7/16/98 The heating system air exhaust vent pipe broken originally on June 13th, 1996 is broken, again, by a burglar using it as a step after having thrown a rock through the bedroom window above it. The lower flat was unattended although the tenant's son was supposed to have been there. She lost her TV, VCR, CD player and stereo. She hadn't paid any rent in the past couple months and was served her eviction notice while the police were investigating this latest incident.
7/20/98 The car borrower had his day in court regarding the pellet gun shooting on 7/27/97. I got a subpoena to appear as a witness. While leaving to catch the first of three busses to get to the children's court, a telephone call came to cancel the need for my appearance. The last name and address on the subpoena were both wrong. Haven't heard what happened. Haven't seen him since last October, or so, but have seen both his sisters and older brother a couple times.
Met the owner while he was instructing the private board-up crew. He seemed unconcerned about resolving problems regarding his nuisance property and was oblivious to most of the drug dealing, teen sex and consistently irresponsible garbage disposal behavior witnessed thereat since his ownership began. He said he couldn't eliminate the side of the house driveway in order to install a side yard fence, along with a 6 footer facing the alley and side yards because Code Inspection told him he had to provide two parking spaces for his tenants. I mentioned the location two houses directly east which has had neither garage nor parking spaces for the past 50 years.
If it's true, then this is another example of Code Enforcement hampering the ability of property owners to resolve problems associated with trespass, and more serious crimes flowing therefrom. His property, and dozens like it throughout the Inner City, are used by prostitutes, drug users and dealers, gun buyers and sellers, local teenagers having premature sex and various others. They can conduct their illicit activities without fear of getting caught because there aren't any fences to slow their getaway when the police do come.
In other words, the left hand the government is concentrating poverty and crime in the same census tracts where its right hand is enforcing building codes more applicable to where crime is almost unheard of. That type of incompetence encourages even more crime and the ever increasing downward spiral of Neighborhood Deterioration and obliteration.
The fire happened while I was downtown in Small Claims Court going through the BUREAUCRATICALLY INSANE EVICTION PROCESS regarding my own tenant across the street. This tenant's son was involved in various confrontations with the other evictees of 1997, so their eviction may complete the circle regarding almost 95% of the problems associated with youth around here over the past few years. (Her son threatened me with a baseball bat on 8/30/98, so his presumed innocence regarding these confrontations may have been misplaced.)
In other words, urban governmental policies seem to be proactively involved in doing everything to encourage rather than to discourage neighborhood deterioration and the poverty and crime flowing therefrom. The suburbs and suburban businesses are thriving AT THE EXPENSE OF ENTIRE INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS. Duh, guess what!? The dysfunctional products of some of those Inner City neighborhoods have already become the role models for many suburban kids. Another couple years of evidence should prove that this policy of slighting one group to benefit another eventually hurts both groups more than even the dumbest alternative strategy could benefit both.
8/30/98 After finishing repairs on the alley fence, the tenant's 17 1/2 son came at me with a baseball bat. He asked what I was doing in the yard and made threatening gestures with the bat. Wasting more time, he was informed that the owner has every right to be on the property - especially to make repairs when needed. Called the police once again. (The tenant, obviously not wanting to understand anything involved with the BUREAUCRATICALLY INSANE EVICTION PROCESS has been left with the impression that the landlord is restrained from entering the flat until it's been vacated. And the police, even in the absence of the formal ""LEGAL"" Restraining Order applicable to such a situation, believe that's true, too. In other words, everyone believes that the non-legally binding oral admonitions made by an incompetent judge are just as legally binding as what's in writing!
The judge, in this instance asked us to be courteous to each other - NOT TO NOT HAVE any contact with each other. He was out of line even there in his presumption that discourtesy had taken place in the past. He may have interpreted my statement that her statements were lies as being discourteous, but I had the proof and this was a small claims courtroom, after all, where proof of a lie should have counted for something. The judge, being in a hurry, didn't spend much time aside from his philosophical discussions regarding circumstances not applicable to the case before him.
A couple hours after the earlier call regarding the son's baseball bat threat, the police finally came. Finishing the project at hand, I talked with them briefly. They gave more respect to the illegal tenant than me and took her word without bothering to confirm it with me - especially about the non-existent restraining orders regarding contacts between us. They didn't want to see the actual paperwork regarding the eviction. (The police operator of a previous call had told me to have that paperwork handy to show the officers. None of the 4 police officers responding to the scene wanted to see it.)
Even the officers, shown the actual law itself, quoted below, ignored it and told me before leaving that they told the tenant that until she was evicted, she had the right to use whatever force was necessary to keep me from entering the flat.
Great! The police were called for the 4th time. After talking with three different people in charge, a sergeant said another sergeant would call me back right away. After waiting 15 minutes with no return call, I returned to work on the house and meet prospective tenants. Two separate prospects came to view the flat, the first being told by the half-dozen relatives of the tenant sitting in front that they didn't know where the owner was. I waved to them while up the ladder 20 feet away to get their attention. (It was pretty obvious the relatives were there to help the tenant prevent anyone from viewing the flat. They did no packing or actual moving.)
After informing the prospects that entering the flat might require the police, they were willing to go across the street to view the diagram instead. We talked for half an hour and I showed my flat to the friend of the prospect as a possibility for her in the near future.
A little after 4:00, after I'd forgotten to take the sign down, the second prospects came by. They too, didn't want to have to resort to gunplay to see the flat and were shown the diagram.
Then, after finishing the gutter patching, caulking and touch-up painting work done to the molding and siding at the northwest corner of the house and alley fencing, I quit work for the day and discovered the message left by a sergeant a half hour after my call. Called back but he'd already left for the day. Was told to call back the next morning at 8:00.
"Chapter 704.05(2) POSSESSION OF TENANT AND ACCESS BY LANDLORD. Until the expiration date specified in the lease, or the termination of a periodic tenancy or tenancy at will, and so long as the tenant is not in default, the tenant has the right to exclusive possession of the premises, except as hereafter provided. The landlord may upon advance notice and at reasonable times inspect the premises, make repairs and show the premises to prospective tenants or purchasers; and if the tenant is absent from the premises and the landlord reasonably believes that entry is necessary to preserve or protect the premises, the landlord may enter without notice and with such force as appears necessary."
The associated Ag 134.09(2) states, "UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY. No landlord may enter a dwelling unit during tenancy except to inspect the premises, make repairs, or show the premises to prospective tenants or purchasers, as authorized under s.704.05(2), Stats. Entry may not be made except upon advance notice and at reasonable times. Advance notice means at least 12 hours advance notice unless the tenant, upon being notified of the proposed entry, consents to a shorter time period. This subsection does not apply to situations where the tenant requests or consents to a proposed entry at a specified time, a health or safety emergency exists, the tenant is absent and the landlord reasonably believes that entry is necessary to protect the premises from damage, or entry is otherwise authorized in writing other than in a form provision."
The so long as the tenant is not in default part means she doesn't have exclusive rights to possession of the flat; which, by implication, means that I probably don't even have to give the minimal 12 hours notice to enter the residential property at any time for inspection, repairs or showing to prospective tenants. But, to be safe and because, as amply proven here, THE LAW (in its broadest terms, including those charged with enforcement) IS AN ASS, I fulfilled the advance notification requirement, anyway.
Talked with the sergeant for 30 minutes. He said he'd call the tenant and discuss with her my rights to enter the flat to make repairs, specifically for the one week period (15~30 minutes each time) needed for scraping, plastering, re-plastering, painting and re-painting the small section of the ceiling being damaged by excessive steam build-up when both the bathroom door and window are closed. He said he'd call me back with his results within the hour. I finished my morning computer work and proceeded to resume outside work on the rental duplex.
The subsequent conversation with the sergeant indicated that he had spoken with the tenant and she agreed to the bathroom ceiling repair process. She also told him about the ficticious job in Minnesota and that she'd be out by 6:00 pm the following day, September 1st, the Court ordered deadline. I told him she was making no preparations to move and would be surprised if what she said was the truth. So, plans for tomorrow are to proceed to the Sheriff to pay the next $130.00 to begin the physical eviction process by the 10th of September. Then upon return, the work inside the flat will begin - hopefully without violence being part of the process.
9/30/98 Sold the rental duplex after 8 1/2 years ownership. It was an OUTSTANDING investment, a big headache, a tremendous learning opportunity and overall, a valuable experience.
10/4/98 ~ 10/11/98 Flew down to Tampa, Florida to become the Manny (versus Nanny) for an old friend's 3 year old son. She was the treasurer of an international group holding their annual seminar and needed a quick last minute replacement for someone who had to back out at the last minute. Another interesting experience and well deserved vacation at the best location on Clearwater Beach.
Website link/location/URL: http://www.KidsRiot.com/kids98.htm or http://www.Jamrent.com/ic/kids98.htm