My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-11-20_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Housing Redevelopment Authority
>
Minutes
>
2012
>
2012-11-20_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2013 8:18:01 AM
Creation date
1/16/2013 8:17:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/20/2012
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes –Tuesday, November 20, 2012 <br />Page 9 <br />1 <br />Ms. Peilen thanked the HRA for this outreach to rental property owners, and advised that through the <br />2 <br />association’s work with a number of cities who didn’t attempt such communication efforts, she <br />3 <br />reiterated her appreciation for Roseville in doing so. <br />4 <br />5 <br />Mr. Brohman <br />6 <br />Mr. Brohman, if this is intended as an ongoing process, encouraged the HRA to have a roundtable <br />7 <br />discussion with members of the Multi-Family Housing Association and/or investment property owners <br />8 <br />in the community for brainstorming opportunities and to save time. As a non-Roseville resident, Mr. <br />9 <br />Brohman opined that the community had a number of good properties and owners in Roseville; and by <br />10 <br />doing preliminary research and communication efforts it may serve to smooth things out overall and <br />11 <br />moving forward. Mr. Brohman opined that a benefit to property owners directly related to local <br />12 <br />government would be to minimize their risks. Mr. Brohman opined that part of reducing that liability is <br />13 <br />through the City providing a good fire and police service, one of their core responsibilities, and <br />14 <br />allowing potential reductions in property and liability insurance by acknowledgement that they met City <br />15 <br />standards, allowing all to reap benefits of any potential fees, should the City decide to move forward <br />16 <br />with rental licensing. <br />17 <br />18 <br />Chair Maschka thanked everyone for their attendance, and expressed appreciation to those sharing their <br />19 <br />comments; and encouraged others to share their concerns and/or comments at any time. <br />20 <br />21 <br />12.Adjournment <br />22 <br />Themeeting was adjourned at approximately 7:00p.m. <br />23 <br />24 <br />Next Regular Meeting: January 15, 2012, City Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />To: Roseville Housing & Redevelopment Authority <br />30 <br />31 <br />Mr. Maschka, members of the Authority: <br />32 <br />33 <br />I have just received notice of a meeting to “discuss licensing multi-family rental properties.” After enduring a <br />34 <br />long season of political messages of how much and how often there is government intervention and restriction on <br />35 <br />all types of businesses in this free market system, and how such government actions add to business costs, <br />36 <br />restrain businesses from expanding and prevent the creation of new jobs in a market that has substantially slowed <br />37 <br />if not stopped, I am strenuously opposed to further intrusion of government in the free enterprise system. <br />38 <br />39 <br />I believe there is no need for licensing of multi-family properties for the purposes that are described on the <br />40 <br />mailer. If there are certain building and safety standards that apply to rental properties, such should be posted in <br />41 <br />each property and it then should be incumbent upon renters to see that they are met, and if not, to report such <br />42 <br />occurrence to the proper authorities for correction. Government should not unnecessarily intrude into private <br />43 <br />properties to become the all-encompassing big daddy or watchdog for every human being within its jurisdiction. <br />44 <br />That kind of action only induces the public to become ever more dependent upon the government and relieve <br />45 <br />them of all responsibility for their own personal lives. Such action also creates an ever-larger government and <br />46 <br />expense, which the taxpayers cannot further afford. As I am sure you are aware, such expenses can only be <br />47 <br />passed on to those who can least afford it, the renters of such properties. Rental properties try to provide <br />48 <br />affordable living accommodations within a very competitive market, and further expense damages that effort. <br />49 <br />50 <br />This argument alone should convince you that government should not inject more unnecessary rules, regulations <br />51 <br />and expenses on businesses and the public, which can little afford it. <br />52 <br />53 <br />If however, if it is determined that large multi-family properties are not conforming to existing building or safety <br />54 <br />standards, then those are the ones that should be inspected, but only upon notification and request by renters. If <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.