Landlords are part of the Meth Solution

Opposition to “super-reporting” requirements in Meth Bill

To: The Governor and the State Legislature.

I have followed with interest the developments at the legislature in regards to the attempts to crack down on the statewide meth epidemic. I have become growingly concerned, however, with what I consider a gross over-legislation in this area.

I am admittedly a landlord and an attorney who represents numerous landlords in Freeborn County and therefore do have a vested interest in this issue. Likewise, I also represent many families who have been devastated by the destructive power of meth. I understand why it is easy and/or popular to get tough on this issue.

My concerns, however, stem from the need to maintain and promote affordable housing in communities; as well as providing many small real estate owners the ability to preserve the substantial investment they have made in rental property. I believe that it is easy to villanize landlords and promote a “punishment” philosophy rather than a cooperative free market approach. As I testified to in front of the Freeborn County Commissioners when they considered a similar County Ordinance:

“This is a community problem that requires a community response. Landlords are the front line of this defense. They should not be treated as if they are part of the problem. As a landlord and as an attorney who represents landlords, I find many parts of the proposed ordinances unacceptable. From a community perspective, those interested in continued economic growth should also be concerned. We are on the verge of an expected growth spurt in workers and business in our community. To create a hostile environment for landlords all but guarantees a limit on affordable housing in our community. Availability of affordable housing is a necessary pre-requisite to adding employment to our community.

* * *

The landlords are not the criminals and cannot realistically be expected to financially guarantee a drug-free rental property. Tenants rightfully enjoy legal protections to use their property without constant monitoring and harassment of their landlords or others. Addressing this community problem should require a community response.”

What I consider the greatest example of this over-zealousness is in regards to the “super reporting” provisions that have been included in the current version of H.F. No. 572 and S.F. 0423 (the “Meth Bill”). The Meth Bill provides for multiple provisions that are intended to protect the innocent tenant or property purchaser:

1. First, the Meth Bill requires that any property found to be contaminated be prohibited from being occupied until a department of health guideline clean up has occurred.

2. Second, the Meth Bill mandates that each local community health services administrator shall maintain and make available to the public a listing of the status of any meth contaminated property.

3. Third, the Meth Bill requires that all sellers of real property disclose whether meth has or has not occurred on the property.

4. Finally, the Meth Bill further mandates that an affidavit be filed against the property at the county recorder’s office, designating the property as a “Meth Lab Property”.

The super-reporting provision that I strongly advocate against is the last item listed above: the ability to record a Meth Lab Property affidavit with the County Recorder’s Office. Quite frankly, given the other three protections that are included in this legislation, this provision to me is unnecessary and constitutes a “punishment” provision to property owners. The title to a property is not the proper place for this designation.

If the intent of the Meth Bill is to protect innocent tenants, then the “no-occupation” order will prevent anyone from living at the property. As for property purchasers, the local department of health records and the mandatory disclosure provisions will protect the innocent property purchaser.

I have discussed this issue with many individuals and no one has been able to articulate why this “super-reporting” provision is necessary. Instead, I understand the Meth Lab Property Affidavit as an “extra” protection for the innocent tenant or purchaser. Such super reporting is not necessary for fire damage, flooded basements, sewage back up, chemical spills or even mold infestation and is unnecessary in this case.

I would request that the super-reporting provisions of this bill be eliminated.

Alternatively, I would request legislation to create a centralized database with the Minnesota Department of Health that would allow for designation of the location of a meth lab and a record of whether the meth lab has been cleaned in compliance with MDH guidelines.

I am also advocating for the Meth Bill to allow for innocent property owners to utilize the low-interest loans for clean-up purposes. I request that innocent property owners, having no notice of the clandestine activities should be eligible to utilize this money for clean up.

Without dragging out this issue I would simply state that undoubtedly private property owners would be more efficient in accomplishing the clean-up efforts than a government entity that will simply pass on the clean-up costs as an assessment against the property.

I fear that overzealous legislation in this area threatens to cool the rental market and put an unnecessary cap on a community’s capacity to enjoy economic growth.



For a link to the status of HF 572: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF572&ssn=0&y=2005

For a link to the status of SF 0423: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0423&ssn=0&y=2005