Jump to content

Landlord Wants Changes To Mmma


Recommended Posts

 

http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1068720

 

Mary Burley sold her Buckley rental home to a man on a land contract in 2012. A few months ago, she found out he was using it as a marijuana grow house and has essentially destroyed it. Now she's left to deal with the damages and the bills.

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-SB-0783

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ez win, but collecting can have its disadvantages.

That is part and parcel of entering into a rental agreement. Like it or not, it is a civil tort, and will not be changed. 

 

Landlords I know are familiar with the risks involved. They see people running out on paying their rent with no forwarding address and damage to property. It is part of the game. Disabled individuals cannot be discriminated against in housing. Most of us are disabled. Controlling our health issues with legitimate treatment options and within the requirement that we are to be afforded equal opportunity is a right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SB 783

...will go nowhere. I sent pertinent information regarding the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Act, Act 220 of 1976, to Jeff Irwin several weeks ago and will continue to bang that drum until and unless the issue is resolved.

 

Regarding deposits, our medical information is not required to be given to a prospective landlord. It is confidential. It may well enough be a courtesy to tell them that we intend to grow in their property, but there is a lot to be said for telling people what they need to know. 

 

Bad tenants are legion. I have seen properties that have been neglected and damaged, and even maliciously damaged. That is part of the risk. None of those instances regard people growing cannabis. If that is the business you choose, to neglect that fact is less than smart. Risk costs can be and are reflected in rental rates, especially with professional managers of multiple properties, and it is a mistake for the small investor to overlook it. It's kinda like all of the restaurants we see starting up only to fail. I assure you, it is the failure of the owner to consider the necessary costs, being under capitalized, and trying to get around them or simply not being prepared for them that is the reason for failure. Looking at the video, sure there is actual damage that will cost to repair. Much, however, is a matter of getting a cleaning crew in there.

 

I don't know that we can legitimately be charged higher deposits than are healthy people. Would that not be discriminatory? Modification to property to accommodate disabled individuals comes out of the tenant's pocket. Only if the modification requires building inspection, e.g., running a 240V circuit, should anyone else know what is going on, and then only that the work is being performed in accordance with local building codes with no requirement to explain why, unless notification of any modification is a required part of a rental agreement. 

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that you are right and the disabilities act stops the amendment, but you are dealing with corrupt bought off politicians.

That is all part of the game, always was, and always will be. The bill is not being brought forward at this time. It could be because the committee members, I think in the Judiciary Committee, that are delegated to review it are aware of our intent to bring the argument. There is always some pushing and shoving, and sometimes hard body checks, euphemistically speaking. If a hard angle is required we still will take the shot, but this looks like an open net. I am optimistic that the argument is sufficient to bury the bill.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bill is not delayed because of any reason you speak of Greg.  It is merely in cue until a later date.  :-)

 

I hope it pukes too. We shall see.

 

Much/most of the bill does not conflict with the disability act at all.

Regardless I will bring the argument and hope that others will advance it. I guess we'll hafta agree to disagree whether or not the bill conflicts with disability law, which I think speaks directly to the entire purpose and method of the proposed changes.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michigan disability law, PA 220 of 1976:

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(3ntkdb55hw5e3braki4rd255))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-220-of-1976

 

The very most and pertinent parts of the proposed changes in the bill are in direct contravention to that law. I don't want to lose the protection granted, the Senate wants to take it away from us, and this is where the gloves come off. That legislators pretend to speak for the people, who by the by passed this law, in order to change it to diminish our rights, is despicable. We need to stand our ground and should have brought disability discrimination arguments before this. 

 

SB-0783, As Passed Senate, March 4, 2014

 

 

SUBSTITUTE FOR

 

SENATE BILL NO. 783

 

A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled

 

"Michigan medical marihuana act,"

 

by amending section 7 (MCL 333.26427).

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

 

     7. Scope of Act.

 

     Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under

 

state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with

 

the provisions of this act.

 

     (b) This act shall DOES not permit any person to do any of the

 

following:

 

     (1) Undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when

 

doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.

 

     (2) Possess marihuana, or otherwise engage in the medical use

 

 

of marihuana AT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:

 

     (A) in IN a school bus. ;

 

     (B) on ON the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary

 

school. ; or

 

     © in IN any correctional facility.

 

     (3) Smoke marihuana AT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:

 

     (A) on ON any form of public transportation. ; or

 

     (B) in IN any public place, WHICH INCLUDES ANY PORTION OF

 

PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

 

     © ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, IN VIOLATION OF A PROHIBITION

 

ESTABLISHED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

 

     (4) Operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any

 

motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of

 

marihuana.

 

     (5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or

 

debilitating medical condition.

 

     © Nothing in this act shall be construed to require ANY OF

 

THE FOLLOWING:

 

     (1) A government medical assistance program or commercial or

 

non-profit health insurer to reimburse a person for costs

 

associated with the medical use of marihuana.

 

     (2) An employer to accommodate the ingestion of marihuana in

 

any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of

 

marihuana.

 

     (3) A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO LEASE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO

 

ANY PERSON WHO SMOKES OR CULTIVATES MARIHUANA ON THE PREMISES, IF

 

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SMOKING OR CULTIVATING MARIHUANA IS IN THE

 

 

WRITTEN LEASE.

 

     (d) Fraudulent representation to a law enforcement official of

 

any fact or circumstance relating to the medical use of marihuana

 

to avoid arrest or prosecution shall be IS punishable by a fine of

 

$500.00, which shall be IS in addition to any other penalties that

 

may apply for making a false statement or for the use of marihuana

 

other than use undertaken pursuant to this act.

 

     (e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this

 

act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by

 

this act.

 

 

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this bellyaching you'd think that landlords never dealt with property damage before the Act. Believe it or not, bad renters have been damaging properties for decades doing things that are completely legal also. A bad renter has nothing to do with the MMMA, and the MMMA does not protect this kind of activity.

Yes, this ^^^

 

I took over a sect 8 house, and had been house shopping for nearly 2mo. So many places are trashed- people just don't respect another's property. It's a human issue, not mmj specific.

 

Thr new prop owner is thrilled w having me in there. I'm even making improvements & taking care of the yard/routine house maintenance. Was upfront w him & he appreciates it. Already the place is in much better shape than found, and am paying him more in rent to boot.

 

Blows me away as to how some peeps live. No joke, my plants live better. It's not the mj specifically, it's just inconsiderate, disrespectful people in general.

 

But on a lc, doubt she took a very high deposit, which allowed for this. Put 20k down & most won't just walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An extra deposit for somebody that is going to modify the property for growing is not too much for a landlord to ask. That is a better solution than amending the Act.

The tenant is responsible for the cost of any modifications to the property that are necessary to accommodate them, but charging higher deposits to disabled individuals is discriminatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...