Saint Paul City Flag
Sometime in the next few weeks Saint Paul City Council is going to be voting on a Tenant Protections Ordinance. It’s an important ordinance that will shield the majority of our city from the predations of a real estate industry and market that has a long, long record of racism and cruelty in pursuit of profit. What Ordinance 20-14 offers isn’t revolutionary, it’s not radical, it’s just common sense protections from the most common grifts that anyone who’s ever rented a home has run into.
The ordinance offers 5 key protections:
JUST CAUSE NOTICE
This rule limits the reasons why your landlord can ask you to move out of your home. Their reason for asking you to leave needs to match to a reason on a predetermined list of justified reasons for asking a person to move out of their home. No more arbitrary informal evictions.
SCREENING CRITERIA REFORM
This protection will limit on what grounds you can deny a tenant a rental. It is another attempt in a long history of attempts to limit the rampant discrimination present in the real estate industry. While I commend the Council’s attempt at this, I am pessimistic about this part of the ordinance’s ability to combat the systemic racism and classism present in our community.
SECURITY DEPOSIT CAP
A simple cap on Security Deposits at one month’s rent. In my own experience I’ve seen places ask for triple that amount causing me to pass by despite being able to afford the rent. I’ve seen more than one friend’s security deposit disappear into vague “cleaning & repair fees” despite helping them spit shine their old apartment before they move out. This cap works to foil abuses from both sides.
ADVANCE NOTICE OF SALE
Another protection that would have personally benefited me in the last 5 years. This protection requires landlords selling their property to loop in their tenants. Giving them ample time to figure out their situation before rent increases or evictions hit. Getting a call from your landlord where they tell you they’ve sold the house and you have 30 days to vacate has a similar emotional effect to being thrown off a ledge. Not in Saint Paul, not anymore.
POSTED TENANTS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
All these rights and protections available to renters will need to be displayed where they can be easily found.
These protections are an easy sell to someone like me. Landlords have a unique ability to casually inflict life altering events on folks through their carelessness or greed. No grocery clerk has ever bagged my Raisin Bran so poorly that I recall their failure a decade later. On the other hand, three out of five of my landlords have pulled a stunt that would have been thwarted by one of the above protections.
This ordinance has been in the works since the (Chris) Coleman Mayoral Administration. It’s hard to see the hardships in my life and those around me that would have been prevented had the process not taken so long. It burns me up. But we’re here now and I am grateful. Housing is a necessity in people’s lives and we’ve turned it into a casual investment. Time to add some gravity and responsibility to rebalance the scales.
The Tenant Protections offered in ordinance 20-14 are critical, quality of life improving measures that deserve your support. I encourage you to write to your council member if you live in Saint Paul; in fact, write ALL the council members. Odds are in a city of 300,000 people, where 51% are renters, these protections will likely act as a shield for you, or someone you love.
Long overdue changes. Hoping this sails through.
I guess I’d need to see what is on the predetermined list. Without that, it makes no sense.
Here;s a link to the ordinance: https://stpaul.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4386792&GUID=CAC11254-88C1-4CE0-BBF5-FE35D52366E8&Options=ID%7cText%7c&Search=tenant&FullText=1
May want to include one in the post.
Here is the “Just Cause” criteria, Ms. Larey:
Sec. 193.05. Just cause notice for tenants.
(a) Just cause notice. A landlord must may not issue a notice terminating tenancy unless the landlord is able to establish one or more of the following grounds:
(1) Non-payment of rent. The tenant fails to Cure the Deficiency after receiving a non-payment notice from the landlord, and the landlord does not pursue a valid non-payment eviction action under Minn. Stat. § 504B.291, subd. 1(a), but decides to terminate tenancy at the end of the lease.
(2) Repeated late payment of rent. The tenant repeatedly makes late payments of rent, no fewer than five times in a 12-month period. The landlord must provide the tenant with notice following a late payment that a subsequent late payment may be grounds for termination of tenancy. If the tenant continues to make a late payment on no fewer than five occasions per year, the landlord must give the tenant notice to vacate at least equal to the notice period outlined in the original lease agreement terms.
(3) Material non-compliance. After receiving a written notice to cease from the landlord, the tenant continues, or fails to Cure the Deficiency, to a material breach of the lease. This subsection shall not diminish the rights of a landlord, if any, to terminate a lease for actions permitted under Minn. Stat. § 504B.281, et seq.
(4) Refusal to renew. The tenant refuses to renew or extend the lease within fifteen to thirty days after the landlord requests in writing, after the lease expires, that the tenant do so. The landlord shall give the tenant notice to vacate at least equal to the notice period outlined in the original lease agreement terms following the tenant’s refusal to renew or extend the lease.
(5) Occupancy by property owner or family member. The property owner, in good faith, seeks to recover possession of the dwelling unit so that the property owner or a family member may occupy the unit as that person’s principal residence. The property owner or family member must move into the unit within 90 days from the tenant’s vacation. If a substantially equivalent replacement unit is vacant and available, that unit must be made available to the tenant at a substantially similar rental rate as the tenant’s current lease.
(6) Building demolishment and dwelling unit conversion. The landlord (i) elects to demolish the building, convert it to a cooperative provided the landlord complies with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 515B, or convert it to nonresidential use; provided that, the landlord must obtain a permit necessary to demolish or change the use before terminating any tenancy, or (ii) the landlord seeks, in good faith, to recover the unit to sell it in accordance with a condominium conversion, provided the landlord complies with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 515B, or (iii) the dwelling unit is being converted to a unit subsidized under a local, state or federal housing program and the tenant does not qualify to rent the unit under that program.
(7) Rehab and renovation. The landlord seeks, in good faith, to recover possession of the dwelling unit that will render the unit uninhabitable for the duration of the rehabilitation or renovation. The landlord must provide 90 days’ written notice to the tenant, and shall provide Relocation Assistance to the tenant upon delivery of the written notice. If a substantially equivalent replacement unit is vacant and available in the building, that unit may be made available to the tenant at a substantially similar rental rate as the tenant’s current lease.
(8) Complying with a government order to vacate. The landlord is complying with a government agency’s order to vacate, order to abate, or any other order that necessitates the vacating of the dwelling unit as a result of a violation of Saint Paul city codes or any other provision of law.
(9) Occupancy conditioned on employment. The tenant’s occupancy is conditioned upon employment on the property and the employment relationship is terminated.
(10) Exceeding occupancy. Tenant exceeds the occupancy standards under City of Saint Paul Code 34.13, except for that no tenant may be evicted, denied a continuing tenancy, or denied a renewal of a lease on the basis of familial status commenced during the tenancy unless one year has elapsed from the commencement of the familial status and the landlord has given the tenant six months prior notice in writing, except in case of nonpayment of rent, damage to the premises, disturbance of other tenants, or other breach of the lease. Any provision, whether oral or written, of any lease or other agreement, whereby any provision of this section is waived by a tenant, is contrary to public policy and void.
Is it common for landlords to kick out tenants who pay on time and comply with the lease? If so, why?
What situation is this provision designed to prevent?
Just had some friends get kicked out because the landlords got divorced and the guy needed a place to stay.
Thanks for the response, but per section 5 of the proposed ordinance, a landlord would still be allowed to evict a tenant and move himself in.
It seems like that part of the ordinance addresses a problem that is rare or non-existent.
Was there a lease? What was the end date of the lease? Was proper notice to vacate given?
Tom ,
I am sure you have good intentions but you are completely out of touch with reality regarding landlords! I could tell you a million real life stories how renter’s lack of respect for my properties and my own life has been disrupted in a major way !! You are not forced to sign a rental agreement! If I own a property I should be held to the rental agreement and nothing more! Go buy your own property if you want more control then your rental agreement gives you! Nobody gave me anything! ! I bought my first 4 unit rental property when I was 19 yrs old and sacrificed a lot and worked a lot to get what I got!! You will be driving more landlords out of the rental business by making it more undesirable and thus creating less rentals. Rents will go up!! Your entitlement attitude is exactly what is wrong !! If you don’t like abiding by a rental agreement then go buy your own home! !
You bought your first four unit rental complex at age 19.
You chose a profession young and have stuck to it. You can change jobs if you want.
Be free!
I don’t understand point 4 in the non renewal segment. If a owner and a renter have a 1 year lease with a 60 day notice before the end of a lease, If at 75 days out the renter is offered a new lease but does not sign, does the owner have to wait until the full 60 days are up to serve a non renew or does it happen 60 days before the lease end since that is the period needed to give the 60 day notice of non renewal?
Alternatively, does this mean the owner have to wait until the lease ends to serve the 60 days notice? If the second, how does anyone plan for a transition of tenants? I find this wording confusing. If it’s confusing to me as someone who provides housing for people, how will a renter who is not used to this language understand it?
In Seattle, a similar ordinance caused rents to go up and local family property owners to sell to large companies. This proposal will reduce affordable housing and cause homeowners property taxes to increase.
https://www.rhawa.org/blog/uw-rental-housing-study-supports-what-landlords-have-been-telling-city-officials-for-years
The proposed ordinance was not well thought out, and no stakeholders were involved in crafting it. It is another example of the lack of transparency in Saint Paul’s City government.
Yes, “Tenant Protections” are well worth exploring — but not in this citywide, one-sided, unbalanced, rushed and mandated rollout. This is a link to one of many letters written in opposition to proposed ORDINANCE 20-14:
http://responsiblehousing.mn/documents/ORD-20-14_Opposed_RealEstateEquities_2020-03-04.pdf
Saint Paul does not need a partisan sequel to its local Trash Fiasco.
Unfortunately, Chad’s comments are accurate.
In Seattle the rents were going up and the small landlords were already selling out, just because it kept happening. Correlation is not Causation. Also your link is to a landlord lobbying organization that immediately cops to eagerly offering it’s members as a data set so the whole thing reeks of bias right from the get go.
As for this process not involving stakeholders, well I don’t know where you’ve been for all the much ado and 1000 meetings but just because you did not get what you want does not mean that folks weren’t involved. It shouldn’t take 3 years for common sense protections to come up for a vote.
The research was done by the University of Washington
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/UWSRHSFINAL.pdf
In the state of MN when any property is sold the new owner must honor all existing leases associated with that property. This is spelled out in the MN Attorney General’s landlord/tenant handbook.
“Getting a call from your landlord where they tell you they’ve sold the house and you have 30 days to vacate has a similar emotional effect to being thrown off a ledge.”
A month-to-month lease goes both ways. Either side can give 30 days notice to quit. If you were on a month-to-month lease then the 30 day notice is valid and it doesn’t matter if it was the new owner or previous owner who kicked you out. If you had a lease with an end date more than 30 days away then you were already entitled by law to stay in your home until the end of the lease. The only way this wouldn’t apply is if it is explicitly spelled out in the lease. This ordinance won’t change that.
Also the Advance Notice of Sale portion of the ordinance would only apply to property that is classified as affordable and has 3 or more units. It wouldn’t have any impact on the sale of a single family house, duplex, or market rate building.
DOUBLE (or sometimes larger) SECURITY DEPOSITS are a way for landlords (aka “investors”) to mitigate financial risks while providing housing to people who would otherwise be denied because of negative or insufficient financial and other background information. There seem to be governmental DOUBLE STANDARDS at play in Saint Paul.
A] Some mortgage borrowers fail to make monthly payments as promised.
● "Debt Service Reserves" (DSRs) are required by lenders and paid by borrowersto mitigate financial risk. As protection for cash flow, these cash DSR dollars are
comparable to "Security Deposits" and "Prepaid Rent" paid by apartment
tenants to landlords.
● FEDERALLY -- HUD protects investors via large DSRs in case borrowers fail
to make their promised loan payments. Faced with COVID-19's likely assault
on housing projects' cash flow, HUD recently increased DSR requirements by
up to NINE MONTHS of debt service.
● LOCALLY -- the City of Saint Paul's HRA protects investors via large DSRs.
In one bonding example, HRA's cash DSRs equal more than FOURTEEN
MONTHS of debt service.
B] Some renters fail to pay monthly rent or other charges as promised.
● LOCALLY -- proposed ORDINANCE 20-14 aims to restrict landlords (aka"investors") ability to mitigate financial risk by capping Security Deposits and
Prepaid Rent at a maximum of ONE MONTH of rent.
● To put apartment owners/investors on an equal footing with HUD's and
HRA's mortgage investors, landlords' deposits could be capped at nine to
twelve months of rent.
C] Before taking a risk by lending money, HUD and HRA demand many months
worth of DSR (reserves) to protect themselves and their investors. Meanwhile,
the City of Saint Paul aims to unreasonably restrict private owners’/investors’
ability to mitigate very real risk.
DOUBLE STANDARD is a code or policy that favors one group or person over another.
What about those folks who have an eviction on the reecord? No criminal record. In order to clear the eviction you’ve got to go to hurdles of paperwork and see a judge before its expunged.
Here’s the problem with high security deposits: I don’t think someone who is trying to find a studio or 1br apt for less than 1100 is going to have an extra 3000 on hand for a 3x deposit.
Background checks: fine great whatever i get it, but why do you need a credit check on top of rental history? Only one is pertinent to your business. They are not applying for a loan, they are looking for a place to live. Having bad credit does not mean that you are a bad person. Plus, if you have a bad credit score, but a pristine rental history, credit has no bearing.
It’s a fair point if you think it shouldn’t be allowed, but presumably it’s done because despite the direct irrelevance, landlords think there’s a correlation between tenants that cause problems and tenants with bad credit scores. Similarly your car insurance rates are higher with bad credit because although not directly relevant the insurance companies think there’s a correlation between people that crash their cars a lot and people with bad credit scores.
A credit report is more accurate than a rental history. Rental histories are not often completely filled out. A credit report shows if a person has made late payments. If a person makes late car or credit card payments they are more likely to also make late rent payments. Renting an apartment is like getting a car or home loan because just like those loans, you have to make your rental payment monthly.
Please don’t villianize landlords. Many of us are not the money-hungry, selfish group described in this article. Rarely do we want turn-over of tenants.
The risk is often 3 main things: 1) will the tenants be respectful of the property? 2) will the tenants be respectful of other residents? 3) will the tenants pay the rent they agreed to in a binding contract for the use of the home I am sharing with them for a set period of time?
If you have ever put in a floor, on your knees measuring each piece to fit, or replaced, mudded, and sanded a drywall ceiling after someone overflowed a tub, or gotten a call at 2:30 in the morning because a tenant is locked out…you would have another perspective on trying to protect what you have tried to make and share with the world.
Landlords are people. They are rarely out to get you or someone else.
We, tenants and landlords, both must be held accountable to hold up our end of the contractual agreement.
There are already many good protections in place for tenants. Landlords often have to wait many months before evicting someone, on their own cost (can be upwards of $10,000 loss) and then have to house a tenants leftover items for almost a month.
So, in fact, Landlords don’t have the same protections tenants have. That is why we must have opportunity to hold more in a deposit than one months rent…that doesn’t begin to cover damage that can be done by mistake or spite.
This article feels like an argument pointing at “have’s and have-nots”. It really isn’t that simple. Many landlords have worked several jobs to scrape together a down payment to try to have a rental property. They are fighting for financial freedom, just like many tenants. And they are scared that it can all be taken away by renting to someone who considers them the evil villain which you are perpetuating.
I knew two small time landlords that owned a couple of houses. One couple were relatives, and were doing it to supplement their income in pre-gentifried northeast Minneapolis. They decided it wasn’t worth the effort and then decided they had had enough of landlording and enough of city life and sold out and now commute to the city from their hobby farm near North Branch.
The other couple the husband works a regular job in my department. He doesn’t make any money doing it; the rent is more than mortgages but not more than mortgages plus repairs due to routing maintenance or the occasional tenants trashing the place in excess of their damage deposits but it’s kind of a high maintenance, high return retirement investment. In exchange for all their work now they’ll be able to retire to Hawaii and I won’t because I have other ways I’d rather spend my time now than landlording.
It does not take many months to evict someone in Minnesota. If a person is late by 7 days an eviction can be filed. You can literally be thrown out for one week late rent and one can be filed at 7 days even if it’s a partial payment due. . I know of someone who had an eviction filed when they owed 200 of 1700 rent 10 days late even when they promised the landlord they would pay the balance within 48 hours. They have yet to get the landlord to agree to it being expunged and are currently finding it impossible to find a place when their lease ends in a month. A landlord should not be able to destroy a person’s credit and rental history at the same time. There is literally no waiting period to be able to file an eviction.
From what you are saying, it seems that there is a waiting period, and it is 7 days.
What is the right amount of time to allow someone to occupy someone else’s property without paying before we allow a landlord to start the long and expensive process of removing them?
Evictions and non-paying tenants are huge expenses for landlords. And those expenses must ultimately be paid by other tenant’s rent. Every expense that we give landlords makes housing just a little bit less affordable. We need to balance the the needs of a non-paying tenants against the needs of the rent-paying tenants. We are all in this together.
Should still be able to run background checks criminally.
“TENANT PROTECTIONS” WILL PROTECT (suspected) CRIMINALS.
BACKGROUND – (This is a very real and current issue at a building I own.) During March, April and May, 2020, renters in my tri-plex have complained many times about tenants in the 4-unit building next door (owned by a different landlord who seems not to screen his tenants). Three to five days per week – at random daytimes, evenings and late nights – non-stop streams of “5-minute visitors” come and go. Their cars repeatedly block the street, the alley, and our renters’ off-street parking spaces. If our renters dare to ask someone to, “Please move your car so I can park my car,” the responses are rude and intimidating. Our renters have been awakened by loud voices and unwanted doorbell ringing in the middle of the night. The police have been called numerous times. And the disturbances go on, and on, and on, week after week. Neighbors in nearby houses agree that the situation is aggravating, but most refuse to get actively involved – for fear of retaliation. One of our renters gave notice to move at the end of May because of the non-stop hassles.
There is little doubt that tenants in the 4-plex are actively dealing drugs and that it is not safe for neighbors to confront the non-stop customers. Off the record, police agree. On the record, however, police officers and their reports give various responses that include: “Ongoing investigation” (cannot comment); “Gone on arrival” (having arrived 45-minutes after being called); “DOBS” (disorderly boys); etc.
SOLUTION TODAY – The 4-plex landlord can simply terminate his problem tenant’s lease with (for example) a 1-month notice; No reason required; No expensive and time-consuming courtroom drama.
SOLUTION NEXT YEAR – After “Tenant Protections” with “Just Cause” notice requirements go into effect, the 4-plex landlord must PROVE in COURT that his tenants violated terms of their lease.
WHAT PROOF: (A) Police report? Convictions? — Sorry, ongoing investigations are not sufficient proof. (B) Witnesses? Convince reluctant and intimidated neighbors to show up in court, ask them to describe problems and identify perpetrators. The witnesses watched visitors not tenants, they don’t know who was being visited, and they did not see transactions that might have occurred inside the 4-unit building. — Sorry, speculation and hearsay are not sufficient proof. (C) Letters from people not present in court? — Sorry, that’s not admissible evidence.
BOTTOM LINE: The disruptive and potentially dangerous tenants who live next door will be a protected class until police build an airtight case and the (alleged) drug dealers are tried and convicted. Meanwhile, my renters and the other neighbors feel like they live in a combat zone. “Just cause Tenant Protections” will make that their long-term problem — and they’re free to move.
Heaven forbid you have to prove there has been a lease violation before you evict someone. Not having this pretty basic due process protection seems to be a license for landlords to discriminate.
You have to prove that they are dealing drugs, it’s impossible to do. You have no experience in this matter to make a commient about proving lease violations. You are welcome to buy a property and rent to meth heads and see how it goes for you and how easy it is to get rid of them.
Exactly, it can take years to bring a drug house down. Cops can not just bust down a door because they suspect dealing.
My landlord should have the right to do criminal/background checks. As a single mom I care about my and my children’s safety. I care about who lives next door to me, I care about who parks next to my car, I care about maintaining a safe neighborhood for my family. By not allowing background checks a pedophile/rapist/killer/thief/drug dealer could be living next door to me. Did any of you council members take this into consideration before putting this ordinance together. This makes no sense to me. Council members, all of you are putting me and my family in danger. You all need to really think this over.
The City Council did think about that. Landlords can still do criminal background checks; the ordinance simply prohibits certain types of crimes from being considered at all, and others to not be able to be considered after a number of years.
Here’s the relevant part of the proposed ordinace:
“A landlord must apply uniform screening criteria and cannot disqualify an applicant for any of the following reasons:
(1) Criminal history.
a. Any arrest or charge that did not result in conviction of a crime;
b. Participation in or completion of a diversion or a deferral of judgment program, including but not limited to: pre-charge or pretrial diversion, stay of adjudication, continuance for dismissal, or a continuance without prosecution;
c. Any conviction that has been vacated or expunged;
d. Any conviction for a crime that is no longer illegal in the state of Minnesota;
e. Any conviction or any other determination or adjudication in the juvenile justice system, except under procedures pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260B.130.
f. A petty misdemeanor offense is not a criminal offense. For the purposes of this Chapter, a petty misdemeanor cannot be grounds for a denial;
g. Any misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor or felony conviction stemming from the following traffic offenses: reckless driving, driving without a license, driving with a suspended or revoked license, and DUI that did not result in additional charges for injury to a person;
h. Any conviction for misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offenses for which the dates of sentencing are older than three (3) years;
i. Except as indicated in paragraph (j) below, any criminal conviction for felony offenses for which the dates of sentencing are older than seven (7) years; however, a landlord may deny an applicant who has been convicted of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), or for those same offenses that mandate denial of tenancy in federally assisted housing subject to federal regulations, including but not limited to when any member of the household is subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program.
j. Any criminal conviction for the following felony offenses for which the dates of sentencing are older than ten (10) years: first-degree assault (Minnesota Statutes section 609.221), first-degree arson (Minnesota Statutes section 609.561), or aggravated robbery (Minnesota Statutes section 609.245), first-degree murder (Minnesota Statutes section 609.185), second-degree murder (Minnesota Statutes section 609.19), third-degree murder (Minnesota Statutes 609.195), first-degree manslaughter (Minnesota Statutes 609.20, subds. 1, 2, and 5), kidnapping (Minnesota Statutes section 609.25, subd. 2(2)), or first-degree criminal sexual conduct (Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subds. 1(b) and (g)).”
Simply stated, any sex offender that would need to register for a lifetime can still be barred from renting an apartment. Most other serious crimes still allow for a landlord to deny rental for a significant period of time (3-10 years) after the person been convicted. If the person isn’t rehabilitated by then, that’s a mark against our criminal justice system. There’s also nothing stopping that person from buying a home (if they have the credit score/funds to do so) next door, or to sleep with family members for a certain amount of time if they’re the ones renting the unit.
Complete BS Tom. You have a friend that was kicked out because the landlord got a divorce and needed a place to live? It does not work like that sorry there are already laws against that. And there are already tenent rights for that. Tom or anyone whom villainizes landlords have you worked a 90 hour week back to back to save enough money to buy a property, then spend 4 years on your hands and knees putting in floors and living in Sheetrock dust and pissing in a bucket just so you can follow through on a dream that you can make an extra five hundred a month and break after four years? The answer is no. Because if the answer was yes, you would do anything to protect the diamond you made after four years of hell.
Here are some things to research and think about.
How much of a deposit will cover the legal fees for an eviction. Just like you have friends, or friends of friends, or a Facebook friend that told you a story about getting evicted, landlords have landlord friends that tell stories too. Here are some of them.
8000 in legal fees to evict tenets that didn’t pay for siix months. So an estimated 13400 in losses, whew! Imagine you only have one property and have to continue to pay the mortgage. Then they throw cement in the drain and you have to spend another 30k to get a new drain. Nice. Good to know you still have that 1000 deposit!!!
How about this. You know your tenets are selling and cooking meth. You see cars come and go all day long, and they burn plastic bottles every three days or so. Then there is a shooting there with a minor injury, but the victim won’t rat the known shooter. Cops drop the case, but the cops have known about the drug house for ten years but can not do anything because they are spread too thin. You can’t prove that they are cooking and if you could and the cops find a lab, they will bulldoze your house. Now you are out 200 thousand, plus 30 years interest. Any suggestions on what to do Tom? I would love a suggestion from an expert on policy like you. Do you think it would work to ask them nicely to stop?
So Tom, is it cool if a sex offender that raped a stranger moves in across the hall from you? Is your girlfriend cool with that too.
Can I borrow your car Tom? It’s cool you got insurance, I promise to return it full. So what if I got a DUI, that was four years ago. Your rich anyways probably not making payments on it. Everyone has a right to transportation. Are you discriminating me because I told you I maxed my credit card? My girlfriend has a job, she will put gas in it.
I am not even being crude Tom, this is exactly how some people operate. You may not know anyone that acts like people in these sceneries. But it is very very real. People will take advantage of people whom they believe are lucky or more fortunate, and most small landlords are not those people, but they are people who have worked really hard and should just as many rights and protections as there tenents they share their property with.