WAAA!
We were around only for the first part of the MSA hearing on the proposed lease-postponing ordinance, but that was more than enough. The meeting opened with an address from a representative of the Washtenaw Area Apartment Association (appropriately enough, WAAA). We didn’t catch his name because we were sitting on the floor in the middle of an over-capacity crowd of mostly students.
He began by saying that his group has “two positions” on the ordinance. “The first is that we are against it.” The second is that they were for it before they were against it. Okay, not really. The second is that it should be “tightened up,” after which it will ultimately benefit landlords.
But why would landlords come out against an ordinance that would benefit them? Well, first of all, it “may be illegal.” But most importantly, “we think it may hurt students.” They’re just looking out for our best interests. For example, it may cause unspecified “concerns about safety.”
The ordinance is also, the WAAA representative said, “aimed at a small subset” of the population. Non-students, he said, generally do not have to renew until three quarters of the lease period is up. A disarmingly frank admission, which he attempted to explain only by saying that non-students don’t “live in apartments where they can walk to work.” So essentially, since only one subgroup is being taken advantage of, legislation to address the problem is too narrowly focused. (It’s worth mentioning that the Oppenheimer Properties letter we printed a while ago was sent to a faculty member.)
Not only would this legislation hurt students, it would hurt the community too. The WAAA rep argued that jobs would be lost as a result of the shorter leasing period. Landlords wouldn’t run as many ads in the Daily. (We’re sure this threat has nothing to do with the Daily’s advocacy of later lease-signing dates.)
So who would this ordinance help? Landlords, of course, the very people who are so altruistically opposing it. It would create an “artificial marketplace” where “demand is greater than supply” and rents would somehow be driven up. And if there’s anything we can’t have in A2, it’s an artificially constrained housing market.
When it was time for the committee to ask him questions, MSA’s Mike Forster backed him into a corner by getting him to admit that he would support the ordinance if it were found to be legal. The committee repeatedly pressed him for numbers on how many jobs would be lost, given that the law would supposedly create a mad “rush” for housing, and he finally had to admit that he didn’t even have an estimate.
Leigh Greden asked him why, if labor and advertising costs would fall, rents would still go up. He said something about a similar ordinance in Madison raising rents; another WAAA representative concurred, citing “anecdotal” information from landlords and “evidence that safety became a bigger issue” after the law was passed. Again, why it had an effect on safety was never explained.
We didn’t see the MSA presentation, so we can’t compare it, but from the looks of this, WAAA is completely flailing.
Yeah, I’d definitely agree they don’t really have a sound, coherent argument. I even talked to the WAAA representative in the elevator on the way out, and he reiterated his nonsense arguments about the ordinance hurting students and helping out landlords. I recommend checking out the Daily’s article on the event (here) for an account of what happened. It got pretty spirited out there.
posted by Mike Forster on January 31st, 2006 at 11:03 amI edited your comment to get the URL to stop going off the end of the page. It’s an interesting article that everyone should read.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 31st, 2006 at 11:15 amThroughout the meeting landlords were approaching the podium to talk about “safety concerns.” They argued that the closed window to sign and view apartments would encourage students to try to look at apartments just by approaching doors without an appointment or landlord. Students reiterated that this practice is common right now, so the proposed ordinance wouldn’t be that much different.
My favorite part was the end of the meeting. The room exploded when Shari Pomerantz from Students for PRIGM provided the commission members with three websites in which landlords actually suggest that students try to tour apartments without an appointment. I have them posted on my blog (here), but you should check out the websites for Oppenheimer, Campus Rentals and Campus Management and see it for yourself!
posted by Rese Fox on January 31st, 2006 at 11:58 amI remember when I was apartment hopping, one web site (probably one of the ones you mention above) said something like viewing apartments without an appointment was an Ann Arbor tradition. Also, if there are safety concerns without lease pressure, and they don’t apply the same lease pressure to non-students, does that mean that I, a non-student, am in grave danger if my landlord doesn’t harrass me about renewing my lease two months after I sign it? (For the record, though, I will say I have an awesome landlord — my landlord experience in Ann Arbor thus far has been quite fortunate, though I recognize there are some dirtbags out there).
posted by Dave on January 31st, 2006 at 2:09 pmI suspect the staffing impact for big landlords of a short renewal window would be that they would need to hire more people for shorter periods of time, as there would be more work to do at once and more downtime with nothing to be done.
posted by scg on January 31st, 2006 at 6:22 pmYeah, especially since such landlords rarely provide maintenance during the rest of the rental window.
posted by Anna on February 1st, 2006 at 11:00 amAll the attention on this proposed ordinance is focused on the wrong issues. All I have read about (online and in the papers) is why each side likes or dislikes the ordinance and the predictions they have of what will happen if it is passed. Am I the only one that sees the dangerous precedent that will be set if this ordinance passes allowing government to put restrictions on when and how a business can sell their product? Just forget the issue for a moment and look at what really is taking place here. A consumer group with special interest in a particular market approached government and complained that they dont have enough time to shop for the product they want to buy. Government answers the complaint by restricting the sales periods of that specific product. If this passes everyone will lose a little freedom. Government is not only restricting the selling of a product, they are also restricting when a consumer can purchase a product. It takes little imigination to realize that there is a very small step from this point to more freedoms being lost for alot more people than the small groups involved in this issue. I am against this because it takes away some of the very freedoms I served in the military to protect…. regardless of how great or bad the outcome is if the ordinance is passed.
posted by CSK on March 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 amThe landlords have attempted to make this argument. But it hasn’t been a very compelling one since we’ve always allowed all kinds of restrictions on “when and how a business can sell their product.” For example, bars can’t stay open past a certain hour.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on March 3rd, 2006 at 1:57 pmI can’t think of any example other than bars that are restricted as to when they can sell their product, and the bar example is not even close to the same thing. The BIG difference is that the bar consumers did not go to the city and ask for the restrictions. Those restrictions were imposed by the state for the wellfare of ALL residents and are accepted on a national level. ( i think it might have even been voted on, but Im not sure) Regardless, The 2 cases are totally different. As I said before, If this passes it will set a very dangerous precedent. For example: If this passes, How does the city say no to a group of landlords that complains to the city that they dont have enough time to shop for roofing proposals in the spring. That all of the Ann Arbor roofing companies are signing contracts to early and they want restrictions put in place to limit how early the Roofers can sign contracts so the landlords can have time to shop around. This example is a much better analogy than the bars, darn near identical. What if next year the students go back and want the ity to make the lease signing date April 1st? Once restrictions are in place its easy to move them around. Regardless of the group or issues, it boils down to a loss of a freedom for buisness and the consumer. Landlords will lose the freedom to sell and the Students will lose the freedom to buy. One would think the students would not be so willing to give that freedom away. We all may be ok with the result of this ordinance if it passes, but will we be ok with the doors it closes in the future? Freedoms that are takin away are not easy to recover. We all should Beware.
posted by csk on March 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThe bar example is just the first thing that came to mind. There are plenty of other ways that businesses can’t sell what they want, when they want, and often these restrictions are there to protect the consumer. A business can’t create a monopoly, engage in price-fixing or do a number of other things that result in an artificial market. Food companies have to provide a list of ingredients and a nutritional analysis.
The roofing thing doesn’t work for a number of reasons; for one, a landlord can go an extra year without a new roof more easily than a student can be homeless for a year. Also, the number of clients that a roofing company can take on is flexible, whereas the number of people who can rent a certain apartment is not.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on March 5th, 2006 at 1:45 pmI hear you on the consumer freedom, CSK. I don’t know when they took away my freedom to dispense gasoline into a container which was neither red nor opaque, but that is one I hope to recover. Oh, and you’d be right in assuming that I’ll be walking into the station to pay without wearing any shirt and/or shoes.
posted by FAA on March 5th, 2006 at 2:04 pmYes, opposing this ordinance is the next front in the war on terra. Students hate freedom, don’t they. Those would give up freedom for a security deposit deserve neither freedom nor a security deposit!
posted by Dale on March 5th, 2006 at 3:34 pmi didn’t realize students were going homeless because landlords were showing apartments so early.
i wondered what i was tripping over on the diag, it was all those homeless students!
if only for civic beautification, i agree that we must stop the criminal bastard landlords from this wanton LITTERING.
posted by peter honeyman on March 5th, 2006 at 4:12 pmVery interesting replies!
posted by csk on March 5th, 2006 at 7:12 pmI will respond only to the post from “Ann Arbor is Overrated”
Thank you for your serious response to my post. Regardless of ones position on opinions it is a good thing to consider all sides of an issue with an open mind.
You have posted that there are many examples of government telling business where and when they can sell but I still cannot think of any others and you have not given specific examples. Particularly the “when” part.
I did not realize that the city of Ann Arbor had laws about Monopolies, price fixing or creating artificial markets. Could you tell me where I can find the laws? I dont think that those items have anything to do with the issues at hand here as they are not a result of the consumers going to the city. I am curious though.
As for the roofing example….its dead on.
For one, if a roofing system fails on an apartment complex over the winter, alot more than one resident will be homeless. Besides this is not an issue of people going homeless. There are campus apartments that are vacant. The number of people that can rent an apartment IS flexible. Ive heard of 2 bedroom apartments that have one to five people living in them.
But the main reason it is dead on example is that it is defines exactly what has happened here. The consumer going to the government and the government responding by restricting when the businesses can sell. I would be very interested if anyone could come up with an example of this happening before in ann arbor.
Forget the issues for a moment. Forget weather you believe its great or its awfull and look at what is happening here. Are you all really ok with it…really?
Dale and FAA: Im not sure where you got the idea that I was personally attacking you. It was not my intent. My apologies. After you calm down it would be great if you wanted to ad something helpfull to the discussion.
This whole discussion reminds me of an episode of This American Life (thislife.org) called “The Facts Don’t Matter.” The theme is that people can frequently agree on the facts, but that’s not the point. Here, CSK says that the point is that the important thing is the freedom to sell things without governmental control. AAIO et al says that the point is that the landlords are going beyond freedom and taking advantage of students because, well, they can.
I kind of think that yes, freedom’s great and all, but in the immortal words of Ben Parker, “With great freedom, comes great responsibility.” There ARE many restrictions on business; sometimes it’s for the greater good (whatever that means), and sometimes it’s because a politician’s on the take. In this case, I think there’s a very good argument that the restriction would be for the greater good (moreso than bars closing at 2 am). Landlords are taking clear advantage of students here, and this would at least somewhat reduce the discriminatory policy of landlords towards students.
Regarding the “ann arbor tradition”, does anyone else find that creepy? I would never in a million years let some stranger into my home. But maybe that’s the cityfolk in me. Plus, (imho) it’s a surefire sign of a lousy landlord if they can’t be bothered to get off their ass to show the apartment and answer any questions about the property.
posted by Pants Rule on March 5th, 2006 at 9:07 pmNo hostility taken or meant, CSK… I just thought a little humor was in order to balance the tone of your ominous post of government and freedom loss. Consumers petitioning authorities for regulation is commonplace, so I guess I was surprised to see you surprised about it. I don’t know about Ann Arbor specifically, but many cities have “no strip club” and “no porno store” laws brought about by citizen action. There’s also “no noisy entertainment venue” ordinances, “no adding a second story to your home since it’s in the historic district” rules, and so on and so on.
Seriously, though, what branch of the military did you serve in to protect the freedom of landlords to pressure teenagers into resigning a lease within a matter of days of signing their original lease? That sounds like Navy to me, for some reason…
posted by FAA on March 5th, 2006 at 10:01 pmEveryone keeps throwing out this example of bars being regulated as a justification for this ordinance. It is not the same. Not even close. Bars close at 2 in part because if they stayed open till 4 lots more people would die. How you can compare or say this ordinance is just as important or “moreso” is incredulous. Try making your argument on that one with someone who has lost a loved on to a drunk driver.
posted by csk on March 5th, 2006 at 10:08 pm“Pants Rule” I don’t agree with your mindset that the ends justifies the means. Students are not in any imminent danger here. No ones well being is in danger and no one is going without housing.
Government should not be restricting when any private business can sell its products based on complaints from the consumer, period.
This ordinance is about giving students more time to shop for apartments. It has nothing to do with landlords taking advantage of students.
To be honest I can’t believe no one else sees this. I am actually quite surprised. The only thing I can figure is that these posts are from students that don’t care what future impacts in other areas this will have on Ann Arbor because they will be graduated and gone.
Again, strip this down to the basics. A consumer group complained to government that they did not have enough time to shop and government wants to put restrictions on the businesses to give them more time.
I can’t believe the city really even considered it.
It blows me away…
“Bars close at 2 in part because if they stayed open till 4 lots more people would die.”
Huh? Where do you get THAT?
The 2am rule is a Michigan thing. I suppose other states and localities without such a rule are piled much higher with the corpses of people who risked it all to hang out a couple hours later?
posted by Dave on March 5th, 2006 at 11:24 pmI believe London’s closing time was much earlier, 11:30 or something, and they wanted to change it because people were drinking like maniacs right before closing and driving home.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on March 5th, 2006 at 11:49 pmbars are fiercely regulated because they are the legal purveyors of a tightly controlled mind-altering drug.
remember?
posted by peter honeyman on March 5th, 2006 at 11:57 pm“bars are fiercely regulated because they are the legal purveyors of a tightly controlled mind-altering drug.
remember?”
No… I must have blacked out from drinking like a maniac right before closing time.
posted by Dave on March 6th, 2006 at 12:37 amcsk: “You have posted that there are many examples of government telling business where and when they can sell but I still cannot think of any others and you have not given specific examples. Particularly the “when†part.”
Well, csk, you chastised the other posters for being “students” who leave town, but I have to say that you seem to be operating is some sort of fantasyland. The government regulates ALL consumer products whether it’s rental space or a head of lettuce. Not only do they dictate when a product can be sold, but they also have laws about the where, how, and who.
Need examples? No sweat. I hold over 100 licenses/permits from various government organizations.
Here’s just a few where’s: I can’t open shop within 100 yards of a school or a church. I can’t operate in a building that hasn’t been approved by not only the city of Ann Arbor and the State of Michigan, but also the BATF. If they don’t like my site, I can’t get the licenses. Another fun ‘where’ is that I cannot legally sell anything other than brandy, wine, or beer at my bar. No whiskey. No tequila. It is also illegal for me to directly ship either beer or spirits directly to a grocery or liquor store. Is that enough where’s, or do you need more?
Here’s a few when’s: I can’t sell spirits or beer between the hours of 7am and 2 am. I cannot sell a thing on X-mas Day, and I have to be closed by 10pm on X-mas eve.
A few sundry how’s, who’s, and why’s: I had to undergo a complete FBI background check, a State PD check, a AA city PD check, complete approval of recipes of over 60 spirits and liqueurs from the BATF, licenses for dancing as well as live music, boiler operation, our outdoor patio, our jukebox (including when we play it, and what cd’s we have), etc. etc., etc. We actually had to stop having live music because of the ‘when’ of it being too late for loud noises.
I could go on and on and on, but if you think that the government doesn’t legislate the where’s and when’s of business, you’re delusional.
posted by todd on March 6th, 2006 at 1:14 amAll these posts, and all this wit……and still the only “when” examples anyone can come up with are bars and Christmas.
posted by csk on March 6th, 2006 at 7:09 amPeople, we all now you can be sarcastic and funny but try to stay on point here. I would gladly conceed if anyone can come up with one example (other than booze) of a special interest consumer group going to the city and having government restrict the time the business can sell its product. Fact is no one can cause its never happened.
Todd, Thanks for the post. At least you attempted to outline some examples, minus any the “whens”except bars.
Well, Thanks for the feedback all! I have posted everything I can say on this issue. I Hope I at least gave you all something to think about.
take care,
So alcohol is in an appropriate special category but shelter is not?
“consumer product.” ha.
posted by Dale on March 6th, 2006 at 8:13 amAh, I see, instead of examples, you meant that I had to give exAMples. Sometimes I stress the wrong syllable.
OK.
Does the usda or the FDA regulate when a piece of unfrozen chicken needs to be sold by? Or a quart of milk? Or how about all the ‘whens’ we deal with with the Health Department? Do we have to move food by a certain date, and do we have to keep the food in a certified container/refrigerator (another ‘where’)?
Or how about local examples. Do you know that if a downtown restaurant/bar wanted to open up their patio today, they couldn’t? There’s a time restriction on that. Or how about the Farmer’s market? Can a vendor just set up whenever they feel like it? And what about the size/placement/color of my store sign? What about that little ‘where’. Ask Big Ten/Morgan & York about that little doozy.
And you skipped over my noise ordinance example. If I wanted to have a live concert in the parking lot that I paid taxes on, I would have to wrap it up by 10.00pm…..doesn’t that qualify for you? And to be more specific about it, I cannot operate my boiler at anytime later than 7pm. And how about parking limitations around downtown? There sure seem to be a lot of whens there. Or does that not count as a when/how much because it doesn’t effect YOUR business?
I could bore you to tears with all the when’s and where’s I deal with everyday……and every single one of them has a material impact on my bottom line. So, in short, AAIO’s thread heading of “WAAAAA!” is appropriate.
posted by todd on March 6th, 2006 at 9:03 am“I would gladly conceed if anyone can come up with one example (other than booze) of a special interest consumer group going to the city and having government restrict the time the business can sell its product. Fact is no one can cause its never happened”……….
…(and the reason is consumers want more time to shop)
Lots of examples Todd but you still have not answered the question……keep trying!
posted by csk on March 6th, 2006 at 9:22 amPretty easy, csk. When can you buy food, alcohol, hammers, or spark plugs in the residential OWS? Never. Zoning precludes it — no commerce here, ever, no matter how much the locals want it.*
*with the exception of non-conforming examples like Washtenaw Dairy and the Jefferson Market (which, as we have noted elsewhere, were grandfathered in and would not be able to be replaced in the very same spot if they closed.)
posted by Dale on March 6th, 2006 at 9:29 amWhat? So the FDA and the USDA weren’t started because of consumer outrage?
Noise ordinances were installed by the Pope, rather than neighborhood groups? They sure as heck restict when I can sell a product.
Or the new residential parking permit plan? That’s a pretty big ‘when’ as well as ‘where’ installed by special interest groups, isn’t it?
The outdoor seating dates of operation in Ann Arbor came about because of noise complaints. Doesn’t that count?
Or the boiler regulations? Or the entire EPA, for crying out loud? Or how about Anti-trust laws? Or Trade embargos? Aren’t you being a little obtuse here? All of these laws were brought about by consumer/citizen/special interest groups.
Your initial question was about government regulation in general, csk, not just the city of Ann Arbor. Don’t try and change gears just because I poked 1,000 holes in your argument……feel free to scroll up and reread your post if you’ve forgotten what you wrote.
posted by todd on March 6th, 2006 at 9:46 amTodd, does Zingerman’s have some kind of exception on the outdoor seating rule? Or are the rules different because it is a heated tent? (Just curious).
posted by OFWinsurgent on March 6th, 2006 at 10:58 amTodd, this is a cut and paste of my first post: Maybe you should read them again…..
“Just forget the issue for a moment and look at what really is taking place here. A consumer group with special interest in a particular market approached government and complained that they dont have enough time to shop for the product they want to buy. Government answers the complaint by restricting the sales periods of that specific product.”
I am looking for responses to what I have posted…
The rest of the examples relate to ALL residents not just one group of consumers. If you want to impress anyone, quit with all the put downs already and just answer the question posed.
Keep shooting Tex! I am eager to see if you can give me an example.
regards,
posted by csk on March 6th, 2006 at 11:11 amYour obtuse, delusional friend that resides in fantasyland
We haven’t even gotten to the most onerous restriction on landlords: zoning laws. If I have a six-bedroom house, I can’t just rent it out to five of my friends if it’s not zoned that way. I can’t even let them move in for free. I can’t rent out the room above the garage. If I owned a house that was suitable for renting, I’d be a lot more annoyed about being entirely prohibited from renting it than I would about having to wait a couple months.
And what about restrictions on homeowners? They often can’t make modifications to their houses, put up certain kinds of fences, park on their own lawns, maintain their yard in a way that isn’t acceptable to the local government…it goes on and on.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on March 6th, 2006 at 11:14 am“You have posted that there are many examples of government telling business where and when they can sell but I still cannot think of any others and you have not given specific examples. Particularly the “when†part.”
First off, here’s the cut and paste from your post. Satisfied? Probably not.
Secondly, I gave you several examples of local when’s and where’s, but, like another poster on this site, when confronted with real examples, you ignore them.
But since you want to keep it local, the health dept. is local, as is the ordinance on outdoor seating downtown, as is the noise ordinance, as is the residential parking permit, as are the zoning ordinances, as are the restrictions on building height…..
If you can’t admit that these are local examples of government interference in the “free” Ann Arbor market, well, post away….I have nothing more to add.
OFWInsurgent…the ordinance only applies to sidewalk seating.
posted by todd on March 6th, 2006 at 11:25 amI guess I am Obtuse because I cannot see how any of your examples in any way relate to a consumer group going to the city and demanding that the city place restrictions on the buisnesses they buy from, so that they have more time to shop.
Of course I will admit that government agencies have restrictions on all kinds of things. However, this is issue isnt about a statewide or national law that is for the benifit of everyone, it is about one group having more time to shop.
If you cant see the difference then I have nothing more to add as well.
Before I go I should point out that I have intentionally tried to stay away from weather or not I would agree with the end results of this ordinance. I truly feel this is a dangerous line to walk. As I said before, Both sides lose a little freedom today. What freedoms will we, or others lose tomorrow?
posted by csk on March 6th, 2006 at 11:53 amThanks again for the feedback everyone. It made me think, hope you all did to!
I think we should admit also there is a fundamental difference between “shopping” for a “product” in a store and one’s living accommodations. As a libertarianish sort, I appreciate csk’s cautions and probably wouldn’t support this ordinance, but I think it’s not right to equate housing with, say, grocery items. Apples and oranges, if you will. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
posted by Dave on March 6th, 2006 at 12:48 pmI agree that apples and oranges and housing are not the same. (nice pun by the way) But the act of limiting when they can be sold is exactly the same.
posted by CSK on March 6th, 2006 at 1:54 pmThere is no shortage of housing in ann arbor. Check the daily or the aa2 news and you will find that there is tons of housing still available for Sept. It seems to me when I look for an apartment in Ann Arbor I don’t want the city dictating when I can or cant sign a lease.
At the risk of losing my neutral status on this…..I am curious….Doesnt it bother anyone else that we will be restricted by the city from signing leases during a set time period? even if we want or need to?
So, my question is this: There are two groups of people with various “rights” being violated.
1. Students are being forced to make a choice of where they should live for the next (nearly) two years. It’s not that they don’t have time to shop around; they’re unpacking their boxes when the landlord is banging on the door, waving a lease in their faces. When I was 20, there was no way I could make a reasonable decision about my living situation (especially with other roommates involved) in that amount of time.
2. Landlords won’t be able to sell their products when and how they want to. It hurts the free market and hurts our liberty when government restricts commerce. The students are being frivolous in asking for a specific window of time for rental renewals.
I’m missing something here maybe? It kind of stinks of extortion to me.
posted by Pants Rule on March 6th, 2006 at 5:17 pm