will not require a social security number for application, unless doing so is mandated by state or federal law. We will also notify tenants that providing such information is voluntary [MGO 32.12(7)(b)].

4. We will continue to notify tenants at least twenty-four hours before entering a rental property [MGO 32.05(1)(d) and FO 28.05(1)(d)] and will not modify that rule in a non-standard rental provision [MGO 32.05(1)(e)].

5. When showing an apartment to prospective tenants, we will not show the apartment more than three hours per day or for more than three consecutive days [MGO 32.05(1)(e)].

6. We will not show the apartment until one quarter of the leasing period is over.

7. We will not ask tenants to renew their leases until one quarter of the leasing period is over [MGO 32.12(8)].

8. We will continue to use check-in and check-out forms [MGO 32.07(5)(d), FO 28.06(5)(d)], and we will use a non-standard rental provision to acknowledge receipt of these forms [MGO 32.07(5)(e)].

9. We will continue to continue to ask tenants for their forwarding addresses on the check-out form [MGO 32.07(5)(d), FO 28.06(7)].

10. We will continue to limit the security deposit to one month’s rent [MGO 32.07(2)(b), FO 28.06(2)(a)].

11. We will continue not to increase a security deposit during the same, amended, renewed, or new rental agreement [MGO 32.07(2)(b)].

12. We will continue to pay interest on security deposits [MGO 32.07(3), FO 28.06(3)].

13. We will continue to provide photographic evidence to justify any deductions from a security deposit [MGO32.07(7)(b)].

14. We will not collect a security deposit from both a tenant and a subleasing tenant [MGO 32.07(2)(d)].

15. When we return security deposits, we will continue to provide an itemized list of deductions that includes receipts, estimates and hours and wage rates charged for damages and cleaning [MGO 32.07(7)(b), FO 28.06(9)(b)].

16. In the event that we fail to comply with pledges 8-15, we will return the security deposit in full to the affected tenant.

17. We will not charge the tenant for credit check fees [MGO 32.10(3), FO 28.09(2)(a)].

18. In the event that deductions are made from earnest money, we will return an itemized written list of deductions [MGO 32.10(3)©, FO 28.09(2)(b)].