Lease-Signing Pressure Update
Area landlords don’t come out in favor of the proposed ordinance that would prohibit early lease-signing pressure. Well, color us shocked. Some of them pointed out that they could easily violate the spirit of the law: “[W]hile they would not be able to enter into a formal agreement under the proposed ordinance until one-fourth of the lease period had expired, they could accept formal applications whenever they wanted and assign housing for the next year on a first-come, first-serve basis.” They were so unconcerned about the impact of this legislation, in fact, that they appeared at MSA chambers in numbers quadruple those of students to oppose it.
A Campus Management representative drew a bogus comparison between the lease-signing postponement and the couch ban. “Maybe students will rethink their stance on that next time it comes around,” he said. If you’re keeping track, this isn’t the first student-hostile remark made by that company.
YES!!! The link saying “first” takes us back to the post with perhaps my favorite comment ever, by “R!”
Campus Management… I think I was misled regarding a mattress for which I’d supposedly get fined an assload for leaving on the curb (I later learned that this probably wouldn’t have been the case), but other than that they were okay. Even if they had some bizarre mathematical formula for “inspection” arrival times (as opposed to the ACTUAL arrival times).
posted by Lazaro on November 22nd, 2005 at 4:25 pmIs anything NOT about the couch ban in this town? I bet we can relate the greenbelt to it, somehow. Like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, only really lame.
posted by Jen on November 22nd, 2005 at 4:49 pmI think some people think anybody who identifies as a “student” or “blogger” is a one-issue pony who only cares about couches.
Of course, now that the local Republican Party has been driven into full retreat, maybe it’s time for the Porchitarians to arise as a new opposition party…?
posted by Murph on November 22nd, 2005 at 5:09 pmAh yes, I see that “reporter” Davidson neglected to mention in his editorial (it certainly wasn’t an unbiased news article) that he spent several minutes of the meeting arguing with the various members of the group and telling them how wrong they were. After which, they spent several minutes telling him how wrong he was. He then “neglected” to mention that this Campus Neighbors group meets monthly and has for some time (over a year that I know of). The landlords weren’t showing up in force, they were going to a regular meeting. They always show up. Usually the Daily doesn’t send a reporter and photographer because they are talking about such topics as working with the city to get more trash pickups in the campus area.
It was actually MSA liaison Van Hyfte who started the porch couch discussion.
Don’t believe everything you read in the Daily.
posted by Juliew on November 22nd, 2005 at 5:39 pmWell, that does make the couch comparison somewhat less egregious. Is the part about them threatening to circumvent the ordinance accurate?
posted by ann arbor is overrated on November 22nd, 2005 at 6:29 pmI’m not sure any of the landlords came out and said they “would” circumvent the ordinance, but the implication was there. The topic of circumvention of the ordinance came out of a report from Madison (the only other city with such an ordinance) that the landlords there just start taking applications whenever people come to them and on the lease date they go through the apps in date order. The general consensus last night was that landlords and renters would find ways around the ordinance for the prime properties (generally considered 4+ bedroom houses within a block or so of campus).
There was a whole fire-safety side conversation during the meeting because the inspector of the recently-burned Stimpson property was one of the participants. Davidson only covered the one porch-couch comment. I’m not saying it was a good comment, but it was part of a larger conversation.
posted by Juliew on November 22nd, 2005 at 7:03 pmThe folks who want to ban couches are for it simply due to aesthethic reasons. They can bring out all the fire statistics they want, but that is what is about.
They don’t really care about burned up students (disclaimer: ok, I’m sure they really CARE about burned up students). I have listened to their complaints for years and this is their hook. If it wasn’t so Cheney-like, I might have more common ground, but I am against the couch ban because of this bait and switch. Lame.
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 22nd, 2005 at 8:54 pmHonestly, after reading about stupid rental fire after stupid rental fire, one of which involved friends and acquaitances of mine (who pretty much damn near lost everything, although they were unharmed) I begin to wonder where the priorities are. Some of the rental houses from larger companies are literal deathtraps, and lest we forget: couches don’t catch fire spontaneously.
I can think of several recent rental fires off of the top of my head… and I don’t remember -any- course of action even being suggested in the aftermath.
Better inspections (I still can’t believe the first house I rented passed any inspection, period - lacking a fire escape amongst other things, but I didn’t know any better then), *random* inspections (so the landlord can’t move kids out of the basement apartment, then move them back in afterwards), better education of bad wiring warning signs… I haven’t heard anything.
How difficult would it be, to tuck into the Observer or the Food Fun Fitness papers that get tossed at every house, to put in a phamphlet about possible fire hazards, and what the renter can legally do if the landlord doesn’t cooperate? I mean, the only real cost is going to be Kinkos, and some people to fold and stick ‘em in with the circulars.
Sigh.
posted by Jen on November 22nd, 2005 at 10:37 pmyour blog is awesome!!!!
posted by ed on November 23rd, 2005 at 5:22 pmYeah, I looked at apartments in Ann Arbor, and after seeing a few small fire-hazard boxes I decided to not live in Ann Arbor despite being a UM student. My advice: If you’re male and single, live in the border area between AA and Ypsi where rent isn’t too bad but supposedly there are a few break-ins and rapists and whatnot. Myself, I live in Whitmore Lake which is a 15-20 minutes in traffic drive to Central Campus. You can get 1100 sq.ft. 2 bedrooms with buzzer entry (i.e. not a chunk of some old building with a rickety outdoor stairway), for what a tiny studio right by campus, or a slightly less tiny “one bedroom” on a busride to campus would cost. Also, you won’t get stabbed by a bum! Bonus!
posted by K on November 30th, 2005 at 7:13 pmCars, commuting, and living in the suburbs! Fear of the homeless and transit! Crime? Only near Ypsi! Awesome!
posted by Brandon on November 30th, 2005 at 8:18 pmhey, what more does one need than the whitmore lake tavern. High-end well liquor, bud and fried food abound. dating opportunities…myriad!
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 30th, 2005 at 8:50 pm