All Forum Posts by: John Clark

"Why, because I never want to see my neighbour move out and rent out his home and I have to put up with a revolving door of strangers like living next door to a brothel."

-----------------------------------

At least with a brothel you could sample the wares . . . :)

Your tenant damaged an essential component, rendering the entire unit useless. Explain to her that you can't find a repair that isn't the same price as a replacement. So buy a replacement (new), pro-rate the useful life of the old unit (as suggested above), and charge accordingly.

Rent control will be a disaster for Chicago. Given that there are more renters than landlords, however, it will pass. Jack your rents up now so you can have a cushion when it is imposed.

What I find most disheartening is the fact that rent control will prevent people trying to move into Chicago from finding desireable apartments. Why? Because current tenants won't move out. Rent control is great for people already in place. It is a nightmare for people trying to move in. Good-bye to any dynamism in Chicago's business and social scenes.

Rent control at its heart is an entitlement program; it presupposes that people have a right to live in a particular area. That's absurd. I would love to own a house in Chicago's Gold Coast, but I can't afford it. Prices there are too high. Do we impose price controls on houses so I can buy there? Why should apartments be any different? How does anyone have a "right" to live in particular neighborhood?

One of the slogans I hear bandied about is that "one shouldn't have to chose between rent and food." Trouble is, I don't see how it is the landlord's duty to pay someone's grocery bill, which is exactly what that statement means. I don't see anyone putting price controls on food either. I can only conclude that the people arguing for rent control are simply corporate shills willing to protect multi-billion dollar corporations like the Jewel grocery chain, while hammering much smaller landlords. Call that what it is: predatory behavior.

Gentrification IS disruptive, there's no doubt about it. That is not necessarily bad. The coercive power of the state should only be used in cases of active harm in my opinion, and not being able to live in a particular place is not an active harm.

There is another thread on BP Chicago on rent control already, by the way.

"

i notice three cases against him first one was in 2008 for carrying a firearm at the age of 18, second one was for a DWI in 2010, and third one was for a pending trial that is for DWI and carrying a firearm in 2017"

------------------------------------------

You left out crucial information: What were the dispositions of the first two cases? Anybody can be arrested, it's the convictions that matter.

Also, what are the details of the 2017 firearms charge. If the guy was duck hunting without a license or a properly permitted shotgun, I'd be inclined to go easy on him. If he was charged with packing a Saturday Night Special, not so much.

You have potential on-going substance abuse issues. You have potential on-going violence (firearms) issues. You probably have other tenants in the building. Factor in all the facts and decide from there.

I asked the Chicago building department if I could have tenants use space heaters to bring an apartment into heat ordinance compliance, and was told that I could not. If you have no radiators and can't use space heaters, you'll have to install radiators or figure out another radiant heating system -- I assume that you don't want to add duct work and reconfigure furnances/boilers.

If there are any landlord associations in the area, you might ask them about the law, and lawyer referrals, too.

Check with your lawyer. Federal, state, and local laws apply.

Discriminating on the basis of criminal records may be the basis for a race discrimination suit, because minorities have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites do. So convictions for the moral equivilent of jaywalking souldn't be used in most cases. Even more serious offenses have to be looked at on a case by case basis -- type of offense, etc. 

Does that mean that you should give him the information? Only if the law requires it. Just keep in mind that there is almost nothing that is a per se disqualifier, and if you are using criminal records as a per se disqualifier you may have a risk.

"Before we get pitchforks and lynch mobs, possibly there is a need to talk to the local police to find out about the situation. Maybe he committed the crime 20 years ago and is now reformed."

-------------------

You missed the words "repeat offender." If he offended 20 years ago and is still on the list, that tells me the crimeS were heinous. Check out landlord's liability and whether an undisclosed defect/risk in the purchase contract, or tenant estoppel letters, or whatever, let the buyer out. What part of c-o-n-s-u-l-t t-w-o l-a-w-y-e-r-s, one each in criminal/tort law and the other in property law, does anyone on this forum not understand?

Go to a lawyer and find out what a landlord's liability is to third parties should a known, repeat, sex offender tenant commit another offense on the landlord's property. That in turn may give you an out for the purchase of the property. (If, for example, it was peddled to you as having no restrictions on leasing, but now you can't rent to families with kids because they'd be too close to Chester the Molester). I dunno. Talk to the lawyers.

You bought a house that was in forclosure and the tenant was not named in the foreclosure proceedings? Is she mentioned in the judgment of foreclosure? In the confirmation of sale?