Northwest Indiana Discussion

Ordinarily I'd be content to just let today's Times article (and reader comments) on the new rental ordinance enacted by Munster to be archived by the publication. But the Times suddenly pulled the article from its online site. Very weird. Anyway, people have got to take look at this one from 2009, which was likely tabled for some time and finally enacted.


I supply excerpts from it:

ORDINANCE NO. 1403
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF MUNSTER, INDIANA, REGULATING
RENTAL DWELLINGS AND DWELLING UNITS

WHEREAS:

1)***
2)***
3)***
4)***
5)***

"6) It is in the interests of the Town to require that owners who rent a dwelling
or dwelling unit have the right to exercise their discretion to terminate a lease
where the tenant, or those for whom he is responsible, threatens the health or
safety of other residents, or is a threat to other residents or the neighborhood in
which the tenant resides."

Threatens? How? In what manner; directly, indirectly, or over a certain period of time; a threat to property that affects safety? Wha?...

And I'm curious, how much discretion is there if one is "required" to exercise it? Even worse, doesn't this mandatory discretion render the contract illusory? What has the owner promised if he/she can arbitrarily evict a tenant? Go figure...

Further:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of
the Town of Munster, Indiana, as follows:

101. Rental permit required

Every owner of residential property within the Town renting or intending to
rent a dwelling or dwelling unit shall apply for and secure a rental permit or conditional
rental permit.

No owner of residential real property located within the Town shall rent to
or continue to rent to a tenant any dwelling or dwelling unit within the real property for
any form of consideration, on or after January 1, 2009 unless he, she or it holds a valid
rental permit or conditional rental permit issued by the Building and Community
Development Department (“Building Inspector”) of the Town, or its designee, issued in
the name of the owner and for the specific dwelling or dwelling unit for rent.

102. Application for rental permit required

This ordinance shall apply to those rental dwellings and dwelling units for
which there is a written lease, installment land contract, articles of agreement for
purchase, month to month tenancies, and any and all agreements, written or oral, where
the possession of said real property or a part of it is divested from the owner of record.

103. Exceptions for requirements

This ordinance shall not apply to a single-family owner occupied unit,
dwelling units in hotels or motels, accommodations in hospitals, not for profit shelters
and school dormitories, and units in cooperatives occupied by holders of proprietary
leases.

****
108. Duration of permit and Inspection

(A) A rental permit shall be valid for a period of three years.

****

115. Criminal Activity

Each lease between the owner, or his representative, and the tenant shall
contain a provision or addendum to lease which provides, in substance:

The Owner shall have the discretion to terminate this lease,
instantly, when the tenant, or member of his household, or a guest
or other person under the tenant’s control, is or has been engaging
in criminal activity, including but not limited to illegal drug related activity,
on or off the leased premises, and whether or not the
tenant knew or should have known, about this criminal activity.

*****

So like, what kind of criminal activity are we talking about? Felonies? Misdemeanors? And whether or not the tenant knew or should have known - how exactly is this to be enforced?

Does Munster now claim the authority to dictate criminal behavior as well as the power to define the terms of lease agreements and when they can be terminated? In addition, it sounds like Munster is now in privity of each lease contract.

As a new party-in-interest, I suspect they will also be on the hook to tenants deprived of their rights under this ordinance or one similar to it.

Da, Komrades! This gives new meaning to the term "police powers" for a subdivision of the State.

Or a person could rent in Hammond where virtually anything is allowed and the budgets for enforcement have and will be cut. Sounds like Munster is trying to avoid becoming Hammond.

So you have to cut a few corners....what's more important? Decent tenants or take home cars for the likes of Steve Fowler, the drunken hag, and an assistant deputy parks department employee?

It's getting pretty bad when you have to get the permission of the police dept to move in to town.

I read that to mean that the owners have to the right to excercise their right.

Does the town of Munster have the legal authority to dictate contract rights? I haven't researched it as yet, but as I understand it these provisions run afoul of the US constitution's contract clause:

Article I, section 10, clause 1.

“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

The Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for whether a law violates the Contract Clause. In Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983) it posited that the state regulation must substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem. 459 U.S. at 411-13 And third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose.

The new ordinance fails to define whether Munster has a crime problem, what kinds of crime constitute and/or justify immediate termination of tenant rights, and who is it that will reasonably and appropriately determine when and if such crime(s) have been committed.

As such it renders any lease or oral agreement devoid of consideration at the formation stage of the contract, and illusory at both formation and enforcement. What rights to possession of an estate in land do you have if an owner/landlord can arbitrarily terminate it?

It's just my opinion. But it sounds too much like Big Brotherism to me.

Does the town of Munster have the legal authority to dictate contract rights? That would be a qualified yes, in general terms. Whether they have the right in this particular ordnance is a different question.