license your property for $25 a year, plus a $180 inspection once a year... So for an extra 205 dollars a YEAR, this guy is gonna raise his rent 200 a MONTH? Kinda sounds like Mr. Funk is one of those slumlords.. He is more worried about tenants not being able to afford his rent increases, than he is about the quality of the homes they live in.. OrHe is gonna sell half of his properties if the bylaw passes and he has to start looking after his properties... Like the story says if the landlord is responsible it won't cost that much to stay maintained...

You could pass on the extra cost.. 205 bucks across a year.. right to the tenant. If i go back to my renting days.. I would gladly pay 20 bucks extra to ensure the home Im renting is livable. If the landlord is a descent person.. his homes should be already descent.. it should be just minor things and not hurt his pocketbook. The ones who keep there homes together with a prayer and bubble gum.. they are the ones who you don't want to rent from anyways.

Edmonton requires licences for all of their rental properties including suites and rooms within an owners home. Keeps away slum lords and meth labs. They have done this for over 30 years maybe longer. Protects the neighbourhood. But it takes manpower to enforce it, somthing PA will never have, so it won't work here the way it does otherplaces because it would cost $$ to hire inspectors etc. etc.

We rented from The Funks when we first moved to Niapwin Sask as he was able to work with us on rent ,,,we LOVED our home and never had a problem with our landlord or property,,,,Moved from Nipawin due to vandalism around the town and felt unsafe in the town,,,,,But seriously lots can;t afford more in rent,, we are lucky our mortgage wayyyy lower than rent as how do you live (we now live in rural PA),,,,,,,,my main concern is the charging when police are called out sooo many times,,,,,How you going to work that out,,as shoot I have a friend that police where called out more than 10 times due to domestic abuse and got out of situation but the guy kept showing up,,,,so those that have to call the police won;t anymore as can;t afford 195 a call that the landlord will end up charging them ,,, I don;t get the police part,,how they going to charge that on? only party calls or both party and emergency??

What this does, is hold the landlords accountable for the tenants that they put in they're property. We are wasting millions of dollars every year in our police budget with police responding to partys and drunks for no reason. Not only does it create a money burden on tax payers, but we have so much unsightly property it is getting funny. Not only does it look bad, but it doesnt to much for our "image".

The way Nipawin is working it, they can have the police called 3 times a year, than after that, it is up to the landlord to pay for the police calls. This is EXACTLY what Prince Albert should be looking into. Living next to several rental properties, and having many slumlords own several properties (in the same block) it is extremely frustrating for the home owners around these places. Prince Albert should be looking for investment, but at the same time, hold some owners responsible for the crap that they dont care about unless it is in their "own back yards".

If we started charging these slumlords for the police being called out (over 3 a year) then they can either filter out better tenants, or pass over the charges to the monthly rent. If these people cant afford to pay the price, then maybe they will think twice about causing disturbances, or taking more responsiblity for the people they allow over. If they cant pay it, they can move out....then the landlord is stuck with the bill...which is fine, because then next time they will hopefully put some better tenants in place next time.

I will be approching city call (my ward counciller) to begin with and seeing how we can get our "leaders" on this subject.

Thanks

Yes, everyone needs to get on the city over this subject, this seems like the only sensible way to make OUR NEIGHBORHOODS SAFER!!! Safer for the people who live in the west and east flats, where garbage rental properties are a huge problem.

Just for the record, the city DOES have a program similar to this.

If you have proper egress windows, proper fire rated walls and doors, and proper ventilation to support multiple units, you get a certificate for your suite.

I know because i have one. It cost $50 and required an inspection.

But the reality is that most renters don't ask for it and most landlords don't care to get one because people will still just rent them. I think it was somwhere in the less than 10 per cent of suites have them.

Unfortunately, it needs to be on the tenants, or customers, to demand it from landlords or else they simply won't do it.

It's just a business model thing. If no one will rent from you until its safe than you better fix it.

Now I recognize that that's a paradox but it's what has to happen. Here's why.

How many people would all of a sudden be kicked out of their house because the landlord is no longer able to rent it? That's my feeling why the city make it mandatory, there's thousands of homes that shouldn't have renters in them.

That being said, the solution for people who have bad slumlord neighbours, call by law on them. It seems stupid and may not do anything, but if enough complaints about renter safety are brought up, it will affect the landlords ability to insure then home and hopefully get them to act, if not out of human decency, that business acumen.

So if we tear down all these "garbage rental properties" were will the people who are presently living in them go? The buildings that go up to replace the old ones will either be private dwellings or rental properties that cost a lot more per month than the existing ones. So in the end it pushes people who cannot afford the higher rent out and replaces them with people who have more money to spend. So all your doing is moving the problem out of one neighbourhood but creating a new problem were these people move too. I think it would be better for everyone if we were to start dealing with the problem not the symptoms.

A proposed bylaw that caused considerable public interest since its introduction last year was passed at a regular council meeting on Tuesday evening, May 24.

Considered to be the first of its kind in Saskatchewan, bylaw 901/10 to regulate and licence the letting of rooms for living purposes was read for the third time and finally adopted.

Under this bylaw a landlord is required to apply annually for a business licence for each rental unit under his control. A business licence will only be issued after inspection of a rental unit. An inspection will only be done visually, but additional inspections to ensure compliance with applicable federal, provincial and municipal regulations may take place.

The inspection fee will be waived if no deficiencies are identified. In case of deficiencies there will be a follow-up inspection to confirm the correction of the problem issues. Deficiencies in relation to health and safety matters can result in the immediate termination of utility services to the property until the problems are corrected.

Landlords are required to maintain a register of all tenants residing in rental units for which business licences were issued. Licence fees will be $25 per rental unit up to a maximum of $175 per year. The inspection fee will be $180.

Contravention of this bylaw can result in a voluntary payment fine of $200. A summary conviction in a court of law can result in a fine of not more than $10,000 for an individual and not more than $25,000 in the case of a corporation. For a continuing offence there will be a maximum daily fine of not more than $2,500 per day.

Under the transitional arrangements for the implementation of the new law, licences issued under the bylaw will be effective from date of issue until Dec. 31, 2011. Licence fees will be pro-rated from the date of passing of the bylaw to Dec. 31, 2011.

Residents will have an opportunity to get more details about the new bylaw at a public information meeting tonight, June 15. The event will take place from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Nipawin Legion Hall.

cifer...all that does is throw the problem back into the hands of the innocent homeowners, which is the problem with some landlords in this city...this needs to start and end with city bylaws. The city needs to set up guidelines on how they conduct business and if not be served fines. If your a good landlord and care about your property (and who you put in it) you have nothing to worry about. I know a few landlords (personal friends of mine) and they would have no problem with this, because they are engaged and care about whats happening with the property they own. One of my friends buys a lawnmower for every house he owns and if the grass doesnt get cut in time, he does it after he gets off of work. I realize not all landlords have this kind of time, but they can set up a program to be more proactive, and be a little more picky on the rental applications.

@ TJ...gain some intelligence.
This by no means says that rental properties will be torn down. Its to get RID of the riff raff that comes into this town to do nothing other than cause trouble, and to get the landlords who support them to smarten up. I paid $800 a month for a MOLDING apartment. People will charge what they charge. This is THE ONLY way to make our neighborhoods SAFER and more DESIRABLE. It will give people who live in these areas more property value as the neighborhood could be viewed as a more pleasant place.
There is nothing good about slum lords. They are greedy and ignorant. There are low income housing and such for people who can't afford it. Maybe with some of the slum lords out of the business, there could be more room for developement of low-income housing.

Pooky do you think they will fix up those old run down properties? Why throw good money after a bad investment? Instead if they are forced to do something they will likely either sell or build a new house. Either way it will lead to an increase in rent and a movement of people. Now I realise that fixes your problem but it creates a problem for the people who have to move. What are we to do with them?
Don't get me wrong I am in no way happy about the state of rental property in PA but we need a long term solution that does not leave more people out in the streets.

To Mr. Funk:
I am one of those low income renters; I appreciate renting safe, clean, and affordable housing. Now I could understand increases in rent when landlords have incurred extra expenses; what I am not understanding is -- if landlords are forced to pay $180 per year for annual inspection and $25 registration fee per year-- why landlords would consider raising rents up to $200 per month if landlords expenses only raise by $210 per year.

This is the only long term solution. If those houses that are being rented are beyond repair and need to be torn down, then THAT is the case! With or without the law. Those houses should not be rented out anyways! As for the landlords who THREATEN that their rent will go up $200 a month, that's laughable, if that place is in such awful shape, then no one is going to pay even more to rent it. It's just their way of trying to guilt the town into throwing the bill out.
So to City of PA, LETS DO IT!
Lets get RID of the slum lords, clean up our neighborhoods, and make way for low income housing for the people who REALLY need it, the people who are working hard to make ends meet, the students, the single parents...etc

let me get this straight.... Mr Funk requires an additional $2400/yr to cover the cost of $25 for registration, and $180 per year for annual inspection, and $180 per tennant change.

so... unless Mr Funk has turnover of about one every 6 weeks, I can see how he will just use this to GOUGE tenants.

I am getting the impression Mr Funk is one of the "Slum Landlords" they refer to in the article

Prince Albert alderman had better get their heads out of the sand and take a look at what Nipawin is doing. Not only will such a bylaw put many slum landlords out of business, it will improve our neighbourhoods, and provide revenue for a strapped police department that seems to have a spending problem. That, or they can all start looking for new jobs come the next elelction....

I don;t think PA faces the same problems that Nipawin does, they are trying to get things under control there, ...here in PA there have been major improvements to rental properties over the last couple of years and landlords know the benefit of doing this. Even in West Flat, there are a lot of infill homes built, complete renovations to properties,..just have to drive down the street to see the money people are spending to fix up the homes. The direct benefit to landlords is they can rent out to better tenants and ask for larger rents...it's a no brainer.