Frustration, understanding after Evanston aldermen punt on ordinance vote
October 11, 2012
Evanston residents and Northwestern students expressed mixed reactions to the Evanston City Council’s decision Monday night to postpone voting on a proposed rental licensing ordinance.
As written, the ordinance would require Evanston landlords to register with the city for a license to operate.
Shortly after the council announced its decision, Steven Monacelli, Associated Student Government’s vice president for community relations, took to Facebook to air his frustrations.
"Spent three hours listening to a room full of angry people only for nothing of significance to happen," he wrote in the public post. "Thanks Evanston City Council!"
Monacelli, a Communication senior and former Daily columnist, represented NU students on the city's Rental Unit Licensing Committee, which helped draft the original proposal in June.
Currently, just over 30 percent of Evanston landlords are not registered with the city, Monacelli said. This has caused some students to feel ignored by the city because they are being housed in poor and unsafe living conditions.
“A number of the houses the students are living in are in terrible condition,” Monacelli said. “This puts students between a rock and hard place because they are afraid to call the city for a problem.”
Monacelli said his goal is for the ordinance to protect NU students from absentee landlords and to take a positive step toward occupancy reform. City officials indicated that they will consider amending the over-occupancy rule, colloquially known as the "brothel law," if they license landlords to follow regulations.
At every meeting, city officials have said they cannot change occupancy rules until the landlords start following the law.
Monacelli said he wanted officials to pass the ordinance but now accepts that voting is being postponed to allow city staff to review the ordinance another time for clarity.
Ald. Peter Braithwaite (2nd) said the point of the ordinance is to provide city staff with the resources they need to deal with problem landlords, including those who don’t regularly maintain their properties and those who only meet minimum standards to pass inspections.
“We just want to make sure the ordinance creates a better living environment for students who live off campus,” Braithwaite said of the decision to postpone the vote.
Supporters of the ordinance say it will ensure the city’s housing regulations are being followed, and called for the city council to pass it at Monday's meeting. On the other hand, anti-landlord licensing ordinance advocate Howard Handler spoke out against the ordinance to The Daily on Wednesday. Although Handler said he was glad the ordinance was delayed, he would have preferred it to be rejected outright.
The ordinance is a way to discriminate against NU students because it would add to the many rental regulations on those living off campus, said Handler, who is the government affairs director for the Illinois Association of Realtors.
“The proponents of this ordinance are those who live close to campus that want to control the students through housing, and it's completely illogical,” he said.
Handler said NU students need to be more engaged with the licensing ordinance issues and take steps to defend tenants' rights.
Monacelli is not convinced that the ordinance discriminates against students. He said NU students are aware of the ordinance and support it, adding that Handler represents landlords and property owners, not the student body.
“The students' interests will be benefited with the passage of this ordinance,” Monacelli said.
Loading ...
Steve is a nice guy, but he is dead wrong about this ordinance.
1. The article states and is repeated by Steve that the City repeatedly said passage of rental licensing is necessary in order to rescind the "brothel law." Perhaps this was told to Steve in back rooms, but it was never part of the discussion among the Rental Unit Licensing Committee. To say this was said in every meeting is just plain inaccurate -- it was not said at any meeting. Furthermore, it is a silly argument to buy into since the "brothel law" has nothing to do with safety or property standards, and everything to do with keeping NU students out of certain neighborhoods.
2. Steve's argument that students are feeling ignored by the City because they are living in "poor" and "unsafe" conditions is wild spin not backed any evidence. In meeting after meeting, Steve has never raised concerns that students are largely living in poor or unsafe conditions -- he never expressed that sentiment during the committee meetings. Furthermore, if that is the case, I would ask why the City is not enforcing their numerous laws against property owners. The City now inspects properties and it is currently illegal to maintain unsafe housing -- why would the City let tenants live in unsafe conditions? Why does the City not enforce the laws they have on the books? Likely because while it's good spin to say all these students are living in poor conditions, but it just is not mirrored by reality.
3. Despite Steve's contentions that I represent landlords and property owners, that is not the case. The REALTORS Association is not a landlord organization -- we have weighed-in as experts in housing policy. Moreover, I would point out that two separate organizations -- the Interfaith Housing Center of the Northern Suburbs and Housing Action Illinois -- both heavily involved in tenants' rights -- submitted testimony criticizing the proposal and urging the City not to adopt it.
Again, Steve is a nice guy and well meaning, but he is unknowingly throwing the NU student body under the bus by advocating for diminished tenants' rights. The City, by and large, has been completely dishonest in their housing policies and it is known that City policies target NU students. It is no coincidence that, other than Steve, the only proponents of the ordinance were non-student residents living close to campus that have a long history of advocating for more and more laws to target NU students, including the brothel law. It is befuddling that Steve's approach is to align himself with that those that are most antagonistic toward the student.
[Reply]
Get it right Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 11:45 am
His name is Steven, not Steve.
[Reply]
Howard Handler Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
My apologies. Steven.
[Reply]
Don't be rude Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Please do don't waste your time c
[Reply]
Don't be rude Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Please do don't waste your time commenting on a very well thought out response with one meant to disrespect its author. Your condescending tone to someone of greater knowledge in this area only makes you look bad.
The alderman has greater knowledge and experience with the Evanston community. Evanston is a city much larger than our campus and deals with much more than Northwestern issues. Thinking otherwise, which devalues and diminishes the worth of the city, is selfish and ignorant. It is important to read his message and understand the community in which you are a guest in.
And I am a student, not from Evanston, but still understand the relevance and importance of this issue beyond my own concerns.
[Reply]
Steven Monacelli Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Just to chime in - who is this even directed at? I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying here. Are you mad at the person who corrected my name? Or Howard Handler himself? Are you referring to Alderman Braithwaite?
Don't be Rude Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
It was directed at "Get It Right."
Howard's Spin Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Mr. Handler obviously doesn't understand student interests. He obviously has not frequented any off-campus houses, nor spoken with any students other than Steven.
Additionally, his characterization of Interfaith Housing's complaints is extremely bias and misleading. They urged the city to make changes to improve the legislation before adopting it at the meeting, not spoke against it across the board (which appears to be Mr. Handler's only objective).
Lastly, Mr. Handler is generally a poor advocate for his organization. He seems to elicit only the worst responses from every person he interacts with, other than those who only have their economic interest in mind (landlords, realtors, etc). Steven seems to be the student who is most knowledgable on this issue and if Handler can't even convince him, why does he think he will convince other students?
Maybe Mr. Handler is upset that a student who is an unpaid advocate is able to secure more meetings with city officials than himself?
[Reply]
Don't be Rude Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
First off, renting an apartment is a conscious choice. No student of the university is forced to rent an off campus residence. Why would a student knowingly rent a terrible residence? Shouldn't a student put more effort into learning more about their residence before committing to a lease?
Secondly, there should be a lease around. That is a legal contract between the renter and the rentee. If you don't agree with it, do not sign it. If you signed a terrible lease, you agreed to those conditions and should not feel entitled to more. Live with it.
Lastly, the majority of Evanston is not students. Please distance yourself from that self-centered viewpoint.
[Reply]
Howard's Spin Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Actually, you're incorrect. Over 30% of students are essentially required to live off-campus. There are not enough beds on campus to house them.
Second, students are often have never rented before, thus putting them at a disadvantage in any contractual situation. It is there responsibility to be educated, yes, but this is unfortunately not the case.
Third, it's not about "terrible leases." It's about terrible housing conditions allowed to exist by terrible landlords whom the City cannot clamp down on at the moment.
Lastly, I understand the majority of Evanston is not students. I am not a student. But this is in regard to Howard's indictment of students such as Steven agreeing with the license ordinance.
Howard Handler Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Actually, I have spoken and met with plenty of NU students. I went to grad school at NU, and it wasn't that long ago that I went to college. In fact, I have to relatives currently attending NU for undergrad.
Furthermore, your quote of Interfaith Housing Center seems to come from simply Monday's public meeting. In fact though, Interfaith wrote a letter to the City saying: they "are writing the City to consider other strategies..." They go on to say: "What is the purpose of this landlord licensing program? It is unclear why the City of Evanston is instituting this ordinance when it already has a Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance a Rental Property Registration Ordinance, and a property standards department conducting regular inspections."
So, while I understand why you may think I have spun their comments, you likely did not see their letter. If you provide me your email address, I'll gladly email it to you.
Whether I am a poor advocate or not is certainly debatable. You are welcome to gun for my job.
[Reply]
While I approve of the majority of the quotes the Daily has pulled from my interview, I would like to clarify my Facebook post they quoted (without any notification to me I might add).
I followed up my post with the additional comment:
"But really though, blame the belligerent landlords who spend two hours repeating the same ill-informed complaints again and again."
To respond to Mr. Handler:
1 - I read the ordinance. I was on the review committee. I've spoken with a number of individuals who have counseled me on my position. At the end of the day, landlords are not universally following the law and the City has little ability to force the 30+% of unregister landlords to comply.
2 - Student interests are not aligned with your interests and you must accept that. The biggest issue facing students is the 3-unrelated law. If this bill will allow that to move forward - which city officials have said over and over again that it will - then it is a good thing.
3 - I never said that ALL students are living in poor conditions. Regardless, if ANY students are, we must find that unacceptable. You are defending landlords as if they are all model citizens who do no wrong. We are not saying they are all bad, but we know from experience that your view is not the case.
4 - Do you not think it is better to work WITH the city than to work against it? Being a constructive member of the process is in my view a much better role to play than being an outside agitator. And if the City goes back on its word and misleads us, there is an upcoming municipal election in the Spring.
[Reply]
Howard Handler Reply:
October 11th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Steven,
Landlords are universally following the laws (even the City continues to insist that only a tiny minority of landlords are a "problem" , and the City has tremendous ability to compel landlords to comply with existing laws. Unfortunately, the City's Community and Economic Development department is a mess -- to think that licensing is a silver bullet is erroneous. If 30 percent or more properties are currently unregistered -- despite there being fines for not registering -- why do you think licensing will change that? The penalty for non-compliance with licensing is the same as non-compliance with registration -- fines. So why will licensing instantly bring more compliance?
As for the brothel law, that is our interest too. Addressing it is a top priority for REALTORS and landlords, and I have done extensive work to address the issue and reform the law... and progress continues to be made. The brothel law should be wholly reformed AND licensing is not needed. The brothel law is not about safety or property standards, it is a misguided attempt to control student behavior with housing laws. To contend that the brothel law can go away if licensing is adopted, further contributes to the dishonest talking points and debate surrounding the brothel law.
Like you, I agree it would be best if everyone could work together in a constructive manner. But that does not mean accepting everything the City says just to give the appearance of getting along. The City has made it a point to shut out the voices of anyone that raises concerns with existing city policies. Any landlord or REALTOR that has been active in housing policies and voiced concerns with city practices were shut out of the rental licensing committee, as was Asst. Dean Betsi Burns. Half the committee failed to show for the meetings and the committee was presented with a very misleading information from city staff, and the committee lacked robust dialogue. Is that working together, or stacking a committee in order to push though an ordinance?
Over and over again, certain City officials have waged an attack on NU students living off-campus. These issues have been routinely dismissed and ignored. To think that Evanston would not use licensing to disproportionately target NU students ignores historical practices.
I have never taken the position that all landlords are model citizens. No person in any industry, including government, are model citizens. But Evanston has more rental regulations than any other City in Illinois. To think that a horribly written ordinance will make a positive addition to the already convoluted city policies is simply misguided.
Steven, I have no doubt that you are well intentioned and think you believe you are advocating for the best interests of the NU student body -- I believe your position is detrimental to the student body. So, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Nonetheless, I look forward to continuing to work with you on this and other matters, including our shared interest in reforming the antiquated brothel law.
[Reply]
So, Monacelli, a toady for the Tivador campaign even though he doesn't live in the 1st Ward, wants the ordinance.
Handler, whose PAC just paid for a Tivador mailing even though he doesn't live in the 1st Ward (and will now expect Tivador to do his bidding), doesn't want the ordinance.
Handler says proponents of the ordinance are "completely illogical."
So, that would make NU student support of Tivador completely illogical, too.
[Reply]
Older and wiser Reply:
April 2nd, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Yep - Both sets of Tivador's "PAC" men are at odds. Chomp Chomp
[Reply]